How many of the stories in the Bible *do* we have evidence for? For instance, I suspect that the stories of the great flood might not be accurate, as well.
What a lot of folks don't understand is that many of the books were written 100, 500, 1000 years after the events they covered, and in each, new details were added or changed. This makes the Bible a long version of the telephone game.
The middle ages and Renaissance were a huge vector with regard to how we envision the stories of the Bible -- for instance, angels sporting luxurious, eagle-like wings, and Jesus being an Anglo-Saxon dude.
At any rate, some scholars believe that in antiquity, folks were crucified facing *toward* the wood, or more typically, face-first against a tree, and with the nails through the wrists, and not the hands. Not a very romantic image, is that?
> For instance, I suspect that the stories of the great flood might not be accurate, as well.
Hold on there, cowboy. You're taking issue with a story that it rained for 40 days straight, filled up the entire earth with water, killed all life on the planet, and then drained away somewhere leaving just an ark filled with two of every form of life to spread again around the entire earth? And you're saying this story might -- just might, mind you -- not be completely accurate?
God almighty, man. Of all the stories in the bible, clearly that one is historically accurate down to the smallest detail.
Note that TFA isn't saying that Jesus didn't exist or that he wasn't executed (quite the contrary, in fact). The point of TFA is that nobody really knows what actual device was used. There was probably some type of pole or two, but the Bible itself isn't more specific than that, and literature from that time doesn't explicitly mention crosses being used in executions.
Also note that the guy who did the research is still a devout Christian himself, he's just not convinced that a cross was the method of execution.
First of all, the bible was not written by eyewitnesses. This is common factual knowledge, though of course many don't want to believe that. There is zero evidence for it, though. And even if part of it was, we don't know which part and there is zero doubt that the majority of it was not written by eyewitnesses.
Second, the whole "they were either crazy or it was the total truth" is right out of the Christianity 101 handbook, and it is ridiculous. Were the Greeks either "truthful or insane" when they wrote their stories of Zeus, Athena and the rest of the gods on Mount Olympus?
The fact of the matter is that it was common to tell stories back then to make a point, and embellishment was simply culturally part of the game. No one was concerned about being "true to history", that's totally a modern thing.
The final nail in the coffin of the claims in your post: Mormons and Scientologists. Both invented new religions out of whole cloth. "They're either crazy, or it was the truth. Who would invent such a thing?" And note that Joseph Smith (the founder of the Mormon church) was killed for his beliefs.
To quote you, "But they can't just be inaccurate. If you were making up a story, and someone told you you were going to be killed if you didn't deny it, why the hell would you insist that you're telling the truth?"
Indeed. Based on your logic, I would assume you're a Mormon, right?
Ok. First, you mean like the church did to scientist after scientist who dared question the Vatican?
But again, it's not KNOW it's false, it's BELIEVE it's false. Difference.
Atheists, by definition, don't believe on faith. They believe only in what they see, or can prove. Many Wiccan's I've met have had their own first hand experiences that they claim precludes faith.
Your point is the authors wrote things they were eyewitnesses too. If some of it wasn't, which parts were? That's the million dollar question. And when did they write it down? Even first hand witnesses will embellish after a while. Which is why eye witness testimony isn't good enough for science. (See atheists above).
The problem is they've done their reading. Scholars of the day who would have mentioned this guy... didn't. It's not definitive, but it casts doubt.
Why do you need to prove it? Because you're the one claiming it. If they were here claiming it, I'd ask it of them.
I have studied the bible, and my parents were ministers for a while. The books were chosen to back a political agenda, or changed to fit that agenda, and other books, were ignored.
As for your argument about Zeus and Odin, tell me why your stories about him warrant more weight than other peoples? Because the reason you tell those stories, and not others, is because of the culture you're born into. And if you believe everyone worships the same god, then why does your bible say to worship no other gods before him? Wouldn't that be impossible?
