Wikipedia

Talk:Supernatural/Archive 9

< Talk:Supernatural
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Moriori in topic That caption needed revision
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

NPOV policy and proofs

NPOV says scientific and mathematical proofs are far more universally accepted than supernatural ones, from which it follows that scientific and mathematical proofs are more powerful than supernatural ones (for whatever reason). You and Wesley will agree that the proofs for "Jesus Christ is the son of God" (rejected by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) are far less universally accepted than the proofs for "pi is irrational" and "the earth is spherical" (accepted by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc). Different people and different cultures find different sorts of proofs convincing. If different people and different cultures find different proofs convincing, then Pythagoras's theorem (as we call it) would not have convinced the very different people and cultures of Europe, India, China, etc for the past 2500+ years. But it has. And I'd still like to see a similarly spectacular modern equivalent of Elijah's miracle. Please add it to the Wikipedia if it isn't already here. Our Lady of Fatima is, but I presume that doesn't convince you either. This is my suggested NPOV addition to the article or one of its offshoots:

Supernaturalism and Proof

Many supernaturalists assert that it is possible to prove certain facts about the supernatural to a very high degree of certainty or even with perfect certainty. However, different supernaturalist groups have proofs that contradict: even within the single religion of Christianity, although different groups will agree that infallible supernatural proof is possible, they will then use their infallible supernatural proofs to reach contradictory supernatural conclusions. Some Catholics, for example, claim that papal infallibility can be proved beyond doubt; some Protestants and Orthodox Christians that it can be disproved beyond doubt. Within the religious family known as the Abrahamic religions, Muslims, Jews, and Christians all agree that some supernatural facts can be proved beyond doubt, and then disagree about what those supernatural facts are. It is apparent, therefore, that proof within supernaturalism is of a different order to proof within mathematics and naturalistic science. In mathematics, proofs can be established permanently and universally and once established are accepted by all mathematicians throughout the world, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture (see for example Pythagorean theorem). In science, the strength of a proof is proportional to the strength of the evidence put forward for it, and the strongest proofs are again accepted by all or a vast majority of scientists throughout the world, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture (see for example the winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics). Because no single supernatural proof has ever been accepted universally across racial, ethnic, and cultural boundaries in the way many thousands of mathematical and scientific proofs have been, many skeptics, some of whom nevertheless accept the existence of the supernatural, would therefore argue that proof is impossible within supernaturalism. Some skeptical supernaturalists, such as Unitarians and adherents of process theology, further argue that God could not allow certain knowledge of his existence, nature, and purposes, because certain knowledge would remove the need for believers to exercise their free will and individual judgment.

NPOV says scientific and mathematical proofs are far more universally accepted than supernatural ones, — J. Jacquerie, You continue to say this as though it means something important, but it it's not a clear statement. By trying to use this article (and a few others) to explain yourself, you are risking turning this into even more about you and your views. The paragraph you are proposing is more puff. Mkmcconn 14:10 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, you illustrate your articles! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). This is an ad populum fallacy. Because everyone agrees apon a premise, it must be true and the more people agree upon the premise, the truer it is. It leads to absurdity of course (if everyone agreed that the world was flat, it would becomes so). teggers 080207

Most people believe in some form of supernaturalism

Most people and cultures believe in some form of supernaturalism; it is far more universally accepted than atheism and materialism. Your statements about papal infallibility reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate; that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove, it is a dispute about the tradition of the Church has always been; it's primarily an historical and doctrinal question. Mathematicians and scientists also disagree with each other about specific questions. Someone makes a new discovery or proposes a new formula or theorem, and it takes a while before everyone or most people accept it. I still remember when my high school physics teacher announced that a recent discovery made on a space shuttle mission meant that all the high school physics textbooks would need to be rewritten. I also recall an astronomer vigorously disputing the distance of quasars from us, though he was in the minority. Things aren't as cut and dry as you suggest. Wesley 16:21 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your statements about papal infallibility reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate; that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove, it is a dispute about the tradition of the Church has always been; it's primarily an historical and doctrinal question. A dispute between churches that is primarily an historical and doctrinal question. There's a rara avis. Try these simple steps: 1) follow the link you provided to papal infallibility and find External Links; 2) Follow the external link "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility - historical treatment"; 3) Scroll down the page till you come to the heading: "PROOF OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE", where you'll read:
From Holy Scripture, as already stated, the special proof of the pope's infallibility is, if anything, stronger and clearer than the general proof of the infallibility of the Church as a whole, just as the proof of his primacy is stronger and clearer than any proof that can be advanced independently for the Apostolic authority of the episcopate.
4) Finally, scroll down the page a little more until you come to the heading "PROOF OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM TRADITION". But according to you "that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove". And your statements about atheism and materialism reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate: science entails neither atheism or materialism, but I understand why you introduced them ex nihilo. I won't bother responding to the rest. Jacquerie27 22:32 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out the Roman Catholic proof of papal infallibility; clearly I was mistaken in that point. The reason I introduced atheism and materialism is that they both appear to be very natural and direct consequences of your POV, that science can make no allowance for anything supernatural. Perhaps I should have used the word "naturalism" instead. The point is that many people the world over do accept a number of scientific and mathematical axioms as being true, while also believing in some kind of supernatural being(s) or activities. Wesley 16:18 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well, if you don't know much about Catholicism it's understandable you hadn't come across that. ...very natural and direct consequences of your POV, that science can make no allowance for anything supernatural. It's not my POV: it's science. Atheism and materialism claim to account for everything; science doesn't (yet). The point is that many people the world over do accept a number of scientific and mathematical axioms as being true, while also believing in some kind of supernatural being(s) or activities. Yes, but my point is that they accept different and contradictory supernatural proofs but the same scientific and mathematical proofs. Science and mathematics are genuinely catholic; Catholicism, like all other forms of supernaturalism, isn't. Jacquerie27 21:53 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Scientists counter that if this is so, then believers in supernaturalism themselves would be utterly incapable of witnessing any supernatural phenomenon or miracles; all human senses are limited by the laws of physics, and can only sense events occuring in the natural, physical world.

