Sam Harris:In defense of Witchcraft

pH

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-witchcraft_b_53865.html

OK so its main aim is as a response to all those unintelligible reviews but it brings up a very interesting point.

So if there are any theists out there reading this, imagine through a freak time travel accident you ended up in Salem in 1692 at the start of the witch trials and 20 innocent men and women are about to be killed for being witches.

How would you feel knowing that the fundamental belief for which these people are going to die is a false one? (that witches exist - that you can cast spells and curse people)

Would you be brave enough to try and say anything? Is there any argument that you can think of that might convince these people that witches aren't real? How do you think the witch-hunters and believers would counter your argument?

Can you see a parallel between how you would feel in such a position and how an atheist might feel even in the 21st century. The sense of frustration and helplessness at a group of people believing something which to you is so self evidently untrue and watching as they hurt other human beings, all under their misguided notion that they're doing God's work.

Tim Robbins

I'd love to see Sam Harris the movie, played by Ben Stiller. They look very similar.

Zombrex

Wow, it is amazing how effective that substitution thing is.

"The danger is that the aggression and hostility to [magic] in all its forms... deters engagement with the really interesting questions that have emerged recently in the science/[necromancy] debate."

Is there anyone anywhere who would actually take that seriously, even die hard fundamentalist theists? Would anyone entertain the "interesting questions" that witchcraft bring to the table of rational discovery?

PDN

You're assuming that we don't think witches are real?

I believe witchcraft is real, but I think the idea of persecuting and killing witches is abhorrent, and I doubt if any of those so persecuted in Salem were really witches.

And yes, I feel utterly frustrated when I see people hurting others today for any reason, but particularly when they think they are serving God by so doing.

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

You're assuming that we don't think witches are real?

I believe witchcraft is real,....

Are you just word playing? Do you think there are people who can perform magical spells that can achieve things otherwise impossible? Floating for example.

PDN

Son Goku wrote:

Are you just word playing? Do you think there are people who can perform magical spells that can achieve things otherwise impossible? Floating for example.

I can't comment on floating, but I certainly believe it possible that there are sources, other than God, by which people tap into supernatural power.

aidan24326

PDN wrote:

I can't comment on floating, but I certainly believe it possible that there are sources, other than God, by which people tap into supernatural power.

And have you seen demonstrations of this or is it just a personal whim?

Sangre

This has been debated here before and caused confusion. What do you consider supernatural? Something caused by ghosts/spirits/whatever and is outside the laws of science or is it just something not discovered yet.

p.s. why would god create the supernatural?

Zillah

PDN wrote:

I can't comment on floating, but I certainly believe it possible that there are sources, other than God, by which people tap into supernatural power.

The witches in our sample trial are being murdered for the following: Speaking with horses, turning into a cat, having sex with the devil at midnight, withering crops, summoning a sudden shower to ruin the monthly bakesale, cursing several new borns (they appear to have Down Syndrome), causing two still births and making the duke lose sight in his left eye (it looks suspiciously like a cataract).

There are witnesses (good superstitious common folk) for all these acts and plenty of circumstantial evidence (a hoof print from the devil, for example). Of course, the "witches" are weeping and claiming they did nothing wrong. Some of the men are getting angry, which the inquisitor claims is clear evidence that they are guilty.


(Ps, I'd would love to get Thaed in here.)

(Pps, I have always thought Sam Harris was great. He has a talent for making religious positions sound as patently ridiculous as they truly are.)

Sapien

Sangre wrote:

p.s. why would god create the supernatural?

If God exists, he is supernatural. In fact, if God exists the Universe is supernatural - we just happen to be bound to an arbitrary set of rules determined by God.

PDN wrote:

I certainly believe it possible that there are sources, other than God, by which people tap into supernatural power.

Would it be evil to do so, do you believe?

robindch

Sapien wrote:

If God exists, he is supernatural. In fact, if God exists the Universe is supernatural - we just happen to be bound to an arbitrary set of rules determined by God.

Depends on your definition of 'natural'. If a deity exists, then the deity must be considered 'natural' (in the sense that it is a part of the "nature" of the universe) in order to be able to affect the working of the universe. Hence the christian god, if one exists, must be considered "natural" in this sense. Only if the deity does not interfere with the working of the universe can he be considered 'supernatural' in any sense, but non-interference is not part of the claimed nature of the christian deity.

Alternatively, you can, as you've done, redefine "natural" to include the usual meaning of "supernatural", but you'll have created a contradiction in terms at that point.

Sapien

robindch wrote:

Depends on your definition of 'natural'.

Of nature as we observe and understand it, without necessarily assuming that it's rules span all of existence.

robindch wrote:

If a deity exists, then the deity must be considered 'natural' (in the sense that it is a part of the "nature" of the universe) in order to be able to affect the working of the universe. Hence the christian god, if one exists, must be considered "natural" in this sense.

I disagree, and I think most varieties of Christianity believe in a supernatural god. The Vatican is forever going on about that. They believe in a god that is separate and apart from the Universe.