Interesting story there: throughout history, there's been controversy when the progress of society or new scientific discoveries conflicted with the Bible. We all know what happened to Galileo and heliocentrism, and, of course, Darwin isn't well-loved by many people who take the Bible literally. In the 20th century, prevailing opinion in the South was that blacks and whites shouldn't mix because God put the different races on different continents for a reason. Then, blacks and whites shouldn't marry, for the same reason. And now, gays and lesbians can't marry because, again, you guessed it, some people interpret the Bible as indicating that it's a bad thing.
Similar controversy erupted in the 19th century with the nascent science of geology. For centuries, the existence of large boulders in the middle of fields was ascribed due to floods.
Along came geology, plate tectonics, and so on, and all of a sudden, there was a scientific explanation. This caused furor among many Christians, as it was seen as an attack on religion. Scientists who presented their findings and theories about geology were castigated and called tools of satan.
Of course, with the passage of time, the church now accepts theories of geology, just as it accepted the heliocentric model some time before. But for a while, it was just as ugly as the climate change and "creation science" discussions can be today.
And, I might add, awareness of this fact is not at all new or shocking to anybody who studies biblical history. It sounds like Dr. Samuelsson's thesis is just the most extensive scholarly treatment of the matter, but most biblical historians have admitted we really don't know what the "cross" would have looked like for years now.
how do you know the bible was written by eyewitnesses? Lets say there is even a chance that this is true, you are siting ridiculous time frames. 60 years within jesus death? You realize no one lived to 60 years old back then right? Also, when you say 100% certainty that it was written by eye witnesses you lose any credibility, because you dont know, you just hope it to be true. there is no factual evidence for your claim
Man. If that's your standard for 'proof' go ask some Wiccans how they fared at the hands of Christianity, or many early scientists, atheists, and what not. Christianity doesn't have the market cornered on attacked over belief.
They also did all the other fun things religion does in the name of god(s), go to war, etc.
"you have less proof that they were not eyewitnesses than I have that they were."
No. You both have the same proof. And when there is no proof, the person making the affirmative claim, loses. He can't prove the non-existence of something. It's up to you to prove existence.
Which brings us to written by 'eye witnesses'. Since I'm fairly certain none of the people who wrote the gospels were at the birth, at the very least, that is second hand. And probably more.
But we have another problem. Not everyone even agrees Jesus exists. So there's that burden of proof too.
But finally, even if you say the Gospels were written by people who were there for the big things, which people? Which account? The Council of Nicea 300 years later determined which ones you get to hear. And not everyone there even agreed if Jesus was divine or just really smart.
But let's look at it this way. If you want to say Zeus or Odin doesn't exist, tell me why. Then tell me why that same logic doesn't apply to your Christian God.
"Were the Greeks threatened with torture, imprisonment and death for backing up their legends? And more importantly, did they actually have any way of knowing for sure whether their legends had happened or not? My point (which I probably stole from CS Lewis) is that the writers of the gospels died for backing up a story they claimed to have witnessed. That is much more insane than dying for an old story that you believe is true based on pure faith."
means that the simple fact that people would die for their beliefs makes them true. I'm saying lots of people die for them, but it doesn't make them true, and proceeded to give examples both true and not true, of people killed for their beliefs, while at the same time pointing out that Christianity doesn't have the sole axe to grind for being picked on.
"Yeah, but they still operate under the premise that something only exists if they can see and prove its existence with physical senses. Which takes faith, actually. The rejection of the supernatural as a possibility still takes faith."
Science is not based on faith. Period. It's based on proof. It's not even a rejection of the supernatural, but more of a "I'll believe it when I see it. Until then... no." It could be... it might not be. Science is open to possibilities. It's why there's peer review, and re-evaluations, and hearing that theories change. Because it's our best understanding TODAY.
As for why it's up to you, and is it worth debating. It is because you're basing a belief on a book you can't trust. Once you start throwing out parts you can't believe (virgin births or talking snakes), or parts you don't like (most of deuteronomy), or parts that contradict (just Google it... there's way to many to list), what do you have left. The things you chose to believe in the first place. It's total confirmation bias. You had those beliefs, and these parts of the book uphold that. So who gets to pick what is and isn't real? You?