I think this is POV and should be cut: if supernature exists it could interfere or interact with the laws of physics and the natural world, which are not perfectly known and not necessarily fixed; second, supernature wouldn't necessarily have to act thru the human senses in any case: it could affect the brain or mind directly. Jacquerie27 21:53 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can I change 'Arguments in favour of supernaturality' to 'Arguments in favour of the existance of the supernatural', as the same for against?

Many scientists and mathematicians

I keep on bumping into scientists who particularly suffer from the preconception that science reveals objective truth. Never mind. If you think it is defensive or offensive, remove the comment. (20040302 13:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Removed paragraphs

I just removed the following paragraphs, because they are about the social causes of religious persecution. They are quite off-topic for an article on the supernatural. Most books on the Christian religion don't discuss the supernatural in general, and most books on the supernatural never even allude to this topic. This discussion's presence here is more a cause of the personal interests of contributors, but probably not a good editorial placing. If you want, we can move these paragraphs to an appropriate article. We can always mention this subject within this article, and link to the article where this topic is more appropriately discussed. RK

  • Because the truth of supernatural claims cannot be objectively tested, disputes about them often lead to schism and persecution. The philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed this out in his essay "An outline of Intellectual Rubbish":
The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.
  • Examples:
    • The Great Schisms among Christians were the culmination of centuries of disagreement concerning the powers of the Pope to decide doctrine. No objective standard for resolving these differences has been agreed upon, then or since. It may be argued, then, that only the abandonment of the competing supernatural claims can possibly lead to the resolution of differences.
    • The Thirty Years War was justified as a defense of inviolable privileges granted by God to the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Emperor, over against the Protestant claims of God's grant of the rights of nations and of self-government according to the Bible.
    • For centuries, Christians angered and frustrated by the refusal of Jews to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah have considered the Jews to be especially guilty of the crucifixion of Christ, cursed and deserving of suffering (see decide). Other folk-religious beliefs about alliances between the Jews and Satan, and similar terrifying conspiracy theories, have fueled hatred and cruelty toward the Jewish people, and have produced a special indifference to Jewish suffering.

(Possibly unintentional) Vandalism

Somebody is editing the Supernatural page and insisting on inserting long, unwieldy, opinionated, and misspelled paragraphs about science and its virtues. While science is indeed a wonderful subject to bring into this page, you needn't vent your worship of it here; and if you must, please at least do so concisely and with good spelling. -RSR 11-06-06 02:42 PM MST

Last bullet in the 'Arguments against' section

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Humans in good mental health are capable of simulating perceptions that do not exist. This is commonly known as Hallucinations in the sane."

And then, your definition of 'hallucination':

"A hallucination, in the broadest sense, is a perception in the absence of a stimulus."

So is a hallucination a perception or not, Wikipedia?

I would have to deduce on my own (because Wikipedia fails to explain why this last bullet is an argument against the supernatural), that the only reason this is even in the article is in an attempt to suggest that religious visions can be explained by naturally (i.e. they are just 'hallucinations in the sane'). Considering Wikipedia's unattended bias towards all things secular, it would make sense that there such a specific agenda exists. But since credibility (or what is left of it) is on the line, the agenda is to remain as subtle as possible. It's almost like an art form. Wikipedia is just one giant easel.

Don't you realize that you're not kidding anyone with this site? Anyone with a reasonably developed intellect can quite easily find major philosophical flaws in the majority of content Wikipedia hosts. Is this site meant to appeal only to those who cannot think critically? Those kind of people no one cares about anyway, so what is the point of such a site? What does it matter if you can brainwash the dumb?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.14.55 (talk) 18:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I decided to add a cleanup tag today, which will hopefully attract some helpful attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schmitty120 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Under Cleanup I would submit the following paragraph from Section 1. It is wordy, muddled, stream of consciousness. It is terrible 6th grade writing and terrible amateur philosophy.

