Talk:Supernatural/Archive 5

You're still missing the point. Geologists, like theologians, disagree with each other about their subject. However, geologists, unlike theologians, have never consigned each other to hell or justified burning each other at the stake. Why not?

You start to make a good point here - why don't you stick to it? Make the comparison in an arena of life that is comparable. Galileo was forced to recant his views, although they were based on observation (instead of the authority of the church). The church later repented of its opposition to Galileo, centuries later. This is a clear illustration of the point you are evidently trying to make. Your reasons for mentioning the Thirty Years War is not as clear, unless you can somehow show that the Peace of Westphalia was based on a different epistemology than the war was based on, rather than different politics.

You're saying that what inspires the end of a conflict has to be the same as what inspires the conflict in the first place, which is very odd. Christians executed witches because they believed in witchcraft. They didn't stop executing witches because they believed in witchcraft but because they stopped believing in witchcraft.

Not true. Christians stop executing witches when they stop believing in the execution of witches.

Well, no, they didn't. See witchhunt:

The possibility of such sexual intercourse between human beings and demons was unfortunately accepted by some of the great schoolmen, even, for example, by St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure. Nevertheless within the Church itself there was always a strong common-sense reaction against this theorizing, a reaction which more especially manifested itself in the confession manuals of the close of the 15th century. These were largely compiled by men who were in actual contact with the people, and who realized the harm effected by the extravagance of these superstitious beliefs. Stephen Lanzkranna, for instance, treated the belief in women who rode about at night, hobgoblins, were-wolves, and "other such heathen nonsensical impostures", as one of the greatest of sins. ... Even as late as the Salzburg Provincial Synod of 1569, we find indication of a strong tendency to prevent as far as possible the imposition of the death penalty in cases of reputed witchcraft, by insisting that these things were diabolical illusions.

J, I'm not sure what you think this paragraph shows, or how it argues with my statement. You evidently aren't under the impression that hob-goblins, fairies, gollum, vampires, were-wolves and "other such heathen nonsensical impostures" are the contribution of belief in the Scriptures. By "witch" is usually meant not the characters of legend such as were-wolves but, pagan and neo-pagan practitioners of nature religion such as astrologers, spiritists, animists, diviners, etc. Christians believe that such people exist, but they do not (generally) believe in killing them.

Not today they don't, but that's partly because some of them don't have the power any more: there are some disturbing comments by a Christian on Talk:Harry Potter. I didn't say Christians stopped executing witches because they stopped believing in witches, I said they stopped executing them because they stopped believing in witchcraft, i.e. stopped believing that witches possessed malevolent supernatural powers.

Some Christians even believe (sometimes contrary to the doctrines of their church) that such practices tap into real power - that witches possess forbidden (occult) knowledge of the truth, rather than false beliefs. You evidently aren't under the false impression that these people who worry about the occult, who are the intellectual kindred of the witch-hunters, have ceased to exist. You know that there are such people, and yet, you assume that advocacy of the execution of witches has ceased (which I'm not so sure about in all cases). Or, perhaps you assume that belief in the execution of witches always goes hand-in-hand with a belief in real power of the occult (which evidently is not the case)?

No, I don't assume that at all, but I certainly assume that people who believe in the real power of the occult are much more likely to execute witches than people who don't.

