The Incoherence of the Idea of Supernatural
The world is full of unreasonable people. There are people who claim any wishy-washy pseudoscientific idea or some superstitious mumbo-jumbo and often incorporate them as an integral part of their own identity, making it difficult to show them evidence to the contrary without making it seem like a personal attack. Such phenomenon is important and relevant especially because we are living in a country that, unfortunately, still believes in the existence of voodoo, witchcraft, and faith healing in the Information and Technology Age. Most of these superstitious people even have the audacity to tell the skeptics and nonbelievers that they are the close-minded ones for not accepting their extraordinary claims, but a closer look reveals that they are spectacularly wrong about what constitutes an open mind.
Defining "Open-mindedness"
So, what do we really mean whenever we say that a person is what we call an "open-minded" individual? Stop right there and ask yourself for a minute. Because it seems that this word is heavily misrepresented and misunderstood that both believers and skeptics often accuse each other of not being like one. If I say that there is a ghost in your back and you asked for proof, is it reasonable for me to accuse you of being close-minded for not accepting my claim? Of course, not. Most people have this very weird notion that being open-minded means agreeing to their claims and testimonies without question. That we must just take their words for granted. This is a categorical mistake. Open-mindedness is simply the willingness to consider other new ideas, and to change one’s beliefs if the evidence says otherwise. It requires us to think scientifically and critically. Just because I give you the benefit of the doubt and consider your idea doesn't automatically mean I accept them. It also doesn't mean that I am indecisive and incapable of thinking for myself. If anything, it is actually empowering the mind of an individual.
These are all not controversial, so far, but the discussions about this topic usually go into a rabbit hole whenever it becomes related to supernatural beliefs. I always find it aggravating whenever my mother and some elders insist to me that witchcraft, supernatural entities, and faith healing are real and legitimate, and that I should avoid being close-minded about those topics. That became more frequent the moment she learned that I am an atheist, who ditched the Catholic label two years ago. But the thing is, believing in the supernatural doesn’t make one open-minded. In fact, it often leads to being the exact opposite. Suppose that Melvin and Carlo are in an empty house alone and they heard an open door shutting itself loudly. Knowing that they are the only people inside, Melvin insisted that it was a ghost, a Poltergeist if you will, that made that noise, because he can’t explain it himself, and also considering that some people within their neighborhood also suspect that their house is “haunted”. The skeptic Carlo demanded Melvin to provide an evidence that his claim is true, and also provided simpler and more parsimonious possible explanations that could easily explain the event. But Melvin insisted that his claim is true and he accused Carlo of being close-minded. To settle the argument, the two went near the door and they observed that it’s windy outside and the window towards the door is also open, causing the door to violently shut itself.
In this scenario, the superstitious Melvin is the one that is actually close-minded for not considering simpler alternative hypotheses but clinging to his cherished supernatural beliefs fueled by his cognitive biases and cultural influences. Occam's Razor says that when comparing two or more hypotheses, the one that is the simplest and has the least amount of assumptions is usually the correct one. When it comes to an unexplainable event, the realistic empirical explanation will always be the simpler explanation more than the supernatural one. Saying that an event is caused by the supernatural leads to one’s tendency to ignore the actual evidence and make false causal connections. It is also frequently the case that most supernatural believers insist that their paranormal assertions are true because we can’t explain how it happened, but this kind of thinking is extremely flawed. An unexplainable event doesn’t demonstrate the existence of the supernatural, it merely shows that the event is just that, unexplained. In fact, saying that the lack of explanation is the evidence for the paranormal is a logical contradiction. It is tantamount to saying something like “I can’t explain how it happened; therefore, I can explain how it happened.”
But let's change the scenario a bit. Suppose that only Melvin is present when he witnessed a door shutting, and Carlo was not with him. Then he told him about his "supernatural" experience later on, but Carlo didn't believe his claim. Melvin then said, "How do you know that it didn't happen? You were not there!" Is it reasonable to ask that question? Of course, not, since it is unfair for Carlo. He was not there to assess and investigate the situation in the first place, to make sure whether Melvin missed some details or edited the story consciously or unconsciously, or maybe just made the whole thing up. We can't say, not until we can find out. Remember that the plural of an anecdote is not data. It is the least reliable evidence that a person can give when it comes to the realm of science. Saying that something happen or something exists is not enough. You have to prove it with tangible evidence.
What's wrong with believing in the supernatural?
Supernatural beliefs often arise from people’s lack of understanding and/or misunderstanding of how science actually works. Most of them usually say something like “Science can’t answer everything” or “There are things that are beyond the reach of science.” Of course, science can’t answer everything, but that doesn’t mean religion and superstition can. The scientific method is our best and most useful epistemological tool that helps us to sort out truths from falsehoods. Religion and superstitions literally accomplished nothing for the advancement of human thought, since they are fundamentally grounded on our personal biases and fallacious and lazy thinking. It is definitely not true that "supernatural" claims are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. Any claim, any attempt to explain something, is certainly within the scope of science, because the whole process itself is all about investigation. Not only that science is a body of knowledge, but also a process of finding out how the universe works. In order for a claim to be deemed as scientific, it needs to be testable, tentative, falsifiable, and parsimonious. Meaning, synthetic propositions (any claims about objective reality) must have the capacity of being observed empirically; they must have a chance of being open to revisions if ever a better and new evidence will be discovered in the future; they must have the chance to be proven wrong through contrary proof; and they must have a predictive power on future consequences if ever we assume that those claims are correct. Any assertion that fails to achieve these goals are not worthy of any kind of serious consideration.
