supernatural
- Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
- Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
- Of or relating to a deity.
American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition
search keywords philosophical naturalism philosophical materialism philosophicalnaturalism philnaturalism philnat philosophicalmaterialism philmaterialism philmat
"One time when I was nine or ten years old, I came home from school, went into the back yard, it was a nice spring day, and my dad said to me. . . "Well Ralph, what did you learn in school today? Did you learn how to believe, or did you learn how to think?"
-- a conversation between Nadra and Ralph Nader
from "Ralph Nader : Consumer Crusader"
16 FEB 1991 interview with the Academy of Achievement
"William James used to preach "the will to believe". For my part, I should wish to preach "the will to doubt". What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite."
Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays
Quoted here (Or here)
(Good site)
from "And Never Called Her Mother"
a Bactra Review by Cosma Shalizi
of Ancient Goddesses : The Myths and the Evidence
by Lucy Goodison (Editor), Christine Morris (Editor)
Sociobiology, by Edward Osborne Wilson
Page 561 (First edition)
Lemuel K. Washburn, Is The Bible Worth Reading And Other Essays
quoted here
(Warning: Religious humor and sarcasm.
Great if you like that sort of thing, otherwise ...)
Eskimo shaman to the explorer Knut Rasmussen
quotedhere
Barbara G. Walker
Interviewed by Skepchick writerdd
Barbara G. Walker, The Skeptical Feminist
11 JAN 2009
"I have never, in all my life, not for one moment, been tempted toward religion of any kind. The fact is that I feel nospiritual void. I have my philosophy of life, which does not include any aspect of the supernatural and which I findtotally satisfying. I am, in short, a rationalist..."
Isaac Asimov, in his memoirs I, Asimov, page 13
quoted here
"I will believe in extraterrestrial visitors when one makes his (sic) appearance in an incontrovertible manner and not until then. I don't think I am being reactionary in this. I extend the same attitude toward angels, demons, poltergeists, Valkyries and the spirits of the dead -- all of whom have been believed in far longer and with far more numerous eyewitness reports than flying saucers.
For every sane person on earth, there are now and will continue to be thousands of firm believers in astrology -- and in knocking on wood -- and in wishing upon a star -- and in every feeble fancy that the sick imagination of mankind has ever invented.
I find myself incapable of growing accustomed to the way in which undoubtedly intelligent people will believe in nonsense that is, on the face of it, nonsense. ... It's "belief first; evidence later -- or never" with all these people.
.... science, as a belief system, is self-correcting and scientists who go wrong, for whatever reason, are eventually corrected by other scientists.
In pseudoscience, I encounter no such correction by pseudoscientists, whereas attempted corrections by scientists are met with deadly hostility. To put it as briefly as possible: Science gets somewhere given time, and pseudoscience does not."
Isaac Asimov, personal letters dated 14 DEC 67, 21 MAY 75,
24 AUG 85, 29 MAY 86, included in
Yours, Isaac Asimov : A Lifetime of Letters
by Isaac Asimov, edited by Stanley Asimov
"... there is this possibility:
after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. ...
It's a problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment.
It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense."
QED by Richard Feynman
Page 10
A message from the Freedom From Religion Foundation
Or here, here
I do have to add a couple of comments to this.
I would argue that "religion" is not just myth and superstition, but that it is true that religion is, or religions are, rife with myth and superstition, and that religion does not consider these to be undesirable.
On the other hand, although myth and superstition are natural human responses, and are therefore found in every area of human endeavor, I think that science does regard non-historical myth as flawed and misleading, and superstition as pernicious.
Science is the radical endeavor to produce a strictly factual understanding of the world.
Additionally, while we see that religious attitudes, beliefs, and activities frequently do harden hearts and enslave minds, this is not an automatic result -- other types of religious attitudes, beliefs, and activities heighten compassion and help people in the real world.
Alan Sokal.
Video here (@ ~45:00 mark)
Quoted here.
John D. Morris, Ph.D., President
Institute for Creation Research
"Why is it true, as (Stephen Jay) Gould also points out, that even among non -Christians who believe in evolution the vast majority don't wish to face the utter planlessness of Darwin's theory? Because they would then no longer be able to console themselves with the feeling that there is some sort of plan or purpose to our existence."