If so... WHY do you believe it? Because...? I believe in science because I can go do it. And so can you. And that guy over there. And when we're done, we'll all have the same data. That's not true of religion. We all get different data.
So, back to the point... about the authors. Because you made a claim that these guys existed, and were eye witnesses to the things said in the bible. Therefore the things in the bible must be true. I gave reasonable doubt and you said "Yeah, well I can't prove that."
There's one of the reasons. Because even the people much closer to the time didn't agree. So to get them all together and rule uniformly, the Emperor called a council to codify aspects of Christianity.
Then there's the King James version. Or really any translation... because which bible do you use? It brings you back to, it's your own opinion anyway, why rely on a book to make you feel better about it. Just be a decent person... And there's the reality.
The bible, all versions, are full of reasons we don't need to be. Gays, premarital sex, women, etc. All religion is a loophole to the social contract of just be a decent human being. There's always some hard fast law that you have to do or god doesn't want you in heaven anymore...even though it means treating someone as an outcast for who they are.
Because they line up with what I've seen to be true. Why does your version of who you are hold more weight than mine?
AND THERE'S WHAT BROKE ME OF RELIGION.
So, how are some people going to hell because an all knowing, all powerful being chose to not make himself known to them? If he exists, and that's what he did, he's not worth worshiping. If he did, then shut up about it because we already know, and we don't need church, or any of this other stuff.
But we do... don't we? Why? Because God has not made himself known to us. Other people have made God known to us. And usually through swords, guns and other evil.
Now, as for is that Reinart? Or am I him, etc...
What PROOF do you have of him? Really. Don't answer me. Just ask yourself. Could I get to know him that way? If we all came away with a different version, if doing the same thing, is there really any reality to it? Because here's the thing... anyone can come here and see that I do argue on Digg. I may do other things, but we can all find it to be true.
Yes. There's a very real possibility of it. My beliefs have changed a lot over the years precisely because of logical reasoning, and there's always a possibility that I could end up an atheist if the arguments are strong enough.
However, just because you present an argument that you think should knock me on my ass and make me instantly abandon my religion, that doesn't mean that I find the argument cogent. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they have no concern for logic and reasoning.
An empty cross is often what you see displayed as a symbol of Christ, particularly on jewelry. I've always imagined what it must be like if an alien came here and noticed people wearing miniatures of an ancient torture device. They'd probably think we're a pretty scary species.
Biblical "perfection" or "inerrancy" is the basis of some fundamentalists' claims, but it isn't the basis of a "theist's" claims (not all theists are Christians, after all), nor is it the basis of mainstream Christianity. Very few mainstream modern theologians care about the inerrancy of the Bible, and even several early Christian leaders talked about intentional errors being placed in the Bible in order to require Christians to read it more carefully.
You're taking the position of some (mostly Protestant) fundamentalists and extending that to all of Christianity (or "theism"), and that's just wrong. The mainstream of the tradition HAS insisted on defending itself by logical reasoning. That's what philosophical theology and fundamental theology are about, which informed a great deal of the development of medieval and early modern philosophy.
Possibility and absolutism are not the same thing. I accept the possibility of the supernatural, I just don't believe that millennia old superstitions qualify as proof of a moral argument.
Your assertion that claims of the supernatural, (things which defy the known laws of physics) require no proof and must be considered equally likely as a "rational" explanation borders on the existential.
I'm just saying that your conclusions depend on your initial perspective. If you believe the supernatural is possible, obviously the way you interpret the evidence around you will reflect that. If you believe it is not possible, you will never come to conclusions that allow for supernatural involvement. I do believe that a person should require proof to believe something. Traditions and superstitions don't qualify. But you won't find any real proof of the supernatural if you approach the observable evidence around us with the preconceived idea that the supernatural is impossible. And of course, if you approach the evidence around us with the idea that the supernatural MUST exist, you will find that the things you observe can be interpreted in such a way as to back up your idea.