"So, if something 'supernatural' exists, it must by definition not be supernatural. And only magical thinking that power could come from where power could not come from could contend otherwise. i.e. a contradiction in itself. The question is where may power come from, or if there are other as of yet confirmed or understood places where power comes from. i.e. likewise, for if bigfoot is found and confirmed, he will not be mysterious or supernatural. In the past, people doubted the existence of the rhinoceros. There is little present belief in the existence of the Unicorn. Certainly there may always be things outside of the realm of human understanding, or as of yet unconfirmed and dubious in existence, and some might term these 'supernatural.'" Talkingtomypocket 02:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


...SUPERNATURAL: What happened in ancient times, where does History explain a supernatural. If something is concluded as definite,as with an addition of "so-far" or anything resembling that, then could there be another attempt to see something more of. "Perhaps a meaning of Super". 

 A Natural if for sure something understandable a perceived through notice and or accountability. Though when there is a figuration that may exist to have allowed something to happen then this could be a phenomenal occurrence. I represent occurrence for that may have existence during the time of figuration.

Example how far back does a science go. Even when a term such as science is not used, it is a happening that a figuration of something and or even a knowledge occurrence, which may even be something of just a calculation that something may occur is in a conduct. Finishing with my Example. The figuration of how the Earth 'has been created' is again a determination of factors through in which a study and a degree of time has been passed. In a somewhat conclusion to this affect as to perhaps advice others of is also the recommendation of what has not been concluded. Although what appears as a bases idea of how the earth is created is an essential, there is the fact that how that was a matter in conduct, also the matter of conduct of how the natural became natural. In study and review of this attempt is the basic conclusion of water, air, dirt, and other mineral products evaluated form the earth. Though the supernatural thing here may be how this occurred. In some resolution and yet still a study there is the mention of a great boom or explosion. This in itself may even have been a represented theory in the past. Though explaining it is yet a, "figuration yet to be asserted.

Here is a theory that in some views God is a supernatural. Question, and in perception of a term in existing manner " Supernatural". If this term did not exist then it is for certain that another then would represent a view of God. Just a suggestion here. In the past and this may theorize as a long time ago, there were a people perhaps amongst other people. In this thought 'amongst is the representation of a, lets say the term for now is tribe' these people built things and manufactured perhaps idealistic situations to support them. Such materials could be a bowl that would withstand the flames as to not crack all the time. A supporting roof that lasted a long time, a wheel for instance. These recommendations are through people, these people have names. For instance Noah is claimed to have lived 900 plus years. Could this venture be that the name Noah lived for this long along with the remedy of Noah. Getting back to to the prior of time when I described the creations of the wheel, roof, and bowl. These people were in a sense worshiped. This terming may have been used in a different way,"worshiped" for instance it may have been another term or perhaps even a feeling, and this could go on for a long period of time. Then there's schooling, this continues, again a term perhaps not used. Though in reference with schooling or a learning degree is the matter of usage. There were the young whom would do the things that were done and it would go over and over like this. Time has passed and many of these people would pass on. To remember these people it was a good reason to be associated with them through a degree, such as a reference. Perhaps this was a name of something. Now lets say through the years there were amongst these people a variety of names, perhaps to represent. What would be in conclusion to a society to reference a deity amongst them all and have the teachings go on through again another degree. This degree could be value or some form of category. Today we may call it a book or a descriptive allowance. I am now involved with all the names in this theory of time, and some small degree I am to relate it as a time of a beginning. A beginning amongst many and in sense to be of self. When in consideration of this organ-izational stance and even a maturity what would a or the recognition be. In Law we have "Law" In a Town we have "town' in Distance we have :Distance" and end we have 'end'. These representations are a conclusion of theory and or standard's. God may in retrospect represent the past present and future.

As well as a supernatural may represent a past present and future. The reason why is existence. What about the fact that if a child is caught under a vehicle and all of a sudden the parent gets a supernatural strength to save to child, whatever the case is, which perhaps would be an exertion, this would be a consideration of a supernatural phenomenon. I use "phenomenon because again that to has to be explained. Though in retrospect this supernatural exercise is of the past present and future, yet still. We have the existence of the person doing the extraordinary factor. The existence is somewhat allowing the capability. This could be a practice, or physical belonging of the person. Then we have the present and actuality of performance. Then we have the future, the explanation, all representing a supernatural situation.David George DeLancey (talk) 21:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC) 

end'
The article still needs cleanup in my opinion. There are a lot of long quotes. Isn't there some way to get to the point more clearly and quickly? It's as if the writers of the article don't know that they can ad citations to back up simpler statements. And what is going on in that "Contrasting Views" section? Does anyone think that looks organized at all? The article seems almost designed to stop people from wanting to read it. BrianPansky (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Half the article is about Catholicism

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why??? Seriously why??? Of all the hundreds of cultures and religions from human history which incorporated some aspect of supernatural beliefs into their worldview, why should Catholicism get such a disproportionate share of this article dedicated to it? Major NPOV violation here! SarrCat ∑;3 04:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sarr Cat: - Regardless of whatever biases there may be, this article just seems like a really poor personal interest piece. Suggest deletion per WP:TNT. NickCT (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Before going to that extreme, I think we should have some sort of discussion, but yeah, the article is currently pretty crappy. SarrCat ∑;3 17:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Blow it up and start over

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Maybe it would have been easier. This article is a mess. Editor2020, Talk 02:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So for the purposes of the effort to gather consensus (above), one would be correct in assessing your vote as "C. TNT: → Per WP:TNT, remove all extant Article content and re-create Article in its entirety. "? --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 10:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I think we've moved beyond that now. I think that I may have blown it up, but in slow motion. Editor2020, Talk
p.s. But I'm open to rewrites or reorganization. Editor2020, Talk 00:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Article is biased towards western supernaturalism, what can be done to fix this?