Darwin's real message: Have you missed it? by Carl Wieland
First published in: Creation Ex Nihilo 14(4):16-19, Sept.-Nov. 1992
"The general root of superstition is that men observe when things hit,
and not when they miss, and commit to memory the one, and pass over the other"
attributed to Sir Francis Bacon
H. P. Lovecraft
Selected Letters, Vol. V
quoted here
"The naive man (sic) believes everything he hears.
The innocent man believes everything he sees."
"Hard to Place Phenomenon", by Joseph Sobran,
Washington Times, 27 March 1991
quoted in Chomsky's Politics
by Milan Rai, page 19 ("[sic]" is Rai's)
"One father told me that his son claimed he had been taken to a house and put naked in a cage with a live lion.What part did lions play traditionally in Satanic ritual, he wanted to know.I replied, none that I was aware of and asked why he believed the lion had been used.
"To instill fear in my boy", he replied.
I observed that there had to be other, easier ways to instill fear in a child.Had he ever heard a lion roar?
I told him I'd spent three months in Africa and during that time my tent had been literally shaken by a lion roaring three hundred yards away. The likelihood of a person being able to keep a lion in a cage in his house, undetected by neighhbors, would be slight.
He persisted, "What if the lion's vocal cords had been surgically removed?"So I posed the question, wouldn't it be easier to assume that the boy was fantasizing than that a Satanist would buy a four-hundred-pound lion, cage it and feed it thirty pounds of meat a day, clean up its excrement, and have its vocal cords removed, all for some ritualistic purpose?"
Satan Wants You, p.156
by Arthur Lyons
-- attributed to Voltaire
"Naturalism is a metaphysical theory that holds that all phenomena can be explained mechanistically in terms of natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes and laws. Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast "machine" or "organism", devoid of generalpurpose and indifferent to human needs and desires."Links are Carroll's -- ed.
Naturalism
Materialism
naturalism
materialism
"WHAT IS SUPERSTITION?
To believe in spite of evidence or without evidence.
To account for one mystery by another.
To believe that the world is governed by chance or caprice.
To disregard the true relation between cause and effect.
To put thought, intention and design back of nature.
To believe that mind created and controls matter.
To believe in force apart from substance, or in substanceapart from force.
To believe in miracles, spells and charms, in dreams andprophecies.
To believe in the supernatural.
The foundation of superstition is ignorance, thesuperstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstitionis the child of ignorance and the mother of misery."
"Does a man (sic) have a right to his opinions? In a democracy, the answer yes is often taken for granted, and is defended with arguments about personal freedom. But the thoughtful answer is:This is of course a central part of Orwell's discussion in 1984 of intellectual freedom versus authoritarianism.
"not necessarily." The square root of forty-nine is not a matter of opinion. To put it more strongly, no one has the right to believe that it is eight, since this is an opinion that cannot be defended."
"If there's onemajor intellectual problem facing America today, I would say it's the credulity crisis. Or, to put it more bluntly, I would say thatwe're plagued with a blight of gullibility in America. It never ceases to amaze me how people are willing to accept the mostabsurd, moronic beliefs not only without supporting evidence, but often times in the face of conflicting evidence. It is sometimessaid that religion is on the decline in America, but even if this is true we are not witnessing a corresponding decline ofirrationalism. Irrationalism, by which I mean ignorant disregard or disrespect for reason, is still going strong."I'd say the situation may have even deteriorated since this speech was first delivered.
"Man," says Ingersoll, "shouldcease to expect aid from a supernatural source, being satisfied that the supernatural does not exist, that worship has not createdwealth, that prosperity is not the child of prayer, that the supernatural has not succored the oppressed, clothed the naked, fed the hungry, shielded the innocent, stayed the pestilence, or freed the slave."
"Teller: Atheists do look for answers to existence itself. They just don't make them up.
NEJS: Well, what do you think about that comment -- the need to believe being with even the most hardened atheist?
Teller: I think he's wrong. I might qualify as the most hardened atheist, and I have not the slightest need to believe in stuff thatis not in some way verifiable. I believe in art, mind you. I don't believe that art is supernatural. I think that beauty and humorare wonderful things, and quite important to us -- in fact, one of the major distinguishing features between us and some of thelesser species."
(my emphasis -- ed.)