I'm not sure of your point here. Mkmcconn 16:54 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, my point, as confirmed by the article on witchhunt, is that Christians stopped executing witches when they stopped believing in witchcraft. If witches had real supernatural powers to harm and exercised those powers, they deserved execution. As Christians ceased to believe witches had real supernatural powers, they ceased to believe that witches deserved execution. If you know of any Christian text arguing that witches possessed real supernatural powers of harm but didn't deserve execution you should add it to witchhunt. All the anti-execution texts mentioned there at the moment seem to argue that witches didn't possess real supernatural powers of harm. Jacquerie27 08:59 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Then the article on witchhunt is also mistaken. But you must realize that there certainly are people who believe that witchcraft is a real malevolent power. A simple Google search will turn up hundreds of these folks. They are as sure of the power of witchcraft and demons as they are sure of powers for good; and yet, they do not always advocate killing witches. To advocate execution for false beliefs and demonic practices requires a theological stance, a particular assumption about what God calls on the magistrate to do. That assumption is generally absent. They are more likely to believe that the appropriate biblical response to this kind of threat, is personal separation from it. They don't seek the execution of witches, because they do not believe in the execution of witches. Anyway, the stance favoring the execution of witches does not require belief that witches have real supernatural power. All that's needed is the assumption that certain false beliefs are especially pernicious and should not be tolerated. (Would you mind not splitting up the paragraphs you respond to, email style? It makes the Talk confusing, in review.) Mkmcconn 12:29 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Mea culpa. If the witchhunt article is wrong you should correct it by a) producing an anti-execution text that nevertheless argued witches did possess real supernatural power; and b) showing it was more influential than the many anti-execution texts that argued they didn't. As far as I can see you're not going to be able to do that. And if those modern Christians who think witches have real supernatural power got real political power again I think you'd find they did believe in executing them after all. If witches can and do commit murder by supernatural means, then they deserve at least the same penalty as those who commit murder by natural means. If they don't have real supernatural power, it's still possible to justify executing them as apostates or heretics or blasphemers, of course, but generally belief in the real power of witchcraft and belief in the execution of witches go hand in hand. As history proves: see witchhunt, or at least until you've rewritten it. Jacquerie27 10:13 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

According to the witchhunt article, the first execution of a witch because of witchcraft didn't take place until 1275. Prior to that, witchcraft was associated with paganism or at least extreme heresy, and the consequence was some form of penance, or excommunication or banishment or the like. So history demonstrates that for 1000+ years, Christians did believe that (a) some form of witchcraft or sorcery existed; and (b) that it did not merit execution. At least according to the witchcraft article you're citing. In fact, it appears that some Christian leaders associated killing witches was itself an expression of paganism, and sought strict penalties for people who went on witchhunts! Wesley 16:34 25 Jun 2003 (UTC) .

Careful of that pagan triumphalism, Wes:

The mark ! used as an exclamation was originally a way of writing IO, a Latin word meaning exclamation or expression of joy.[1]

As in Aleister Crowley's poem "Io Pan":

Thrill with lissome lust of the light,

O man! My man!

Come careering out of the night

Of Pan! Io Pan!

Io Pan! Io Pan! Come over the sea

From Sicily and from Arcady![2]

So history demonstrates that for 1000+ years, Christians did believe that (a) some form of witchcraft or sorcery existed; and (b) that it did not merit execution. Why do you think I was careful to say not "belief in witchcraft" (which is ambiguous) but "belief in the real power of witchcraft" (which isn't)? According to the witchhunt article I'm citing: "On many different occasions ecclesiastics who spoke with authority did their best to disabuse the people of their belief in witchcraft" and "it [was] the duty of priests earnestly to instruct the people that these things are absolutely untrue and that such imaginings are planted in the minds of misbelieving folk, not by a Divine spirit, but by the spirit of evil". When ecclesiastics who spoke with authority began to say witchcraft did have real supernatural power, the executions started, and they didn't stop until ecclesiastics who spoke with authority began to say, as before, that it didn't. So the point stands: "generally belief in the real power of witchcraft and belief in the execution of witches go hand in hand". And please note the adverb: that was carefully chosen too. Jacquerie27 20:29 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Second paragraph of the witchhunt article reads:

The Council of Elvira? (306), Canon 6, refused the holy Viaticum to those who had killed a man per maleficium (by a spell) and adds the reason that such a crime could not be effected "without idolatry"; which probably means without the aid of the Devil, devil-worship and idolatry being then convertible terms. Similarly canon 24 of the Council of Ancyra (314) imposes five years of penance upon those who consult magicians, and here again the offence is treated as being a practical participation in paganism. This legislation represented the mind of the Church for many centuries. Similar penalties were enacted at the Eastern council in Trullo? (692), while certain early Irish canons in the far West treated sorcery as a crime to be visited with excommunication until adequate penance had been performed.