I don't think it's possible to be truly objective, actually. The closest we can get is to look into other models of understanding and find out how they make sense to the people that adopt them without assuming that said people are less intelligent or perceptive than we are.
shark72Feb 7, 2012Buried
How many of the stories in the Bible *do* we have evidence for? For instance, I suspect that the stories of the great flood might not be accurate, as well.
What a lot of folks don't understand is that many of the books were written 100, 500, 1000 years after the events they covered, and in each, new details were added or changed. This makes the Bible a long version of the telephone game.
The middle ages and Renaissance were a huge vector with regard to how we envision the stories of the Bible -- for instance, angels sporting luxurious, eagle-like wings, and Jesus being an Anglo-Saxon dude.
At any rate, some scholars believe that in antiquity, folks were crucified facing *toward* the wood, or more typically, face-first against a tree, and with the nails through the wrists, and not the hands. Not a very romantic image, is that?
hediggmeFeb 7, 2012Buried
LOL "evidence". Who needs that anyway
nairebisFeb 7, 2012Buried
> For instance, I suspect that the stories of the great flood might not be accurate, as well.
Hold on there, cowboy. You're taking issue with a story that it rained for 40 days straight, filled up the entire earth with water, killed all life on the planet, and then drained away somewhere leaving just an ark filled with two of every form of life to spread again around the entire earth? And you're saying this story might -- just might, mind you -- not be completely accurate?
God almighty, man. Of all the stories in the bible, clearly that one is historically accurate down to the smallest detail.
dwtcFeb 7, 2012Buried
Note that TFA isn't saying that Jesus didn't exist or that he wasn't executed (quite the contrary, in fact). The point of TFA is that nobody really knows what actual device was used. There was probably some type of pole or two, but the Bible itself isn't more specific than that, and literature from that time doesn't explicitly mention crosses being used in executions.
Also note that the guy who did the research is still a devout Christian himself, he's just not convinced that a cross was the method of execution.
runbadscottFeb 7, 2012Buried
If Jesus was put to death in modern times would Christians wear little electric chairs around their necks.
nairebisFeb 7, 2012Buried
First of all, the bible was not written by eyewitnesses. This is common factual knowledge, though of course many don't want to believe that. There is zero evidence for it, though. And even if part of it was, we don't know which part and there is zero doubt that the majority of it was not written by eyewitnesses.
Second, the whole "they were either crazy or it was the total truth" is right out of the Christianity 101 handbook, and it is ridiculous. Were the Greeks either "truthful or insane" when they wrote their stories of Zeus, Athena and the rest of the gods on Mount Olympus?
The fact of the matter is that it was common to tell stories back then to make a point, and embellishment was simply culturally part of the game. No one was concerned about being "true to history", that's totally a modern thing.
The final nail in the coffin of the claims in your post: Mormons and Scientologists. Both invented new religions out of whole cloth. "They're either crazy, or it was the truth. Who would invent such a thing?" And note that Joseph Smith (the founder of the Mormon church) was killed for his beliefs.
To quote you, "But they can't just be inaccurate. If you were making up a story, and someone told you you were going to be killed if you didn't deny it, why the hell would you insist that you're telling the truth?"
Indeed. Based on your logic, I would assume you're a Mormon, right?
4bitFeb 7, 2012Buried
Ok. First, you mean like the church did to scientist after scientist who dared question the Vatican?
But again, it's not KNOW it's false, it's BELIEVE it's false. Difference.
Atheists, by definition, don't believe on faith. They believe only in what they see, or can prove. Many Wiccan's I've met have had their own first hand experiences that they claim precludes faith.
Your point is the authors wrote things they were eyewitnesses too. If some of it wasn't, which parts were? That's the million dollar question. And when did they write it down? Even first hand witnesses will embellish after a while. Which is why eye witness testimony isn't good enough for science. (See atheists above).
The problem is they've done their reading. Scholars of the day who would have mentioned this guy... didn't. It's not definitive, but it casts doubt.
Why do you need to prove it? Because you're the one claiming it. If they were here claiming it, I'd ask it of them.