"If we can't think for ourselves, if we're unwilling to question authority, then we're just putty in the hands of those in power. But if the citizens are educated and form their own opinions, then those in power work for us. In every country, we should be teaching our children the scientific method and the reasons for a Bill of Rights. With it comes a certain decency, humility and community spirit. In the demon-haunted world that we inhabit by virtue of being human, this may be all that stands between us and the enveloping darkness."quoted here
"...in our society atheists typicallyconfront professed theists-- not deists, polytheists or believers in a finite God. It is important for atheists to know that thestandard arguments theists use to support their case both in print and oral debates are incomplete as they stand."
"Have the Secularists an official statement of theirprinciples?
Yes, those recognized and adopted by the NationalSecular Society, which are as follows:
-- Secularism teaches thatconduct should be based on reason and knowledge. It knows nothingof divine guidance or interference; it excludes supernatural hopesand fears; it regards happiness as mans proper aim, and utility ashis proper moral guide. Secularism affirms that progress is whichis only possible through liberty, which is at once a right and aduty, and, therefore, seeks to remove every barrier to thought,action, and speech. Secularism declares that theology is condemnedby reason as superstitious, and by experience as mischievous, andassails it as the historic enemy of progress. Secularismaccordingly seeks to dispel superstition, to spread education, todisestablish religion, to rationalize morality, to promote peace,to dignify labor, to extend material well-being, and to realize theself-government of the people."
"In short, my concern over the spread of subjectivist thinking is both intellectual and political. Intellectually, the problem with such doctrines is that they are false (when not simply meaningless). There is a real world; its properties are not merely social constructions; facts and evidence do matter. What sane person would contend otherwise? And yet, much contemporary academic theorizing consists precisely of attempts to blur these obvious truths -- the utter absurdity of it all being concealed through obscure and pretentious language....Politically, I'm angered because most (though not all) of this silliness is emanating from the self-proclaimed Left. (I'd like to point out here that though obscurantist academic deconstructionism has largely been the preserve of the Left, the Right has certainly generated its share of populist -- and occasionally scholarly -- nonsense. -- ed.) We're witnessing here a profound historical volte-face. For most of the past two centuries, the Left has been identified with science and against obscurantism; we have believed that rational thought and the fearless analysis of objective reality (both natural and social) are incisive tools for combating the mystifications promoted by the powerful -- not to mention being desirable human ends in their own right. The recent turn of many "progressive" or "leftist" academic humanists and social scientists toward one or another form of epistemic relativism betrays this worthy heritage and undermines the already fragile prospects for progressive social critique. Theorizing about "the social construction of reality" won't help us find an effective treatment for AIDS or devise strategies for preventing global warming. Nor can we combat false ideas in history, sociology, economics and politics if we reject the notions of truth and falsity. ... In the end, I resorted to parody for a simple pragmatic reason. The targets of my critique have by now become a self-perpetuating academic subculture that typically ignores (or disdains) reasoned criticism from the outside. (Strike "academic" and in my opinion this is a perfect description of most religions --ed.) In such a situation, a more direct demonstration of the subculture's intellectual standards was required. ... I say this not in glee but in sadness. After all, I'm a leftist too (under the Sandinista government I taught mathematics at the National University of Nicaragua). On nearly all practical political issues -- including many concerning science and technology -- I'm on the same side as the Social Text editors. But I'm a leftist (and feminist) because of evidence and logic, not in spite of it."
-- a page on this site on / Postmodernism, Constructionism, Deconstructionism /
"A recent Yankelovich poll found that 90 percent of Americans believe in God,compared to just 48 percent of Britons; and 76 percent think hell is a realplace, compared to just 16 percent of Germans. ...that means 10 percent don't. Since America has200 million adults, there must be about 20 million of us doubters....I'm sure that the 20 million include many of America'sbrightest and best: scholars, scientists, reformers, writers, historians, philosophers, and other outstanding people. ... (As for moral decay, don't forget that religion-saturated America has far worse rates of murder, rape, robbery, drug abuse, street violence, unwed pregnancy and other evils than does "godless" Europe.)"
"Because beliefs are designed to enhance our ability to survive, they are biologically designed to be strongly resistant to change. To change beliefs, skeptics must address the brain's "survival" issues of meanings and implications in addition to discussing their data.
Because a basic tenet of both skeptical thinking and scientific inquiry is that beliefs can be wrong, it is often confusing and irritating to scientists and skeptics that so many people's beliefs do not change in the face of disconfirming evidence. How, we wonder, are people able to hold beliefs that contradict the data?"