Latest comment: 9 years ago30 comments11 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to keep the article when looking at the detailed responses in the lower section. The consensus is split between A & B which are variations of each other with minor differences, B having ever so slightly an edge. The majority discussion either quoted WP:PRESERVE or followed its logic. AlbinoFerret 20:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this article as it exists currently, but the most glaring issue is the almost exclusive focus on supernaturalism is western culture/religion, the most blatant example of this being that the section on Catholicism makes up more than a third of the article, and no major or minor religion even gets so much as a sub-section!! The lead states that "Most religions include the supernatural", but why is there only a section on Catholicism? What about all the other religions? Even in the rest of the article, there is no information whatsoever about the supernatural elements of any eastern religions/philosophies, for example. Why have these been omitted, and what can be done to fix this? SarrCat ∑;3 17:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting is out of the question per WP:PRESERVE, "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia." Having too much good information is not a problem. The problem is lack of information. And the solution is to fix it. Lack of information doesn't indicate omission on Wikipedia. It implies neglect. We're a handful of volunteer editors with almost 5 million articles to maintain. Is there anything stopping you from adding material? PraetorianFury (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete In Catholicism.' section' / Add a new section: something like "Supernatural in religions" where the supernatural examples of all religions should be discussed. Also contrast section was a bit confusing, not really contrasting but generally supportive views in there too.(e.g Newton quote) The article might be salvaged, but I would not object to a rewrite. (Will agree if the result is TNT)Darwinian Ape talk 22:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (See New Proposed Voting Procedure, below) - Fix it per the prescriptions of WP:BOLD / WP:FIXIT. I concur with the argument presented by PraetorianFury; to remove the quality discussion of the Catholic perspective on Supernaturalism would simply cause for the erasure of information which is informative, well-written, supported by valid citation, and relevant — to TNT the Article goes against the editing guidelines provided in WP:PRESERVE. The article does much need the addition of added viewpoints, such as those indicated by Markbassett: but this requires the work of editors, not the work of Admins with deletion privileges. I believe that the current Distinguish (Paranormal), POV, and Globalize tags allow the collective group of concerned editors sufficient time to gather additional research and contribute new, more expansive, Sections with quality & attention equal to that presently given to Catholicism. UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
@Editor2020, @PraetorianFury, @Markbassett, @ Darwinian Ape; it seems in each of your statements, though you voted for deletion, you assert that the article could be salvaged without complete re-creation (if I'm wrong, please correct me). I'm wondering if you disagree with the above note on the use of prominent tags as a stop-gap measure while an active push is made to engage editors in the Article's improvement; and should you not disagree, if you would consider changing your stance from a firm Delete, to an alternative according to this tenor? Interested in hearing your thoughts... UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Got it — I think the bulleted comment beneath the initial Delete threw me off. If the consensus is consistent with your comment (which I agree with), I can try and more broadly publicize this to other editors, so that we can get a wide-base of unbiased content added to the article. Thanks! --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I said it might be salvaged but it really needs a major overhaul, so if anyone would want to start over I'd understand. My initial delete vote was actually for the "In Catholicism" section because it gives Christianity(a sect of Christianity to be precise) an undue weight.(since there was no specific options for the RFC, I offered my opinion on how to make the article balanced. I'll make the comment more clear. Darwinian Ape talk 21:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. I think if we find consensus to move ahead with major editorial action rather than TNT'ing the Article, this comment should absolutely be adopted by the involved editor(s), in restructuring its contents. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sarr Cat, in view of the above (and any further comment which may subsequently come-in), I propose we modify the RfC you initiated to propose specific voting options that comport with these various alternatives. I will create a 3rd Level Heading below this line with what I see these options as representing (all feel free to comment/edit), and so that any additional comments along the lines above can be contributed to the discussion with a logical flow. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Have given this new RfC Voting Proposal prominence on the To-do Lists of both Spirituality and Religion WikiProjects, in order to encourage greater contribution from the relevant communities of editors. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Definitive Voting on Topic

A. Keep & Fix:

Use tags to indicate to Wiki readers that the Article has content problems being addressed by editors. Actively engage community on repairing Article.

B. Keep & Fix with Guidelines:

Same determination as in option A, however members of Talk Page discussion will formulate provisional guidelines for the repair of the Article based on consensus, and will hold all editors to these "Repair Guidelines" until all major tags are removed.

C. TNT:

Per WP:TNT, remove all extant Article content and re-create Article in its entirety.

D. AfD:

Remove Article from Wikipedia without specific recourse or design to re-create the Article.