Here we have the Council of Elvira apparently believing it was possible to kill a man by a spell, and the Irish believing that sorcery was something that could be practiced. The correlation between belief in the existence or power of witchcraft, and belief that it deserved execution, is at best inconsistent. Wesley 16:44 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Then at worst there was no correlation at all, which was not the case. You can't expect to find perfect correlations in history, let alone in Christian doctrine (which is "inconsistent" in many other ways), which was why I said "generally belief in the real power of witchcraft and belief in the execution of witches go hand in hand", i.e., there were exceptions. Nevertheless, the general rule was reject real power and spare or accept real power and execute. And those who argued against execution during the witchcrazes did so from the premise that witchcraft did not have real power. Jacquerie27 19:02 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Errata: "Io" was originally Greek, and Crowley's poem is called "Hymn to Pan", not "Io Pan".Jacquerie27 12:48 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think this was part of the gradual rejection of supernatural claims that led to modern science and the Enlightenment. The medieval church resorted much more to the supernatural than the modern one, and Protestantism is generally much less supernaturalist than Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Jacquerie27 09:38 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you will come to grips with this point, you will see what I take issue with, in the paragraph under discussion. The "supernaturalist epistemology" did not change, which was used to justify both, the Thirty Years War and the Peace of Westphalia - although the beliefs about what God's will is did change. And yet, it would be a mistake to say that epistemology ended the war, just as it is a mistake to say that it caused the war. Mkmcconn \

I'm going to quit here, for a while, if you want to make some final remark. I'll spend my time instead, trying to think through the comments made by SR and RK, regarding how to restructure the article in order to distinguish the issues that continue to get confused (as evident in our discussion: particularly, religion vs supernaturalism vs subjectivity, etc.) Mkmcconn 20:51 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

However, Marxists do make this claim. But, of course, to claim that Marxist scientific politics has not been the cause of conflicts would be sort of silly.

"If you intend to show that a naturalistic epistemology has been the cause of conflicts, show how a supernatural epistemology would have avoided those conflicts. I don't see how that can be done, or I would attempt to write it myself. Good luck." Marxism/Communism is a religion based on Christianity, btw: it has a God (historical inevitability), a Messiah (Marx), sacred scriptures (Das Kapital, etc), prophets (Lenin, Stalin, etc), sinners (capitalists), schisms and heresiarchs (Trotsky and Trotskyism, etc). 213.122.170.125 20:17 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As you keep pointing out, there is a difference between supernaturalism and religion. Marxism may be religion, but it is not supernaturalism.

Religion generally contains supernaturalism, and the religion of Marxism contains an equivalent of supernaturalism. But my point was that Marxism is not a science. Scientific politics is a contradiction in terms. Jacquerie27 20:06 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So, I want to see the paragraph changed to reflect a relevant comparison. Mkmcconn 17:40 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As I keep pointing out, the comparison is between a subjective epistemology, supernaturalism, and an objective one, science. 213.122.170.125 20:17 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I am saure you are not crazy! My point was rather general, and also based on the talk, not the paragraphs in question. I was primarily responding to the statement, "I am not criticizing religion, I am criticizing supernaturalism." which I believe is fine on a talk page but an unacceptable account of one's contributions to the article itself. Slrubenstein

I see the point (and thanks for the assurance that signs of my insanity are not yet obvious). Mkmcconn 18:27 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

It is true that many people justify war with religious language. But this does not mean that religion or religious conflict was the cause of the war. For example, in his 2nd Innagural address Lincoln suggests that the Civil War is the result of divine wrath. I know of no Civil War historian who takes that as a serious explanation for the war. Similarly, the fault lines and rhetoric of the 30 Years War coincided with the difference between Catholic and Protestant. Yet, most historians to my knowledge argue that there were fundamental political and economic causes of that conflict. Once again, J seems to accept religious sources with almost blind faith, as long as they can be used to support his/her argument.

His. Women don't generally waste their time bothering about things like this.

Thus, s/he rejects the Bible's explanation for the ten plagues, yet accepts the Bible's claim that the 10 plagues even happened.

That some of the 10 plagues happened, but not necessarily as described.

