Does Naturalistic Replication Refute Supernatural Experiences

[UnrepentantSinner]

Interesting Ian finally lived up to his moniker (apart from when he sings on PalTalk) when his counter-argument to the fact that seemingly supernatural religious experiences could be replicated via natural mean was how do we know that they weren’t separate experiences – one natural, one supernatural.

1. A person experiences visions and hears voices while driving home one afternoon. He chalks it up to seeing a ghost
2. A person experiences visions and hears voices while driving home one afternoon. He remembers he was stuck in traffic behind an old jalopy belching fumes, and chalks the ghosts he saw and heard to a chemically induced hallucination.

Platitude – When looking for answers to questions, an actual solution is better than a theorem.

If we have an actual explanation for an apparent supernatural event, I feel that is a fully satisfactory answer for what is causing that event. See Occam.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Interesting Ian finally lived up to his moniker (apart from when he sings on PalTalk) when his counter-argument to the fact that seemingly supernatural religious experiences could be replicated via natural mean was how do we know that they weren’t separate experiences – one natural, one supernatural.

1. A person experiences visions and hears voices while driving home one afternoon. He chalks it up to seeing a ghost
2. A person experiences visions and hears voices while driving home one afternoon. He remembers he was stuck in traffic behind an old jalopy belching fumes, and chalks the ghosts he saw and heard to a chemically induced hallucination.

Platitude – When looking for answers to questions, an actual solution is better than a theorem.

If we have an actual explanation for an apparent supernatural event, I feel that is a fully satisfactory answer for what is causing that event. See Occam.


Sorry, I'm a bit S-L-O, but I don't understand your first sentance. What was it that his counter-argument did, or had done to it, passive.

I usualy don't nit pick (ticks are better, easier to see), but what exactly happened?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon

I usualy don't nit pick (ticks are better, easier to see),
Nits are the eggs of lice, not ticks.

[UnrepentantSinner]

posted by Torment
If by "religious experience" you mean hallucinations. You would be right.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

posted by Interesting Ian
Are you able to give any reasons whatsoever to suppose these experiences are hallucinations?

From the "atheist's are brain damaged" thread. Sorry if I was too obtuse.

To clarify my conclusions above.

1. We have evidence we can cause people suffer halucinations and experiences similar to religious or supernatural ones under labrotory conditions.
2. We have people who claim they have had a religious or supernatural experience and say it was God or angels or an alien abduction or Thetans, etc.

I say there's a reason why we can replicate supposed supernatural experiences - they're caused by natural means.

Would you agree with my conclusion?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Nits are the eggs of lice, not ticks.

Not to nit pick, but contextually he was differentiating between the two.

Read it again. :)

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
1. A person experiences visions and hears voices while driving home one afternoon. He chalks it up to seeing a ghost
2. A person experiences visions and hears voices while driving home one afternoon. He remembers he was stuck in traffic behind an old jalopy belching fumes, and chalks the ghosts he saw and heard to a chemically induced hallucination.



What evidence do you have that inhaling fumes causes hallucinations? And if so, what amount of fumes is required to trigger the hallucinations?

Ive been in traffic plenty of times and have never had hallucinations from breathing fumes.

[fishbob]

Ive been in traffic plenty of times and have never had hallucinations from breathing fumes. What caused them then? :D

You live in Houston, you are probably hallucinating right now.:D :D

1. A person experiences visions and hears voices while driving home one afternoon. He chalks it up to seeing a ghost.
2. A person experiences visions and hears voices while driving home one afternoon. He remembers he was stuck in traffic behind an old jalopy belching fumes, and chalks the ghosts he saw and heard to a chemically induced hallucination.

Both are theorems - one can be tested.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Tony


What evidence do you have that inhaling fumes causes hallucinations? And if so, what amount of fumes is required to trigger the hallucinations?

Ive been in traffic plenty of times and have never had hallucinations from breathing fumes.

My example is purely anecdotal but based on an installment of "Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World." In it, and I believe the topic was ghosts, a woman described how she'd hallucinated a menacing biker following her for miles. It turned out she had some problem with her car that was allowing carbon monoxide into the cabin and she started to hullucinate.

Are you going to nit pick my hypothetical example further, or are you going to address the gestalt of the topic? But as long as we're on a tangent....

You mean to tell me you've never been stuck in rush hour... on I-10... in August... and not had a halucination? Your vehicle must have the super-dooper freezometric AC option.

[Tony]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


You mean to tell me you've never been stuck in rush hour... on I-10... in August... and not had a halucination? Your vehicle must have the super-dooper freezometric AC option.



Never on I-10. I am usually stuck on 6-10 or 290. AND no, I have never had a hallucination in traffic. AND my ac is broke so I have to ride with the windows open AND I smoke. So I inhale many fumes and I can say that I have absolutly never had a hallucination in traffic.

Is there any evidnce that carbon monoxide causes hallucinations?

Are you going to nit pick my hypothetical example further, or are you going to address the gestalt of the topic?


Id prefer to nit pick. It seems that "skeptics" are all too eager to write off a "paranormal experiece" by saying the person was hallucinating. I am skeptical of the skeptics.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Tony


Is there any evidnce that carbon monoxide causes hallucinations?