E. Pure Keep:

Keep Article on Wikipedia without specific recourse or design to ensure proper editing of the Article; allow editors to naturally contribute pursuant to WP Standard & Policies and MoS.
→Agreed on the amount of work it'll need —but it seems this Article touches (or should touch) on a lot of subject areas. I think that fact will help get a fair amount of editor engagement, once we can publicize our consensus to them. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • B - think cannot keep up the level of detail and cover the whole topic, so suggest split to an overview article and then sub-topic article(s). Markbassett (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A or B, not too fussed between free-for-all editing and guided editing. I'll keep an eye out for grammar, spelling and readable syntax (also known as readability), though I would also like to suggest that if a religion section is put in, that it is kept to a summary style and links to the main articles for each religion. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
→I think that your suggestion of Summary Sections with clear links to extant Articles, as opposed to new Sub-topic Articles (in the strict sense) will lead us to a quicker editorial process. Thus far B seems to be aligned with the discussion's consensus. --UBI-et-ORBI (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
By strict sense, I assume you are meaning a separate topic section that relates to the religion but not summarising it. To be clearer though for other editors, it would be a brief sub-heading section containing a summary, providing context of the supernatural themes and ideas presented in each religion. E.g. for Christianity;
  • ==Religion and Supernatural Concepts==
  • ===Christianity===
  • Main article ...
  • See also (insert denominations)
  • Summary of Christianity as a religion and discussion of supernatural themes and ideas
Just as a rough draft design, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
→By "strict sense" in regards to Sub-topic Articles, I was envisaging a more complex division of Topics for every category of Article that could exist with the broad group of the Supernatural. But a concept such as you propose would be aligned with the general tone of WP Articles, as well as my own opinion on the matter — i.e., an arrangement of both Subsections and Links, such as:
  • 2nd Degree Heading : General Discussion.
  • 3rd Degree Heading(s) : (Topic in the Context of a Specific Denomination/School of Thought).

I think you guys are going to have to do most of the work here without me, I started this RFC back in summer, but school has started for me now, so I won't be able to pay attention to any wikipedia related things for a while, at least, not at the level I would have during summer. I hope you can get this sorted out without me though! SarrCat ∑;3 20:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • B or C - As it stands, the article is offensively one sided and is really just an article about supernaturalism in Christianity. Other religions should have equal coverage but it would be nice if the article, since it is not called Supernaturalism in Religion, also covered supernatural themes in folklore, urban legends and such. It would also be nice if it addressed some of the natural origins for these supernatural ideas. I also agree with the idea of one main article with many sub articles. Louieoddie (talk) 00:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • A. or E. - B. seems overly bureaucratic, I don't think blowing it up per C. is necessary, and I strongly disagree with putting the article up for deletion per D. looking at the current state of the article. The article could use expansion, and maybe some of the content could be split off to its own more aptly titled article, but most of the content seems reasonable after a quick review.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 11:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • C or D - Just don't see much value in this article at the moment. NickCT (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to make this article better

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently it's a bit of a mess. The religion section is incredibly incomplete, covering only two varieties of Christian religion (Catholicism and Process Theology) and nothing else. This article could also talk about supernatural theories for morality, abstract objects, and all sorts of things. I would think that the history of supernatural ideas is also rich enough that we don't need to stick to contemporary views, but could explore ideas that changed over time in different cultures (my preference would be to include examples where science found natural causes for the origin of life, the solar system, disease, etc.).

I think the 'scientific view' section in the ghost article is the kind of thing this article could have. There are certainly many citation worthy studies on how some supernatural beliefs are surely mistaken (stuff like agency over-detection, or even creationism), and I think there's a survey of professional philosophers that might show the general prevalence of certain supernatural philosophical theories (such as divine command theory, mind-body dualism, and certain forms of platonism, etc.). BrianPansky (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The supernatural does not exist except amongst fantasists. Please provide proof otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:EE1A:26:3CAE:886B:5C0E:7EA1 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Opening paragraph based on 1910 theology article

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Currently the opening paragraph is referenced to a 1910 article from the Harvard Theological Review ([https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507012?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents this one). As you'd expect from an article over 100 years old and published by a theology journal, the focus is primarily on Christian theology. This is evidently part of the problem with this article. I'll do some digging around to see what I can find to replace it and reform it around something form, say, the last 50 years. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

If you'll look back, I added that - it was a dictionary entry before. *chuckle* --tronvillain (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Aha! Well, per usual, the lead will just be a summary of the rest of the article in time, so it shouldn't be too big of a deal to just remove it now that we've got an expanded etymology section. I'll go ahead and do that. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
It's no loss. Perhaps useful for something later. --tronvillain (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we should probably look into some philosophy to provide context for the idea. Especially as supernaturalism is actually a school of thought mentioned in some parts of critical theory. jps (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Article Needs a Total Rewrite

Latest comment: 6 years ago40 comments6 people in discussion

What on earth is going on with this article? The idea of the supernatural has long been a topic of study for scholars (particularly in folklore studies) and human understanding of the natural has shifted and changed over time, yet this article seems to go out of its way to ignore these facts while fixating almost entirely on Christian mythology (just look at the subheaders).