"Plantation, Florida. Starry night. My little Questar telescope on a tripod in front of my home. I'm showing a couple of friends the planets that are currently visible. Two bicycles approach and stop a few feet away. One kid, more courageous than the other, asks me what I'm doing. I explain it to him, and he asks if he can take a peek through the eyepiece. Bicycle set aside, he looks in.
The kid looks up at me in astonishment. 'What IS that?' he asks. 'The planet Saturn', I reply. 'That's it?' he asks, pointing into the sky. I nod, yes. He looks back into the telescope. His buddy gently nudges him aside and looks in. 'Wow' is all he says. ...
Is there anything that compares with the satisfaction of showing something that exciting to a young person? I doubt it. ... Something was happening that no teacher had managed to do for them.
I tell you this so that you will get some idea of what the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) is all about. We don't always get to look into a telescope, but there are so many other aspects of the world around us that need to be looked at and understood. To stimulate curiosity in young minds is rewarding, and I'm happy to say that we have had this experience many times in the few years that we have been in existence."
"Classically, the many devout Christians involved in the historical development of science sought harmony between theology as the interpretation of Scripture (sometimes called the "book of God's word"), and science as the interpretation of nature (sometimes called the "book of God's works"). Theology and science are both fallible human activities, and mistakes can be made. CSIS, however, stands for the view that on the whole the received teachings of both conservative theology and historic science are trustworthy, and are in fundamental harmony."
"... (Re) a study on atheism worldwide, comparing countries with high and low degrees of atheism and seeing ... well, how those countries are doing. It's by Phil Zuckerman, Ph.D., titled "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns". (Sorry for the link to the cache; the original link was broken.) (Cache also seems to be toast as of FEB 2010 - ed.)'In sum, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism ["organic" means "not forced by a dictatorial government" - GC] are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by non-existent ("low") rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. Nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism tend to have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates, and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The only indicator of societal health mentioned above in which religious countries fared better than irreligious countries was suicide." (If I remember correctly, there's a broad general inverse correlation between rates of suicide and rates of murder, so it may be that many of these countries with lower rates of suicide have higher rates of murder -- haven't specifically checked as of this writing. - ed.)In the U.S., the conservatively religious "red" states have higher rates of crime, divorce, etc. than the more liberal, less strictly religious "blue" states. Some atheists have used this data (which I can't find a link for now, sorry) to bolster their arguments that religion doesn't actually make people moral ... and that in fact, it does the opposite.
But I think this is bass-ackwards. I think it's putting the cart before the horse, the effect before the cause.
I don't think atheism causes social health and prosperity.
I think it's the other way around. ...
If you think about it even for a second, it makes sense. ...
The point isn't that atheism makes individuals happy and a society stable. The point is that it doesn't do the opposite. Contrary to the belief of many religious believers, people without God's moral guidance -- or the fear of eternal burning and torture -- do not run wild in the streets looting and murdering and having sex with farm animals. They live their lives; they do their jobs; they take care of one another. They do okay. Quite well, in fact."
"The data in the pie graph or chart comes from Nazarene Church Growth Research.Repeating: I myself am an atheist and philosophical naturalist and materialist.
Another survey -- by the International Bible Society -- indicated that 83% of all Christians make their commitment to Jesus between the ages of 4 and 14, that is, when they are children or early youth. The Barna Research Group surveys demonstrate that American children ages 5 to 13 have a 32% probability of accepting Christ, but youth or teens aged 14 to 18 have only a 4% probability of doing so. Adults age 19 and over have just a 6% probability of becoming Christians."
"I tend to think that most religious people ... make irrational decisions with evil consequences .... The same people who would be horrified at the idea of personally lynching someone for blasphemy have no problem with praying that someone else will do the job for them ....
One of the most revolting examples of this principle at work is the recent attempts to create a legal justification for imprisoning and killing homosexuals in Uganda, a situation which, as it turns out, was fomented by American evangelical homophobes.
... if you read the anti-gay literature here, that's the direction they want to go in: the criminalization of sexual acts that they find repugnant, the encouragement of loathing of people who don't love the people they approve. They want homosexuals to be despised, second-class citizens who don't have all the rights of good Christian heterosexuals. ...
First you associate them with evil, then you disenfranchise them, and only when they're sufficiently dehumanized do you get to kill them."