I have studied the bible, and my parents were ministers for a while. The books were chosen to back a political agenda, or changed to fit that agenda, and other books, were ignored.
As for your argument about Zeus and Odin, tell me why your stories about him warrant more weight than other peoples? Because the reason you tell those stories, and not others, is because of the culture you're born into. And if you believe everyone worships the same god, then why does your bible say to worship no other gods before him? Wouldn't that be impossible?
shark72Feb 7, 2012Buried
I know, crazy theory!
Interesting story there: throughout history, there's been controversy when the progress of society or new scientific discoveries conflicted with the Bible. We all know what happened to Galileo and heliocentrism, and, of course, Darwin isn't well-loved by many people who take the Bible literally. In the 20th century, prevailing opinion in the South was that blacks and whites shouldn't mix because God put the different races on different continents for a reason. Then, blacks and whites shouldn't marry, for the same reason. And now, gays and lesbians can't marry because, again, you guessed it, some people interpret the Bible as indicating that it's a bad thing.
Similar controversy erupted in the 19th century with the nascent science of geology. For centuries, the existence of large boulders in the middle of fields was ascribed due to floods.
Along came geology, plate tectonics, and so on, and all of a sudden, there was a scientific explanation. This caused furor among many Christians, as it was seen as an attack on religion. Scientists who presented their findings and theories about geology were castigated and called tools of satan.
Of course, with the passage of time, the church now accepts theories of geology, just as it accepted the heliocentric model some time before. But for a while, it was just as ugly as the climate change and "creation science" discussions can be today.
pinkfish411Feb 7, 2012Buried
And, I might add, awareness of this fact is not at all new or shocking to anybody who studies biblical history. It sounds like Dr. Samuelsson's thesis is just the most extensive scholarly treatment of the matter, but most biblical historians have admitted we really don't know what the "cross" would have looked like for years now.
concusionFeb 7, 2012Buried
how do you know the bible was written by eyewitnesses? Lets say there is even a chance that this is true, you are siting ridiculous time frames. 60 years within jesus death? You realize no one lived to 60 years old back then right? Also, when you say 100% certainty that it was written by eye witnesses you lose any credibility, because you dont know, you just hope it to be true. there is no factual evidence for your claim
4bitFeb 7, 2012Buried
You mean.. did people go to war, and offer their lives, and do human sacrifice for some of the Greek gods?
Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice
Or more like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaxagoras
Man. If that's your standard for 'proof' go ask some Wiccans how they fared at the hands of Christianity, or many early scientists, atheists, and what not. Christianity doesn't have the market cornered on attacked over belief.
They also did all the other fun things religion does in the name of god(s), go to war, etc.
"you have less proof that they were not eyewitnesses than I have that they were."
No. You both have the same proof. And when there is no proof, the person making the affirmative claim, loses. He can't prove the non-existence of something. It's up to you to prove existence.
Which brings us to written by 'eye witnesses'. Since I'm fairly certain none of the people who wrote the gospels were at the birth, at the very least, that is second hand. And probably more.
But we have another problem. Not everyone even agrees Jesus exists. So there's that burden of proof too.
But finally, even if you say the Gospels were written by people who were there for the big things, which people? Which account? The Council of Nicea 300 years later determined which ones you get to hear. And not everyone there even agreed if Jesus was divine or just really smart.
But let's look at it this way. If you want to say Zeus or Odin doesn't exist, tell me why. Then tell me why that same logic doesn't apply to your Christian God.
4bitFeb 7, 2012Buried
But, you're argument:
"Were the Greeks threatened with torture, imprisonment and death for backing up their legends? And more importantly, did they actually have any way of knowing for sure whether their legends had happened or not? My point (which I probably stole from CS Lewis) is that the writers of the gospels died for backing up a story they claimed to have witnessed. That is much more insane than dying for an old story that you believe is true based on pure faith."
means that the simple fact that people would die for their beliefs makes them true. I'm saying lots of people die for them, but it doesn't make them true, and proceeded to give examples both true and not true, of people killed for their beliefs, while at the same time pointing out that Christianity doesn't have the sole axe to grind for being picked on.