So, instead of a sober history, discussion, and study of the concept of the supernatural, we get a list of stuff about angels and demons and deities. This makes for one of the very worst Wikipedia articles I've seen in a long time. I'm tagging it for not only presenting the material in a WP:PROFRINGE manner but also because it requires a totally need build from its foundation up. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. A total rewrite is absolutely warranted. Would you like to hew out a rough outline? Maybe we could decide what is or isn't salvageable. jps (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I'll need to sit down with the etymology of the noun and its diachronic application. I believe that once we have that in order, we can build from it. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
I've gutted the section of angels, demons, and other random things plucked from Christian mythology. However, the rest needs to be totally rewritten. I'll sit down with some material this evening and get to it. A stub would be better than the unreadable mess we have here now (For example: "The metaphysical considerations of the existence of the supernatural can be difficult to approach as an exercise in philosophy or theology because any dependencies on its antithesis, the natural, will ultimately have to be inverted or rejected." What?). :bloodofox: (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Citizen Canine: reverted my removal of the image of Jesus that opens the article ([1]). This image goes hand-in-hand with the articles fixation on Christian mythology, and implies that this is somehow to be viewed as "supernatural", whereas this is perfectly "natural" behavior among deities. This does not help. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
To be sure, you did notice that the image is one of Jesus walking on water, right? If that's not supernatural nothing is. Certainly not what you'd class as "natural". In any case, if for some reason you object to the image's use, you should have just removed the image, not the whole sidebar. Citizen Canine (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
This certainly isn't supernatural among, say, folklorists, who study topics such as the appearance of folklore motifs. Nowadays, this wouldn't be particularly supernatural among most audiences, who would come to expect Jesus to perform miracles. Again, it comes down to who, when, and where defines something as natural over supernatural. This concept has shifted over the years, and today's supernatural is quite different than that of, say, the ancient Greeks. The sidebar is another can of worms, but the image's current placement and context can only mislead readers. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Mislead them how? Miracles are supernatural occurrences whether expected or not. You seem to have a flawed understanding of what the term applies to. Your mass-removal seems a little overkill. If you perceive an overemphasis on one culture's perspective, that is grounds to cut down on it, or balance it by adding contrary viewpoints. It cannot be justification for removing it completely, as long as it is relevant and well-sourced. Citizen Canine (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Miracles are "supernatural" to the in-group that observes them as occurrences, and quite the contrary to everyone else. Again, it comes down to what said circle considers natural. And none of the sections even bothered to mention the subject (how any of these figures are to be conceived as supernatural was simply assumed—and thus per WP:PROVEIT, out they go). I'll be preparing a total rewrite around this article here soon. In the mean time, I welcome you to work with me in improving the article, rather than edit-warring to maintain a small catalogue of figures from Christian mythology a Wikipedia contributor has deemed to be "supernatural". :bloodofox: (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
By the definition in use in this very article, cited to Merriam-Webster, the supernatural is "something that cannot be explained by scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Examples often include characteristics of or relating to ghosts, angels, gods, souls and spirits, non-material beings, or anything else considered beyond nature like magic, miracles, etc." The material you removed was certainly relevant on those terms. The definition makes no reference to likelihood or frequency. If Jesus performed miracles every day, they wouldn't cease to be supernatural. Certainly, the entities and concepts mentioned in the previous version are prima facie relevant and add to the article by increasing its depth and scope. It is rarely justifiable to cut relevant sourced content. These are the concepts that are, and have been throughout history, considered part of the supernatural. You would need to gain consensus before making such a major change. Citizen Canine (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The section on the history of the concept shows the origins of the "supernatural". It is a medieval invention, not an ancient one. I think that some things were not sourced and merely assumed in the article, like a bunch of Christian things. What you would need to do is find sources that specify something is supernatural and build from there. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm completely mystified by your removal of essentially all the article. Somehow you think that removal of gods from the article- apparently you think gods are not supernatural??? Angels are not? Karma and reincarnation is not? GliderMaven (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
This is an article about the development and application of the concept of the supernatural, not an article about Christian mythology (with, as of earlier today, karma and reincarnation tacked on because who-knows-why). As the tags themselves say, don't remove them until discussion about these issues has resolved. As it stands, the article definitely needs a rewrite from scratch. Since when do practitioners of belief system featuring reincarnation or karma consider consider them to be supernatural, for example? :bloodofox: (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
While it's not specifically an article on Christian mythology, it's also not not an article on Christian mythology. To the extent that Christian mythology is considered supernatural, it should be in the article. Nor does Wikipedia rely on what practitioners of things think. For example, Creation Scientists think their work is science, but it is generally regarded as not being so, and indeed is generally considered a supernatural belief system. I'm not saying we should include that in this article, but making the world in 7 days is not a naturalistic point of view. GliderMaven (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
In light of GliderMaven's edit-warring, discussion continues here. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
No, the discussion is properly held here. Please explain why you completely deleted the sections on Miracles and Prophesies when Thomas a fucking Aquinis who invented the term 'supernatural' specifically listed them as supernatural???? GliderMaven (talk) 03:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Bloodofox: For reasons both myself and GliderMaven are unable to fathom, you have completely decimated the article. Your changes are unfounded, and neither supported by global nor local consensus. Yet you have accused both me and GliderMaven of edit-warring simply because we reverted them. Just for future reference: by all means, edit boldly, but don't throw your toys out the pram when your changes aren't accepted. Citizen Canine (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Bloodofox's version is superior

I am a little amused by the above section, but I think it's descended into histrionics, so I'm just going to let it me known that Bloodofox's version is far superior to what was here before.