Similarly, s/he accepts people's claim that they are fighting over religious beliefs, while rejecting the validity of those beliefs. I take a more critical approach: people may claim that they are fighting for religious reasons when in fact they are fighting for other reasons.

Of course: this is a truism. Henry VIII used supernaturalism to justify what was really economics, politics, and egomania. Televangelists use supernaturalism to make money. I wouldn't say supernaturalism caused the First World War, tho' both sides invoked God to justify their actions.

Of course, I take the same view about science. Nazi's used science to justify their war against "subhuman races," and employed scientists in the war itself. But I think it would be wrong to blame science for the Nazis.

It would also be wrong to blame Christianity, tho' I think Christianity contributed more to Nazism than science did.

I think looking at all these cases, the rational approach is to say that people fight and go to war for one set of reasons, and usually justify the war using another set of reasons -- and people have used science as well as religion to justify horrible things. Slrubenstein

But another criticism of supernaturalism is that is a very easy justification, used over and over again. If you want to go to war with someone or persecute them, it's generally easier to use supernaturalism than science. Jacquerie27 21:23 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have refrained from contributing either to this discussion, or this article, for some time, because it covers way too much ground! None of the above disputes and debates are bad idea; they are productive disputes for the good purpose of bettering the article. The problem, however, is that there are too many disputes about too many points, because the article still seems to cover a bit too much ground. Isn't it time to spin off one or more of the specific topics into some other article? RK 20:21 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with Slr. Religion is not the cause of wars.

I agree with that too. Religion is a cause of wars. So are economics, politics, xenophobia, and original sin.

Rather, only religions that teach that their way is only way are the cause of wars. The same is true of atheism and agnosticism. These aren't the cause of wars...but atheist or agnostic philosophies like Leninist Communism, and later Stalinist Communism, (which taught that their way is the only way) led to tens of millions of deaths.

Communism was not agnostic, it was atheist. Communism has all the answers, agnosticism (by definition) doesn't. Jacquerie27 21:23 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Atheism and/or religion has never been the problem. The problem is that many people have a desire for power, and they can never be satisfied with the amount of power they have. And as George Orwell taught us in 1984, the purpose of power is power. Those in power often want and will do anything to get more power. Notice how live-and-let-live ideologies don't cause war. You'll never see Conservative or Reform Judaism wage war; You'll never see Sufi Islam wage Jihad. You'll never see Unitarian-Universalists lead a violent crusade. So it isn't about religion...its about the ideology of tolerance, or lack of tolerance, that is the deciding factor. RK 20:21 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Acceptable and productive points and recommendations, by both of you. Mkmcconn 20:33 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, RK, good comments. I would only add that there is nothing intrinsic about belief in the supernatural -- or rejection of the supernatural (I just want to be more specific than "religion") that would make someone more or less likely to be tolerant or intolerant.

I also fully agree that it is time to separate distinct articles. Some time ago I proposed this:

1. the concept of the supernatural in monotheistic religions (currently in the Western theology article)
2. the concept of the supernatural in comparative religion (see the article for "God?" From this perspective, perhaps this article should start with four sections -- animism, animatism, polytheism, and monotheism?)
3. the sociological uses of "the supernatural"
4. the relationship between religion, magic, and science (currently discussed in the anthropology of religion article)

But nothing really came of it. RK, since you are a little more detached, perhaps you could offer more productive suggestions for how to spin off distinct articles? Slrubenstein