Indeed, as we are forever saying on the Creationism thread, a god who created the Universe must be more complicated than the Universe. I don't see why it should be bound to the same rules. A deity that created nature cannot be part of nature.

robindch wrote:

Only if the deity does not interfere with the working of the universe can he be considered 'supernatural' in any sense, but non-interference is not part of the claimed nature of the christian deity.

I don't see why. If you choose to define the supernatural as that which has no impact on the universe, then fine, but that's is not how I would have defined it.

robindch wrote:

Alternatively, you can, as you've done, redefine "natural" to include the usual meaning of "supernatural", but you'll have created a contradiction in terms at that point.

We clearly have a problem of terms. What is the usual meaning of supernatural? (Wasn't there a thread on this recently?)

robindch

Sapien wrote:

If you choose to define the supernatural as that which has no impact on the universe, then fine, but that's is not how I would have defined it.

For me, natural means something like a part of nature, or in accordance with known of unknown physical laws, or at the very least, repeatable or observable in some way. Supernatural means beyond that, or something which is isn't 'natural' as defined before.

Hence a deity who fiddles with the universe must do so in accordance with this restricted definition of natural. At least for the word 'natural' to have any hope of a consistent meaning, or a meaning which means something different than 'supernatural'.

The Vatican's declaration of a 'supernatural' deity who still influences events without being part of them is simply the Vatican choosing to support the resulting contradiction in terms. One gets the impression they haven't though about this very carefully.

Having said all of that, it's just a verbal game anyway.

rockbeer

I never had much time for this idea of the supernatural - isn't it just a handy term with which to describe observed (or imagined) phenomena for which there is as yet no proper explanation? As scientific knowledge advances, things move from the supernatural realm to the natural (think will-o the whisps). Or alternatively are shown to be co-incidental or never to have existed at all.

There really is no such thing as supernatural - everything that exists is by definition natural, and has a rational explanation. (Even god if he/she turns out to exist after all - which I very much doubt). We just don't always yet know it.

Sapien

robindch wrote:

For me, natural means something like a part of nature, or in accordance with known of unknown physical laws, or at the very least, repeatable or observable in some way. Supernatural means beyond that, or something which is isn't 'natural' as defined before.

Hence a deity who fiddles with the universe must do so in accordance with this restricted definition of natural. At least for the word 'natural' to have any hope of a consistent meaning, or a meaning which means something different than 'supernatural'.

The Vatican's declaration of a 'supernatural' deity who still influences events without being part of them is simply the Vatican choosing to support the resulting contradiction in terms. One gets the impression they haven't though about this very carefully.

Having said all of that, it's just a verbal game anyway.

With no offense intended, I think the verbal problems arise from the impossible broadness that you give to the definitions of nature and natural. You define it so as to make anything outside of it implicitly non-existent, which is fine, but it pretty much precludes discussion of the supernatural.

Of course I realise that the distinction between natural and supernatural is then crucially wanting, but as we are allowing such concepts as a creator deity, I think we can admit the idea of a two-tier Universe, however arbitrarily supposed. How do you respond to the idea that a deity who creates nature cannot be part of nature?

Also, we got to this point from the idea of witches. The word supernatural is most often conferred meaning by example, rather than by definition. Witches are supernatural, or "tap into supernatural power". Supposing they exist and can, say, fly, would that not be supernatural?

robindch

Ah, back in town again....

Sapien wrote:

With no offense intended, I think the verbal problems arise from the impossible broadness that you give to the definitions of nature and natural. You define it so as to make anything outside of it implicitly non-existent, which is fine, but it pretty much precludes discussion of the supernatural.

Not implicitly non-existent, but non-interfering, which is a different thing.

Sapien wrote:

Of course I realise that the distinction between natural and supernatural is then crucially wanting, but as we are allowing such concepts as a creator deity, I think we can admit the idea of a two-tier Universe, however arbitrarily supposed. How do you respond to the idea that a deity who creates nature cannot be part of nature?

I don't see any problem with a deity who creates a system, then stands back and lets it run according to the built-in rules -- in that case, it seems that the deity can correctly be said to be supernatural with respect to the nature of the thing created. But as for the deity who puts his arm into the inner workings to alter some parameter or other, to effect some outcome, from time to time -- no, in that case, the actions become part of the system created rather than external to it and therefore the actions, and therefore the deity, can't be called supernatural.

Sapien wrote:

Witches are supernatural, or "tap into supernatural power". Supposing they exist and can, say, fly, would that not be supernatural?

hmmm... any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?

If somebody can reliably fly, then they fall within the remit of the natural, despite what I would imagine would be the almost inevitable claims to the contrary. The example reminds me of a medieval guild's interest in keeping its secrets to itself, so that an air of mystery might surround the mundane.

How would you define supernatural? The necessary attribute of something that operates according to rules you do not understand?

Sapien

robindch wrote:

Not implicitly non-existent, but non-interfering, which is a different thing.I don't see any problem with a deity who creates a system, then stands back and lets it run according to the built-in rules -- in that case, it seems that the deity can correctly be said to be supernatural with respect to the nature of the thing created.