It is absolutely the case that the topic of the "supernatural" is not defined within the context of any particular religion and so to WP:WEIGHT this article in such a way is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Now, it may be that a small amount of content could be salvageable from previous versions, but it's necessarily going to be small and we need to be careful to follow best editorial practices. Fortunately, Wikipedia is equipped with an excellent "history" option that allows us to go back and look for previous versions.

What needs to happen at this page is WP:TNT. Bloodofox is doing great work in enacting this. I encourage the other users who want to argue for inclusion of particular content to make the case here for precise content they want to include. Then we can start to build the article that should exist.

jps (talk) 10:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The definition in the first paragraph is cited to Merriam-Webster, and is not slanted towards any particular religion or worldview. It specifically mentions gods, spirits, ghosts and transcending the laws of nature. So the removed material sits right at home with that definition. If we can't trust that definition, we have nothing to work with. That the cited sources specifically refer to these entities as "supernatural" is not a necessity. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Citizen Canine (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you used to using as an argument that the dictionary backs up your assertion? Because that's not a very good argument. See WP:DICTDEF. Bloodofox is basing the scholarship on the best sources that talk about the supernatural as a subject of study. What we need to do is not start looking for a bunch of stuff that sounds simliar to a dictionary definition. What we need are sources that describe what the topic of "supernatural" looks like in the grand schema of human discourse. The content you are advocating for does not do that. Rather it is simply a poor agglomeration of original research. jps (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it's a good start. --tronvillain (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Clearly there are three experienced editors here who are comfortable starting from the stubbed version of this article. I think that's reasonable. The people arguing for universal inclusion of all the problematic comment have not made their case. jps (talk) 20:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
It was essentially a collection of content forks. --tronvillain (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
What the fuck? A content fork is when you have two articles which are on the same topic. This is a WP:BROADCONCEPT article, and written in perfectly normal WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. What is the real reason you are pulling this bullshit??? GliderMaven (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
No... you're thinking WP:POVFORK. I think you need to calm down. We are trying to ground this article in high-quality scholarship. As it was previously written, it was grounded mostly in the pontification of Wikipedia editors who were not connecting their work to the actual subject at hand: the proposal that there is a typology of the supernatural. We may have some content that is salvageable from the previous version, but it is essentially a sentence here, an idea there. Most of it needs to go. Our idea is not to simply have a summary of everything that anyone has ever called supernatural at one time or another. Our idea is to write an article on what in the great, grand scheme of human knowledge people have been trying to describe with the proposal that there exists something "supernatural". That's a very different goal than what was attempted prior to this, but it is still WP:BROADCONCEPT. jps (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
That's already how it was, until you deleted the entire fucking article. GliderMaven (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
That's our point. The article was written as though it was about an overarching subject, but supernatural is not an overarching subject. It is an idea -- a proposed concept meant to distinguish certain modes of thought from others. This is the sense in which we should be writing the article. What we should not be trying to do is write about the universe of all possibly supernatural things anyone has ever dreamed up.
Maybe what would help matters is if you started looking for some sources. Let's look for some articles and books written about the history of what is meant by the idea of "supernatural". Let's get beyond quoting the dictionary and really dig into some of the more high-minded academic texts that make the distinction. Perhaps we can begin with an exploration of how naturalism is a kind of reaction against claims related to the "supernatural". See, for example, [2]. jps (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this is WIKIPEDIA, you must be new here. In Wikipedia's articles at the top you write the overarching topic, and then you have a comprehensive (not necessarily complete, but comprehensive) article below that. On the contrary, I think that this clearly is an overarching topic. If you are GENUINELY naive or stupid enough to think that there's no overarching topic, then this isn't an article, and you should delete it. WP:AFD is that way. -> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion GliderMaven (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, you're proposing that deity and angel are child articles of supernatural, making having the entire lede of those articles here acceptable forks as per WP:SPINOFF? Interesting. --tronvillain (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Right. I wrote optics along these lines. There it made sense. Here, it seems to me, it does not. jps (talk) 21:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
No, devoting the vast majority of the article to reproducing the ledes of examples of the concept doesn't make a lot of sense to me either. --21:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
As opposed to not covering them at all, like currently? GliderMaven (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
They're mentioned as examples in the lede, so we'll presumably want to work them into the body somehow, but that's not the same as devoting the vast majority of the article to duplicating their lead sections. --tronvillain (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
How do you ever expect this to reach even B-class, if it doesn't cover some or all of the common ways that something is supernatural? There's far more to an article than simply being the definition of something, who came up with the definition, and mentioning a subset of examples in the lead. The lead is only really supposed to mention things covered in the rest of the article.
Of course you have no plan at all. The people doing this are deliberately removing material, and that's not why.
It's not like the article was long either- it was tiny, just 18k of text, 2800 words. This is still the biggest WTF I have seen on Wikipedia in a very, very long time. GliderMaven (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Please propose some sources for us to use and then we can argue about what the "common ways" this article should discuss matters. jps (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