The fact that an event doesn't have a natural explanation FOR NOW, doesn't mean that it doesn't have a natural explanation ALWAYS AT ALL. And even if that event can't be explained by the natural, that doesn't remotely validate supernaturalism, let alone theism, in any way. Appealing to the supernatural is appealing to mystery, no one can't demonstrate a mystery by appealing to another bigger mystery. That's why keeping an open mind is vital for the scientific method to work. Not only that this kind of thinking is compatible with science, it is a prerequisite of it. We would not be moving forward as a society if early scientists are still clinging to the outdated and clearly false “scientific” notions such as the world being 6000 years old, or diseases being caused by demons, or the earth being the center of the universe. But what being open-minded doesn’t mean is to just believe anything that anyone will tell you, especially to supernatural claims. My willingness to consider new ideas doesn’t constitute accepting them no matter what.
The main reason why scientists dismiss supernatural claims is because they have no explanatory power whatsoever. Saying, for example, that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, omnipresent, transcendent God created the whole entirety of cosmos doesn’t demonstrate at all how the cosmos was created. Let's accept that proposition for now, without question. Now what? What scientific frameworks and pragmatic applications can we get from the claim "God created the universe"? How exactly did this God-thingy made all time, space, and matter from literally nothing? Can we quantify them? Or at least make specific equations on how it happened? The whole thing is not meant to actually seek for the real answers to humankind’s biggest question of “where did everything come from” but just to fill the empty gap of our ignorance for the sake of cognitive closure. Our ancestor have no idea how everything came into existence, therefore they made some stuff up to cope with our fear of unknown. We don’t know yet what happened before the Big Bang, but that doesn’t automatically mean that its cause must be supernatural in origin, and anyone who would says otherwise is guilty of committing the argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) fallacy. Just because I reject a poor supernatural argument or a pseudo-divine excuse, doesn't mean I must know the actual answer, let alone know everything. Superstitious thinking often arises from our fear of accepting uncertainty from the absence of definitive answers and inability to grasp complexity, leading one to jump with false conclusions. They are not for pursuing truth and following curiosity, but for comfort and false sense of assurance.
"If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction. In proportion as man taught himself, his strength and his resources augmented with his knowledge; science, the arts, industry, furnished him assistance; experience reassured him or procured for him means of resistance to the efforts of many causes which ceased to alarm as soon as they became understood. In a word, his terrors dissipated in the same proportion as his mind became enlightened. The educated man ceases to be superstitious." - Percy Bysshe Shelley (The Necessity of Atheism)
But the more we think about it, the whole idea of supernatural itself doesn’t even make sense in the first place. The world itself came from Latin supernaturalis which means “outside of nature” or “beyond reality”. Anything is considered as natural or physical if they are observable and within the scope of objective reality, and the supernatural or non-physical is pretty much the exact opposite of it. Anything that actually exists in the real world has a physical manifestation and verifiable qualities that can be measured. If something objectively exists, it is, by definition, real, physical, natural. Anything that is outside of objective reality (i.e., the supernatural) is by definition, NOT REAL. What does it even mean to say that a non-physical thing or being exists? It’s really irritating how most people cannot comprehend this very simple fact, and don’t even bother to think about all of this for a second. The word was used as an excuse to keep unreasonable and unprovable beliefs away from scrutiny and criticism. Your claim about an existence of an entity is unfalsifiable and unprovable? No problem, just make a nonexistent realm that is supposedly "separate" from "this world" and get away from the burden of proof. The supernatural realm doesn’t exist, and to talk about it is to talk about mere metaphysical nonsense. Constantly arguing for them is a waste of anyone's breath.
Misrepresenting the burden of proof
Another fact that supernatural believers often get wrong is about the nature of how the burden of proof works. (For more information, read the article God's Existence and the Null Hypothesis) It is imperative to remember that the burden of proof (the one’s obligation to provide evidence for their claims) always lies on the one who makes the positive claim, not the one who rejects it. If you say that there are space monkeys from the planet Uranus that will invade the Earth very soon, it’s not my job to prove you wrong. And asking for evidence doesn’t make one close-minded. If Melvin is convinced about the existence of ghosts but Carlo is skeptical, it is maybe because Carlo finds the believers’ reasons to be completely flawed and irrational that lead him to be skeptical, but if Melvin shows him a definitive and conclusive evidence for the existence of ghosts, by surviving the extremely critical eye of the scientific method, it would already be enough for Carlo to perhaps change his mind on the matter. An open mind should empower critical thinking, and it is necessary for all of us to have an “evidence filter” in our minds to filter out true propositions and throw out the false ones. This method is precisely how science works in a nutshell.