If no one obejcts, how about starting The supernatural in monotheistic religions; this could include everything currently in this article pertaining to supernaturalization of Biblical events, miracles, Jesus, etc. That would clean this current article up very nicely. We then could summarize this new entry in a paragraph, with a link to the new article. We could place a copy of this summary paragraph and link in this article, and the articles on God, the Bible, Miracles, and Jesus. Some parts of the current article may fit well itno the already extant anthropology of religion article, although if that gets too long or detailed that could be split up as well. RK 01:59 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Is there objection to archiving the above discussion, except for the most recent proposals by SR and RK? Mkmcconn 04:23 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've no objection. I thought your additions to supernaturalism vs science were excellent, btw, and I wish I could have expressed it as well. But in fact I think they went a bit too far: I wouldn't say science "establishes" truth, or at least not in the way that mathematics does. Scientific truth is not so much unproven right as not proven wrong: see falsifiability. Jacquerie27 09:38 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In my opinion, the section is mislabelled. It is a defense of the ideology of Scientific Materialism, and suffers from all of the mythology of that ideology - and I wrote it that way. I'm waiting for the article and discussion to evolve more, I guess. Mkmcconn 16:19 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I can't see any materialism there, or much mythology. You should balance it with a criticism of the ideology and show what the supernaturalist alternative is. Jacquerie27 16:31 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I misspoke, and meant "Philosophical naturalism". The very notion that there is such a thing as the "supernatural" over against the "natural" is an expression of this ideology. An answer from religion would challenge the most basic assumptions of the thesis. So, while the article purports to be about "supernaturalism", including apparently, any subjective epistemology, the occult, magic and nature religion, and the paranormal, it's attack is directed at a specific target - that is, the Christian religion. Neverthless, it is not answerable from a Christian religious standpoint, because Christianity does not believe in "the supernatural" so defined. That's why I have to wait for the article to develop a bit - through following the suggestions made by SR, for example. Otherwise, because of numerous errors of equivocation, the thesis cannot be addressed (except, perhaps by a post-modernist, whose counter-argument is constructed on the same definitions and assumptions). Mkmcconn \

By the way, I neglected to thank you for accepting the rewrite, and for softening the language (which improved the article). Mkmcconn 21:05 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm not an historian, J; but, when I read accounts of the witchcraft trials, especially under the Puritans, I see theonomy at work, much more than the fear of the supernatural. Mkmcconn \

Let's use just one example, to show what I'm talking about:

Elisabeth Johnson wickedly, feloniously and maliciously a covenant with the Devill did make by which diabolical covenant she gave herself both soule and body to the Devill and signed the Devill's book and by him was baptized and under him renounced her Christian baptism and God and Christ and owned the Devill to be her God and promised to serve and obey him forever, by which wicked covenant thee the said Elisabeth Johnson is become a detestable witch. [3]

Notice that what is under trial here, is a covenant with evil, instead of with Christ: a crime against God and against the theocracy of the holy commonwealth of the Massachussetts Bay Colony. The cause of concern is not that she has supernatural powers; rather, what she is charged with is forbidden and detestable simply because it is false, a betrayal of her Christian baptism and contrary to the law of God. (She was acquitted). Mkmcconn \

In other words, witchcraft is here understood as a false liturgy of power, the conscious preference of that which is against God, perhaps even acted out in ritual. While you place the emphasis on their belief in "power", I would place the emphasis on their belief in "truth" and the obligation to purge what is "false", especially if the Law of God appeared to them to require it. Mkmcconn \

Jesus, for example, was accused of being a Satanist and a blasphemer (according to the writers of the biblical account). It is not his power that drew such opposition (it's not as though healing people or casting out demons was believed to be a sin). Rather, his alleged falseness is his alleged crime. He was executed under the conviction that he was false. Mkmcconn \

Furthermore, I can assure you that, especially among fundamentalists, belief that witchcraft taps into real power is very much alive - more so, I'd guess, than even among self-described witches (who seem more interested in heterodox science and other rejected beliefs, than in communing with the devil). And yet, the belief that the magistrate has an obligation to execute witches is almost entirely absent, because the doctrine is almost absent that this is what God requires of the magistrate. Again, the issue is "true vs false", not "scientifically explainable vs supernatural". The doctrine that witches and heretics should be executed under the Christian magistrate, is almost entirely believed to be false. Mkmcconn \

Anyway, what Biblical law means by "witchcraft" and "witch" may be what we mean by "drug pusher", and "dangerous quack": a "poisoner". This is the view of some modern-day Christian theonomists, who also advocate the death penalty for those who do this. Mkmcconn 16:55 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Okay, good points, but note that those fundamentalists who believe in the real power of witchcraft do so as part of a general rejection of naturalism: see e.g. Creationism. Also "true vs false", in Christian terms, is judged supernaturally. Even if you can't turn people into toads, being a witch is harmful because it sends you to hell or makes God unhappy (for those who don't believe in divine impassibility). I.e., it has supernatural power either in this life or in the next. And modern witches don't want to commune with the devil because they don't believe in the devil: see e.g. Wicca.

