Q&A: Is It Rational to Deny the Supernatural
Is It Rational to Deny the Supernatural
Question
How is it possible that throughout history and even today there is such enormous involvement in mystical and supernatural experiences? Isn’t that evidence that such things really exist?
You can always say it’s some psychological phenomenon or another, but is that really a sufficient explanation for tens of thousands of claims about supernatural events?
Answer
There are certainly mystical experiences. The question is whether they reflect something in the real world. In most cases I assume they do not (it’s a psychological matter). But of course one cannot rule out cases in which these experiences have an objective basis. It also depends on the type of experience (sometimes it is a general feeling and sometimes an encounter with something external).
Discussion on Answer
I’m not familiar with that proof. If you want to discuss it, quote it or describe it.
I don’t remember it precisely, but as I recall the core of the argument is: there are intuitions that testify to truth, and the main criterion is very broad agreement about the intuition (for example, mathematics). According to Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, all of us have an intuition about the "supernatural" (that’s my term, not sure what his was—maybe he speaks directly about a Creator).
I think he also brings "proofs" that all of us intuitively believe (it takes rationalism to deny that intuition).
True, I haven’t quoted his proofs for the assumptions in the argument, but could you address whether you know of such proofs and, assuming there are such, whether the argument works and whether it is strong.
You’re mixing concepts together. There isn’t a word here about experience. There are intuitions. That is something entirely different. If I have some intuition, I tend to believe it unless I have evidence against it. For that I do not need its generality, meaning that it exists among many people. Experiences don’t tell me much.
Of course intuition and experience are different concepts. Meir’s question just reminded me of it, and I thought it might sharpen it.
1: Is there really no connection at all between experience and intuition? I would say there are narrative experiences (Jesus appeared to me in a dream), and there are experiences that are a distillation of experiencing a mystical dimension (after I got sick with COVID I shut myself in at home for a month, turned inward, and suddenly I was gripped by the deep knowledge that God exists). Isn’t the second type an experience that rides on intuition? Similar to a sense of exaltation following a mathematical formula.
2: When we discuss a universal argument (one that can persuade someone besides yourself), is there really no need for the generality of the intuition?
3: In your view, the claim that deep down we all believe somewhere (there is some truth in that—"there are no atheists in foxholes") is not powerful enough to say that this is an intuition that points to a basic truth?
4: In my view there is a general intuition about an additional dimension—what led all (!) societies throughout history to build thought or religion around the subject (of course today people dismissively wave this away as human psychological needs). Today it is common to think that rationalism is everything, and a claim that begins somewhere else doesn’t even get a hearing.
Do you agree?
I don’t know what "rides on" means. I distinguished between emotion and intuition, and I have nothing to add. If that emotion expresses an intuition of yours, then you have an intuition.
In your view, is the "proof" from the religious experience in the Kuzari nonsense?
The Kuzari speaks about the consensus regarding spiritual intuition. It seems that Meir is also asking something in that style.