However, having an open mind without the evidence filter increases the propensity to accept false ideas uncritically and suddenly closing your mind to decline the contrary evidence, which completely stunts your ability to learn. An open mind that requires little to no evidence will let the entry of ideas full of garbage. In short, let us be open-minded but not so open that our brains will fall out. And besides, people who say that requiring evidence for extraordinary claims is close-minded, will not even survive a day inside a courtroom. Is it close-minded to demand proof for the defendants’ guilt before convicting them to prison? Isn’t everyone innocent until proven guilty? This notion is not only useless to the real world, but can also be actively harmful.
But remember that there is a big difference between saying "I don't believe in ghosts" and "Ghosts do not exist." The latter says, "There are no ghosts and no one can't prove me otherwise," which is close-mindedness; while the former says, "I have yet to be presented with conclusive and persuasive evidence that ghosts actually exist." Saying that ghosts do not exist will only be acceptable if the core arguments supporting that claim contain glaring logical contradictions. But it has been a great debate tactic by most believers to misrepresent or exaggerate their skeptic opponent by either unconsciously or consciously erasing the difference between being honestly unconvinced and being willfully dogmatic. Instead of having a productive discourse, most of them just exemplify their prejudices and commit bumbling mental gymnastics. You can't get more close-minded than that.
What is critical thinking?
What does it mean to think critically? It's not about sitting in an arm chair and thinking really hard about something, nor about using all of your intellectual capacities to fiercely defend your arguments. It is about considering that you might be wrong about something and there might be biases in you way of reasoning. It is about following the evidence wherever it leads, even though the conclusion turns out to be undesirable or unpleasant. It goes hand in hand with skepticism. Skepticism is not about just rejecting ideas and arguments for no or insufficient reason, but instead, doubting and suspending your judgment while looking for the evidences, and if ever that those evidences go against their beliefs, they have no choice but to change positions. A true critical thinker will base their criteria of assessing truth values on valid and sound reasoning instead of just social pressure and emotions. They will not accept or reject a claim because it makes them feel sad, or angry, or annoyed, neither because it is what their family or friends believe.
Accepting more supernatural pseudo-explanations doesn’t make someone more open-minded. If anything, it makes them more gullible, and willing to believe anything. Credulity is not supposed to be a virtue, but something that we should all be ashamed of. Saying “You should be open-minded” is not the same as “You should agree with my nonsense without question.” If we all want to know what is true, fulfilling the burden of proof is something that we should be embracing, not avoiding. Shifting the burden of proof is the habit of the ones who know to themselves that they can’t substantiate their assertions, and yet still have the temerity to shove their beliefs to the throats of all skeptics. The mere fact that their arguments require the suspension of critical thinking is already a red flag that signals that their claims require stricter scrutiny. It seems to be that the burden of proof only becomes threatening to those people whose beliefs are intertwined to their own personality and identity, which makes demanding proof look like a personal insult to their own egos. Asking for evidence is literally the kryptonite of baseless, unfalsifiable, and untestable claims.
Conclusion
Of course, it is absurd to demand evidence to literally every single declarative sentence that you will encounter every day. It’s not as if your friend said to you that she saw her crush, and suddenly you ask her to provide her definitive proof. It is not also the case that we should suddenly stop enjoying sci-fi and fantasy movies just because they defy the laws of physics. But demanding for the fulfillment of the burden of proof is important and useful for those who try to persuade us to accept something as a fact, especially if there is worth losing. Keep in mind that we still live in a world with charlatan psychics who claim to speak to the dead, preying on their credulous grieving customers; palm readers and astrologers who claim to predict your whole future and erroneously define your whole personality based on the alignment of the heavenly bodies; naturopathic scammers who are trying to sell homeopathic medicine and healing crystals; and televangelist frauds and pseudo-prophets who claim to speak on the behalf of the grand creator of the universe, only to exploit their flock.
Look, if someone is a supernatural pseudoscientific believer that just wants to believe whatever they want, I respect that. They have the right to do so. It is also fine if they want to defend those beliefs from other people, just don't expect that they will not have questions or find any flaws on them. But it is entirely another thing if they look down on other people for not buying their nonsense, rejecting evidence to the contrary uncritically, and demanding everyone to believe exactly as they do. Not only that it is the peak of close-mindedness, but also being an overall egotistical asshole.
Ergo, open-mindedness requires skepticism. Beliefs are supposed to be questioned, not to be cherished. Skepticism is not just about rejecting assertions willy-nilly, but about doubting and suspending one’s judgment until the evidence arrive. A reason for believing something is good if it is grounded on sound logic and empirical evidence, not on emotions, biases, and traditional upbringing. Critical thinking is not just about thinking a lot either, but about questioning all of your beliefs and recognizing your biases and fallacies in your own reasoning. These three important mental tools are essential for having a healthy rational mind, free from the preposterous world of superstitions. And always remember the Hitchens’ Razor: “Whatever can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and whenever these supernatural proponents don’t take the burden of proof seriously, we don't have an obligation to take their assertions seriously.
Published on May 11, 2021
Comments