An amazing thing about New England views of witchcraft, as recounted by Mather, is his conviction that no honest person could interpret the facts differently. It was a matter of science - simply a matter of examining the evidence - and the conclusions suggest themselves. In fact, it seems to me to be a remarkable distinguishing mark of those views, that they have such an unorthodox openness to investigating the "preternatural" and accepting an occult interpretation of unexplained phenomena. It's hard to miss an underlying attraction toward a wild distortion of heterodoxy, especially of Roman Catholic beliefs and practices, and to look for demonic explanations for grotesque physical maladies. But what is interesting, is how poorly he accounts for these things theologically. He thinks that he is only giving account of "the facts". This distinctive mark in Mather's accounts should not be overlooked. Mkmcconn \

Judged supernaturally and judged by the interpretation of revelation are not the same thing. Accounting for how these are distinguished from one another or confused, given certain assumptions, should be an important part of developing these articles IMHO. Mkmcconn 21:22 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

P.S. I've tried to replied, then lost everything and had to re-write from memory because "Host 'larousse.wikipedia.org' is blocked because of many connection errors." I thought that sort of thing was over. :( Jacquerie27 20:29 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I hate it when that happens. Mkmcconn

"Judged supernaturally and judged by the interpretation of revelation are not the same thing." Yes, but revelation is a supernatural concept and some (all?) Christians would say you need supernatural assistance when you interpret scripture. The current warring in Anglicanism over homosexuality and scripture is another good example of how supernaturalism generates rancor and schism: both sides think God with them.

That's a good point; but for the most part, the arguments are not so much issues of who has the real supernatural assistance, but about who is being honest about what the Scriptures say and faithful to the teaching of the church - and the arguments can be very rancorous even if they do not end in schism. But it's not "supernaturalism" per se, that generates this combativeness, but rather the dogmatic nature of Christianity specifically. You can find something quite similar if you read the Rabbis. . They aren't so much different than arguments over politics. That's why "religion and politics" are at once, the favorite and the most avoided topics of conversation. By "religion" here, is meant "revealed religion". Mkmcconn

Politics is subjective too, but I think supernaturalism does make things worse. Why else insist on a separation between church and state? And compare St Paul, based on supernatural relevation, with Euclid, based on reason. Euclid's writing has been accepted for 2300 years without generating rancor and schism; St Paul's writing was generating rancor and schism in his own lifetime and has generated a lot more in the following 1950ish years. Jacquerie27 19:02 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

True. I guess that Jesus meant it, when he said "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Mkmcconn 20:10 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I checked WK for "impassibility" and "impassible" and found only one match in Gollum, which took me aback a bit until I looked at the article:

The Ring's power grows as it approaches the land of its forging. When the Black Gate is found to be impassible, Gollum leds them through Ithilien to Cirith Ungol and in the border-mountains of the Ephel Dúath, Gollum betrays his companions to the great spider Shelob, child of Ungoliant.

You might want to check the new impassibility article. Jacquerie27 12:48 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Wesley just added the italicized portion to the following paragraph: "Supernatural events cannot or are unlikely to occur (cf. Occam's Razor), and some, if not all, theological claims made by religions are unprovable by conventional scientific means."

This is incorrect. First, it is widely agreed by most people of most faiths that most theological claims are not provable at all. How can one possibily prove that God exists? That God is unitary? (Or, if you are a Christian, that God is a trinity?) How could you prove that thousands of gods do exist? Or that they don't exist? How can you prove that the Pope is infallible....or not infallible? How can you prove that God has revealed his will to mankind through prophecy to the Biblical prophet Isaiah...or to Billy Carter? You can't actually prove or disprove any of these things. Secondly, the added text implies that although theological claims can not be proved by conventional scientific means, they can be proven by non-conventional scientific means. What precisely is a "non-conventional scientific mean"? No such animal exists. I don't know of any widely held position that says that non-conventional scientific measurements can prove most theological claims true or false. RK