Okay. Suppose a deity who does this - designs a Universe to work away without his further involvement - but then intervenes anyway.

robindch wrote:

But as for the deity who puts his arm into the inner workings to alter some parameter or other, to effect some outcome, from time to time -- no, in that case, the actions become part of the system created rather than external to it and therefore the actions, and therefore the deity, can't be called supernatural.

I don't see why not. If the Universe is built to work self-sufficiently according to a set of rules, but the its Creator tinkers with it anyway - I would call that supernatural. Like a watchmaker opening up the back of a watch and winding a cog back with his finger - there's a clear distinction between the natural operation of the watch, and the intervention of its creator, which would seem to break the rules according to which the watch is supposed to work.

robindch wrote:

How would you define supernatural? The necessary attribute of something that operates according to rules you do not understand?

I think the watch analogy would be a good way of describing it. I would also use the Flatland idea to compliment it, as a slightly more elegant metaphor for the notion of there being tiers of natural laws, of which ours are only one. The latter is weaker in that existence in higher dimensionality can generally be described mathematically and therefore understood, which I accept, but I don't necessarily mean that the supernatural might be explained in exactly that way. I use it only as an analogy.

Perhaps I would define the supernatural as a broader aspect of existence that cannot be understood from observable phenomena, but that may yet affect observable phenomena, and so its existence may be inferred. I'm reminded of the recent discussion of the possibility that, in the distant future, there will be no cosmological information left from which the Big Bang might be inferred.

PDN

Sapien wrote:

Would it be evil to do so, do you believe?

Not necessarily. It may well be that things we see as 'supernatural' are simply natural laws that are yet undiscovered. So, for example, early Jesuit missionaries to the imperial court in China were credited as having supernatural powers because their superior knowledge of astronomy enabled them to predict an eclipse. To have access to a skill or technology that most people have never encountered would not necessarily be evil at all. If, however, that access is through an evil source then that would, IMHO, be wrong.

Strictly speaking, the only truly 'supernatural' power would belong to God, as he is the Creator and everything else is part of his creation. That would mean that even angels etc would be part of the created order and so 'natural'.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

Strictly speaking, the only truly 'supernatural' power would belong to God, as he is the Creator and everything else is part of his creation. That would mean that even angels etc would be part of the created order and so 'natural'.

PDN wrote:

I certainly believe it possible that there are sources, other than God, by which people tap into supernatural power.

That looks to me like a contradiction.

Zillah

Sapien wrote:

That looks to me like a contradiction.

Your eyes do not deceive you.

PDN

Sapien wrote:

That looks to me like a contradiction.

You can find contradictions everywhere if you look hard enough. It depends on whether you want to really understand what other people think or simply score points. For example, I waited to reply to your post until sunrise, but, strictly speaking, the sun doesn't rise at all since it is the earth that is moving not the sun. There you are, another contradiction if it makes you happy.

In fact I clearly stated in my last post It may well be that things we see as 'supernatural' are simply natural laws that are yet undiscovered. . So, using the word 'supernatural' in this phenomenological sense, witchcraft etc may involve stuff that, to our limited perspective, appears to be supernaural because it transcends our current level of understanding.

Then, in response to your further question as to whether I would consider this evil, I answered that it would not necessarily be evil since what we call 'supernatural' may actually just be 'not yet discovered' rather than outside of the natural realm. Then I added that, strictly speaking, it would be incorrect to call anything created 'supernatural'.

Now, I'm off for a cup of tea since the kettle is boiling. Of course, strictly speaking, it's only the water inside the kettle that's boiling, as kettles rarely get hot enough for the metal to melt and boil. Mark that down as just one more contradiction by a theist.

Sapien

PDN wrote:

You can find contradictions everywhere if you look hard enough.

To be honest, PDN, that one was rather unavoidable. I'm not being churlish, I'm actually trying to figure out what you believe.

PDN wrote:

It depends on whether you want to really understand what other people think or simply score points. For example, I waited to reply to your post until sunrise, but, strictly speaking, the sun doesn't rise at all since it is the earth that is moving not the sun. There you are, another contradiction if it makes you happy.

I don't see how I earned your contemptuous tone. I have asked nothing unreasonable.

PDN wrote:

In fact I clearly stated...

How very muddlesome. It's not necessarily clear which of the two meanings you ascribe to the word "supernatural" are intended each time you use it. So, just to be clear, when you first used the word supernatural in this thread you meant not-really-supernatural, and when you used it later, putting it in inverted commas, you meant really-supernatural. Right.

PDN

Sapien wrote:

I don't see how I earned your contemptuous tone. I have asked nothing unreasonable.

I certainly did not intend my post to come across as contemptuous. I believed that you were deliberately trying to see a contradiction instead of trying to understand what I was saying. I apologise if I was misreading you.

The first time I used the word 'supernatural' I was using it in a phenomological sense. Then, in my subsequent post, I added the fact that, strictly speaking, 'supernatural' should be confined to actions of the Creator.