It's not possible to put the cart before the horse, when you've rounded up all the horses and shot them. Look, so far as I am concerned this is deliberate, bad faith vandalism of an article presumably because you thought it made your personal religion look stupid. If an anonymous editor had made these changes they would have been blocked by now. GliderMaven (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
It's bizarre to speculate about religious motivations (it verges on a personal attack), but I'm pretty sure we're all here in good faith to build a better encyclopedia and not worried about Christianity looking "stupid." --tronvillain (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, you say that, but virtually all references to religious supernatural elements from the article are completely gone. Apparently only 'folklore' is to be permitted because the article was "fixating almost entirely on Christian mythology"??? (sic) Apparently Zoroastrianism is Christian, and Demons only appear in Christianity as well? Who knew? Nobody did, but a bunch of self-appointed Wikipedian editors have certainly decided it, apparently. All we have left in the article is a bunch of largely shit attempts to define what the supernatural even is. GliderMaven (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Go ahead and propose some sources, I implore thee. jps (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
You've been systematically revert warring away all my edits. WTF would I add anything to this dog shit of an article when you would just delete it all over again? But that's the point isn't it? You don't actually want anything in the article that relates to religions; you're explicitly censoring all that out. You only want to allow folklore and (apparently you think) folklore isn't religious or as Bloodofox put it: "fixating almost entirely on Christian mythology (just look at the subheaders)", so remove all the deities??? That's literal censorship; a complete failure of NPOV. GliderMaven (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Wait, your edits? Ah, I see now: the removed material was almost entirely added by you between 5 January and 12 January 2018. --tronvillain (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

That caption needed revision

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

For the second time I have amended the caption under the image in the infobox.

I visited the article a couple of days ago and saw the caption One of the many supernatural acts attributed to Jesus, walking on water.

I amended the caption to An example of a supernatural act, Saint Peter attempting to walk on water saying in the edit summary that the François Boucher painting is of Peter, not Jesus. @Citizen Canine: reverted me saying "No, they are both depicted, Jesus more prominently". That is POV OR.

The name of the painting in French is given as ''File:Saint Pierre tentant de marcher sur les eaux by François Boucher.jpg''. The file description says in English it is called Saint Peter Attempting to Walk on Water and in Spanish it is called San Pedro Tentando Caminar Sobre Agua.

Saint Peter all the way, as is "attempting" - tentant, and tentado.

Even our St Peter article does not support Citizen Canine's POV. It has the same image, and the caption says Saint Peter Attempting to Walk on Water, by François Boucher, 1766

The image also appears in 1766 in France, and again, the caption says Saint Peter Attempting to Walk on Water, by François Boucher, 1766

It also appears in Jesus walking on water, but doesn't mention walking on water by anyone!

Thought I had better give my reason for revert here, in light of the toing and froing in the article recently. Moriori (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Jesus clearly is depicted, and far more prominently. Saint Peter Attempting to Walk on Water is the title of the painting, not its caption. It is so-called since the episode of Jesus walking on water appears in three gospels, yet only Matthew narrates that Peter attempted to join Jesus on the water. Peter is the figure in the bottom left, just stepping out of the boat. Jesus, occupying the center-stage, is the illuminated figure in red and blue robes. Even if, for some insane reason, you want to deny that Jesus is present, the previous caption didn't even assert that he was, it just said "One of the many supernatural acts attributed to Jesus, walking on water", which would be an accurate caption as long as it depicted someone walking on water. Your preferred version doesn't indicate the relevance of the image. The previous version, meanwhile, specifically refers to the event as supernatural. Citizen Canine (talk) 08:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
You say "Saint Peter Attempting to Walk on Water is the title of the painting, not its caption."
I know, and that’s why I changed the caption to say "Saint Peter Attempting to Walk on Water, oil painting by François Boucher, Cathédrale Saint-Louis (1766) Versailles."
It is accurate, which I prefer if the image must be used. Maybe we should instead show a dowser, or hypnotist, or ghost hunters at work.
As for your "Even if, for some insane reason, you want to deny that Jesus is present,.....", words fail me.Moriori (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
As for your "Even if, for some insane reason, you want to deny that Jesus is present,.....", words fail me.
You did specifically say "The painting is of Peter, not Jesus". I can't decide whether that comment was dishonest or just wilfully ignorant. So yes, that the painting depicts Jesus was perfectly relevant and merited mention in the caption. Citizen Canine (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I did not say Jesus was not present. I amended the caption, and Jesus remained in the image. What was that you mentioned about "dishonest or just wilfully ignorant"? Moriori (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It's irrelevant now anyway, but the original caption was pretty accurate: Jesus is a (if not the) primary figure in the painting, and walking on water is attributed to Jesus far more than to Peter, despite the passage upon which the painting is based. Even more accurate might have been "The apostle Peter attempting to walk on water with Jesus" though perhaps that's more of an alt description than a primary caption.

I think that since this image is causing such disagreements, we should change the image to something supernatural that is not religious or at least from another religious tradition. The article right now does not contain anything substantial on miracles. Maybe I can switch it out with something else. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I tried something. It was the first image that popped up when I searched for "+supernatural +paranormal +painting". *shrug*. jps (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. It is more universal than the religious image before. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supernatural/Archive_9&oldid=1079899459"