An example of such proof can be found in the story of the prophet Elijah's confrontation with the priests of Baal. Elijah proposed an experiment to prove that the Hebrew God was more powerful than Baal, or that Baal did not exist but the Hebrew God did, I forget which. Elijah and the Baal priests each constructed a stone altar, each put wood on it, and each put a slain bull on their altar. The challenge was that the offering had to be ignited by their god, rather than by any human. The priests of Baal prayed, danced, etc. while Elijah taunted them, and ultimately had to give up. Elijah then had his offering thoroughly drenched with water, filling up trenches around the altar, and then prayed to God, who sent down fire from Heaven to burn up the offering, the wood, the stones, and the surrounding water. The Israelites who watched all this take place concluded that Elijah had successfully proved that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was powerful, while Baal was powerless if he existed at all. Wesley

Ok, I didn't understand that this is what you meant. Such stories are about ways that one might be able to prove a theological claim, in this case the existence of God (and more specifically, a God that responds to human prayers.) I don't have any objection to mentioning this kind of thing; however, skeptics, and even some religious believers usually admit that Biblical stories could have alternate explanations. (A) It wasn't God; it was a group of gods acting as if they were one god. (B) It wasn't God, it was Satan, or the Demiurge, or...etc. (C) The people involved truly thought they were invoking to God to act on their behalf, but they really just used paranormal natural forces to achieve their results. They simply attributed the perceived action to God. (D) Intelligent beings from other planets had very advanced technology, and pre-technology humans took their actions to be divine. (This is a very popular view, although one that I certainly don't agree with. (E) Most devastating of the rebuttals is that we have no way to know if the Bible's description of these accounts is accurate. In other words, the story isn't proof; it is merely a story about proof. RK 19:44 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Other examples of miracles in both ancient and modern times are pointed to as proof of God's existence, and of course direct divine revelation is claimed by various people as proof of various theological claims about God. I wouldn't call these proofs conventional scientific means, would you? Wesley 15:47 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I was objecting to the phrase "conventional scientific means" because it seemed to imply that their were a set of un-conventional scientific means. RK 19:44 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you think it would be clearer to drop the word "conventional", that's fine; one might be able to argue that some of the UFO research or paranormal activity research uses unconventional scientific means; they certainly claim to be scientific. But, I won't press that point. Wesley 19:58 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

RK, various philosophers (including contemporary philosophers at secular institutions, such as Mortimer Adler) have tried to prove Gods existence through logic. Also, I believe some people consider miracles to be proof of Gods existence. The Bible is full of claims that nature itself is proof of Gods existence. Now, you may argue that in this context the very word "proof" is debatable. Moreover, you may reject these "proofs" for any number of reasons. You yourself may have a strong personal reason for wanting to define Gods existence as beyond proof -- certainl, others do suich as Will Herberg (whom I respect). But that is not the issue, the issue is NPOV. Although some (or many!) people like yourself may claim that one cannot prove Gods existence, there are still many who have and continue to believe one can prove Gods existence and the article must acknowledge these views in an NPOV way. Slrubenstein

I don't have any problem with this subject. Attempts to use logic to prove or disprove the existence of God is not controversial or in question. (I have read about Charles Hartshorne's and Albert North Whitehead's logical arguments for the existence of God, specifically the kind of God proposed by process philosophy and process theology.) The results of logical attempts to prove the existence of God, of course, are controversial, and no such logical proof or disproof is widely accepted as unarguable. RK 19:44 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I daresay that all proofs of any kind regarding the existence or nature of God are arguable, scientific or otherwise. Wesley 19:58 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Which is why they're not proper proofs. How can a "proof" be arguable to the extent that theological proofs are? It's not arguable that pi is irrational, because we've got an objective proof that it is, and the naturalistic proofs in science are far more widely accepted than any particular supernaturalist ones.

