Unlike plate tectonics or quantum physics, the supernatural isn't something that is a part of our world in a mechanical sense. It's an apples to oranges comparison especially if we're the ones in the 'matrix' as it were.
How is quantum physics "mechanical"? If the supernatural was real, how would it not be "mechanical"?
Now don't get me wrong. If our goal is to understand how our world runs then methodological materialism is the way to go about it. But understanding how our world works and knowing the underlining reality of its existence are two different things. To say they aren't is a philosophical opinion and not one of science.
It's a philosophical opinion to say that "how our world works" is consistent with reality?
Which in no instance I advocate.
Good to hear.
Yes actually, and a few of them are well publicised. Of course, that doesn't mean those cases truly were demonic and you ought to believe them, but the notion that the Church just starts strapping you down for a night of exorcism the moment you behave strangely is simply not the case.
I didn't think it was. I asked because I haven't heard of any "sanctioned" Catholic exorcisms since they enacted that policy in 1999. I've heard of a couple that were done by "rogue" Catholics without the blessing of the Church, and a bunch from other denominations, but none that the Catholic Church officially supported.
I agree, but that's not what I said. What I'm saying is that very often people with materialistic frameworks regardless of their pretensions to reason do become set in a dogmatic view of reality and thus by default reject any claim that "cannot be true". By taking the position that any and all paranormal claims are to be rejected by default (but not the existence of paranormal phenomenon itself) functionally they eventually will lose the distinction between the two in all but pretence.
It's important to remember the distinction between outright rejection of a claim and mere failure to accept it, but I agree with your implication that we should be open-minded enough to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Oh come on! Firstly, who said anything about being a teenager? I said young, you're the one adding in details I never gave. (He never specified his age during this supposed event)
My mistake - I inferred incorrectly. Fair enough: he was young but of indeterminate age.
Secondly, you have no grounds whatsoever to make any assumptions on the level of intoxication of those present.
By the same token, you have no grounds to assume that your uncle was sober, correct?
Sure. I'm not putting it forward as a story to be taken at face value. I certainly don't. My point is to not be so quick to scoff at which you have no basis to scoff at.
What have I scoffed at, exactly?
Is it reason that is really driving you, or a commitment to a philosophical position? And this question applies to me as well. The biggest arrogance is in assuming your own rationality.
I don't assume my own rationality. I realize that it's easy for people to come to incorrect conclusions. That's why it's so important to use a rational, methodological, skeptical approach when confronted with these sorts of claims.
You'd be silly to take one anecdotal story on an internet board as compelling.
Yes, I know better than to take some random, anonymous person on the internet's word for it when I hear a ghost story (or any story, really).
I meant that even if we take everything you're saying as given, and even if we trust that your uncle was sincere, it still wouldn't be compelling.
Heck, even my distinct memory of being 'attacked' by two shadowy entities do not convince me that I saw something genuinely supernatural. There are other possibilities that I could not justifiably rule out.
That sounds disturbing, but if you don't want to go deeper into it, I won't push the issue.
.