Are you going to nit pick my hypothetical example further, or are you going to address the gestalt of the topic?

Id prefer to nit pick. It seems that "skeptics" are all too eager to write off a "paranormal experiece" by saying the person was hallucinating. I am skeptical of the skeptics.

I think you are missing the point. This isn't about whether hallucinations are caused by car fumes or not. I read the situations described as an example of a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation, not a declaration that the theorhetical person was hallucinating.

[Tony]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


I think you are missing the point. This isn't about whether hallucinations are caused by car fumes or not. I read the situations described as an example of a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation, not a declaration that the theorhetical person was hallucinating.

I understand that, but I think we should be as skeptical of the physical explainations as of the supernatural explainations, always asking for evidence. What's objectionable about that?

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Tony


I understand that, but I think we should be as skeptical of the physical explainations as of the supernatural explainations, always asking for evidence. What's objectionable about that?

Nothing, it is good to be skeptical. However, there is no claim to be skeptical of here.

[Tony]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


However, there is no claim to be skeptical of here.


There is no claim to be skepitcal of "here"? What does that mean?

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Tony



There is no claim to be skepitcal of "here"? What does that mean?

I'm sorry that the complexity of my reply confused you. By "here," I meant in this thread.

[Tony]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


I'm sorry that the complexity of my reply confused you. By "here," I meant in this thread.

I disagree, there is a claim to be skeptical of here. The claim that carbon monoxide cause hallucinations.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I think U sinner hit the nail right on the head. All things being equal if we have two explanations for the event, one natural and one supernatural the natural one wins via Occam's Razor. Part of being testable actually means a claim is in some way subject to Occam's Razor.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Tony


I disagree, there is a claim to be skeptical of here. The claim that carbon monoxide cause hallucinations.

Where is that claimed? Certainly you don't think that it is claimed here:


1. A person experiences visions and hears voices while driving home one afternoon. He chalks it up to seeing a ghost
2. A person experiences visions and hears voices while driving home one afternoon. He remembers he was stuck in traffic behind an old jalopy belching fumes, and chalks the ghosts he saw and heard to a chemically induced hallucination.


You are ignoring the purpose of this discussion and are picking at a claim that was not made.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


From the "atheist's are brain damaged" thread. In that thread, and pardon for me cross-posting it here too, my opinion was that if a religious experience was artificially producable in a lab setting, how would one distinguish the artificial religious experience from the genuine (i.e. devinely inspired) one?

Further, if one could not distinguish the difference and there were a way to physically trigger the experience, why assume an unseen devine insperation rather than an unseen physical cause that might be searched for and found?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


My example is purely anecdotal but based on an installment of "Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World." In it, and I believe the topic was ghosts, a woman described how she'd hallucinated a menacing biker following her for miles. It turned out she had some problem with her car that was allowing carbon monoxide into the cabin and she started to hullucinate.


How can you prove that carbon monoxide is not the catalyst that enables us to see ghosts?

[UnrepentantSinner]

You know.. considering how wildly this thread has veered, my choice of an automobile analogy is ironic. :D

[Aoidoi]

http://www.flinthills.com/~mcems/Carbon%20Monoxide%20Poisoning.htm

Altered mental status is an important sign of Carbon Monoxide poisoning. Altered mental status could include anything from confusion, hallucination, angry and irritable, and even as if the victim was drunk. Any state that is not normal for a victim should be a warning sign of Carbon Monoxide poisoning, especially if he/she displays more signs and symptoms and has been in a place where he/she could have been exposed to Carbon Monoxide.

http://www.nsc.org/ehc/indoor/carb_mon.htm

What Are the Health Effects?
Carbon monoxide interferes with the distribution of oxygen in the blood to the rest of the body. Depending on the amount inhaled, this gas can impede coordination, worsen cardiovascular conditions, and produce fatigue, headache, weakness, confusion, disorientation, nausea, and dizziness. Very high levels can cause death.

http://www.carbonmonoxidekills.com/coinformation.htm

Concentration of CO in air
Inhalation time and toxic developed

50 parts per million (ppm)
Safety level as specified by the Health and Safety Executive

200 PPM
Slight headache within 2-3 hours

400 PPM
Frontal headache within 1-2 hours, becoming widespread in 3 hours

800 PPM
Dizziness, nausea, convulsions within 45 minutes, insensible in 2 hours

http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic817.htm
http://www.safer-world.org/e/disease/carbonp.htm

Basically CO keeps enough oxygen from getting to vital organs, including the brain. Among other problems enumerated in the links you have all the fun things that occur when your brain begins to shut down from lack of oxygen. Roughly the same effect as inhalants that the particularly idiotic kids like to get high from, I suppose.

Now that we've beaten the obvious to death, can we get back to whether physical explanations are sufficient to dismiss supernatural experiences? I'd like to hear a good counterargument to the OP if anyone has one.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Thank Aoidoi I was too lazy to document it.

Any chance anyone wants to tell us why a natural replication of a claimed supernatural experience doesn't invalidate (ugh) the supernatural claim?

Or, on the other hand, explain to us why identical experiences would occur through naturalistic and supernatural means?