Also: In general, supernaturalists don't genuinely believe in "proving" their claims, or they wouldn't be so careful to indoctrinate their children. Scientists and mathematicians don't indoctrinate their children in science and mathematics in that way, because there are genuine objective proofs in science and mathematics. In general, Christians accept Christianity because they're born into Christian families, just as Jews or Muslims reject Christianity because they're born into Jewish or Muslim families. Jacquerie27 12:43 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

An example of such proof can be found in the story of the prophet Elijah's confrontation with the priests of Baal. Science didn't exist in Elijah's day, so no proofs at all were scientific -- pointing out it was not a proof "by conventional scientific means" is a bit like pointing that the Bible was not written in English on a computer. But if that proof were tried today nobody would be impressed, because we know that some colorless liquids are highly flammable -- if the story is accurate Jewish priests could have learnt from the Egyptians how to distill alcohol and create a miracle of burning "water". Jacquerie27 12:43 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your explanation of the Elijah story doesn't hold up, but this isn't the place to debate the details; I'm sure you could invent other explanations if I listed the flaws in that one. It's not my objective to prove the existence of God or the supernatural to you. I merely wanted to demonstrate by example that there is such a thing as a "non-scientific" proof, and that therefore it's worth saying in the article that it's talking about lack of scientific proof. Is it acceptable to include that qualification in the sentence in question? Note that in addition to such miracles, logical proofs are also offered by various people; again, you may not find them convincing, but they still constitute another type of proof that is not scientific, and which I would guess a fair number of people today do find convincing. Wesley 13:00 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The Elijah proof is only "non-scientific" because it was performed before science existed: can you produce an equally spectacular equivalent of it today? Also, all explanations -- supernaturalist or naturalistic -- of what happened are "invented", because we can't examine what went on in any detail any more. Proof does not truly exist in supernaturalism and you can't present non-scientific "proof" (other than non-scientific mathematical proof) as tho' it has the same value as scientific proof. It doesn't: it's much weaker and much less convincing, which is why no form of supernaturalism has ever been as successful as science or mathematics. (And miracles are used by Muslims and Catholics to "prove" the truth of their particular forms of supernaturalism, which you don't accept, so miracles are obviously not proof.)

[L]ogical proofs are also offered by various people; again, you may not find them convincing .... Yes, as RK pointed out, process theology has logical proofs of God's existence. But the God of process theology "is not omnipotent". AFAIK, Orthodoxy teaches the opposite, so I presume you don't find these logical proofs convincing either. OTOH, you do find the logical proofs of mathematics convincing, so we have two levels of proof again: strong proof (mathematics) and weak (pseudo-)proof (supernaturalism). Jacquerie27 17:14 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the article??? Are you proposing a change to the article as it is currently? If you simply wish to carry on the debate about "proofs" personally, you can contact me via email, without cluttering up this discussion page. Wesley 17:28 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I am proposing a change: removing your addition about "unprovable by conventional scientific means." (Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.) I also question whether any theological claims are provable at all and I'd like to transfer some of the above to the article, which is why I'd like to see if you can refute it, e.g. by producing a modern equivalent of Elijah's proof. If you can, that would make a good addition to the article in itself. Jacquerie27 17:40 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The fact that other proofs are even hypothetically possible is enough to warrant keeping the phrase. Your personal opinion regarding the strengths of such proofs is irrelevant. Different people and different cultures find different sorts of proofs convincing. Show someone a complex mathematical proof that they don't understand, and they will either believe it because the person presenting it must be very smart to use such big words and obscure symbols, or believe it because they believe in the presenter (they may have a degree in mathematics or other credentials), or will not believe it and declare it to be a bunch of hooey because they don't understand it and don't trust whatever credentials the presenter claims to have. Similarly, I have no idea what the logical proofs of God are that process theology offers, but if they conclude that God is not omnipotent I would immediately distrust them for the same reason you would distrust my mathematics if I offered to prove that 1+1=3, before you even looked at my proof. Children in school are not convinced of mathematical axioms by formal proofs, they are simply told certain formulas are axiomatically true and expected to memorize and use them; is this not "indoctrination"? And yes, I have heard stories of a number of miracles that have taken place in the last century or so. They're not that hard to find. Wesley 19:57 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A couple of observations: 1) Wesley is right; 2)Jacquerie does not understand NPOV policy. Slr