"Yeah, but they still operate under the premise that something only exists if they can see and prove its existence with physical senses. Which takes faith, actually. The rejection of the supernatural as a possibility still takes faith."
Do you understand what faith is? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
Definition 2: belief that is not based on proof.
Science is not based on faith. Period. It's based on proof. It's not even a rejection of the supernatural, but more of a "I'll believe it when I see it. Until then... no." It could be... it might not be. Science is open to possibilities. It's why there's peer review, and re-evaluations, and hearing that theories change. Because it's our best understanding TODAY.
As for why it's up to you, and is it worth debating. It is because you're basing a belief on a book you can't trust. Once you start throwing out parts you can't believe (virgin births or talking snakes), or parts you don't like (most of deuteronomy), or parts that contradict (just Google it... there's way to many to list), what do you have left. The things you chose to believe in the first place. It's total confirmation bias. You had those beliefs, and these parts of the book uphold that. So who gets to pick what is and isn't real? You?
If so... WHY do you believe it? Because...? I believe in science because I can go do it. And so can you. And that guy over there. And when we're done, we'll all have the same data. That's not true of religion. We all get different data.
So, back to the point... about the authors. Because you made a claim that these guys existed, and were eye witnesses to the things said in the bible. Therefore the things in the bible must be true. I gave reasonable doubt and you said "Yeah, well I can't prove that."
Exactly.
As for my questions about the bible: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
There's one of the reasons. Because even the people much closer to the time didn't agree. So to get them all together and rule uniformly, the Emperor called a council to codify aspects of Christianity.
Then there's the King James version. Or really any translation... because which bible do you use? It brings you back to, it's your own opinion anyway, why rely on a book to make you feel better about it. Just be a decent person... And there's the reality.
The bible, all versions, are full of reasons we don't need to be. Gays, premarital sex, women, etc. All religion is a loophole to the social contract of just be a decent human being. There's always some hard fast law that you have to do or god doesn't want you in heaven anymore...even though it means treating someone as an outcast for who they are.
Because they line up with what I've seen to be true. Why does your version of who you are hold more weight than mine?
AND THERE'S WHAT BROKE ME OF RELIGION.
So, how are some people going to hell because an all knowing, all powerful being chose to not make himself known to them? If he exists, and that's what he did, he's not worth worshiping. If he did, then shut up about it because we already know, and we don't need church, or any of this other stuff.
But we do... don't we? Why? Because God has not made himself known to us. Other people have made God known to us. And usually through swords, guns and other evil.
Now, as for is that Reinart? Or am I him, etc...
What PROOF do you have of him? Really. Don't answer me. Just ask yourself. Could I get to know him that way? If we all came away with a different version, if doing the same thing, is there really any reality to it? Because here's the thing... anyone can come here and see that I do argue on Digg. I may do other things, but we can all find it to be true.
God has never offered such consistencies.
GoldiedustFeb 7, 2012Buried
Nor was his mother a virgin visited by a giant fairy, says anyone with the ability for critical thought.
trythinking1stFeb 7, 2012Buried
Imagine if Jesus died of diarrhea
pinkfish411Feb 7, 2012Buried
Because despite what some of you ignoramuses think, many of us who are interested in religion are equally interested in reason and logic.
pinkfish411Feb 7, 2012Buried
Yes. There's a very real possibility of it. My beliefs have changed a lot over the years precisely because of logical reasoning, and there's always a possibility that I could end up an atheist if the arguments are strong enough.
However, just because you present an argument that you think should knock me on my ass and make me instantly abandon my religion, that doesn't mean that I find the argument cogent. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they have no concern for logic and reasoning.
bdbrFeb 7, 2012Buried
An empty cross is often what you see displayed as a symbol of Christ, particularly on jewelry. I've always imagined what it must be like if an alien came here and noticed people wearing miniatures of an ancient torture device. They'd probably think we're a pretty scary species.
pinkfish411Feb 7, 2012Buried
Biblical "perfection" or "inerrancy" is the basis of some fundamentalists' claims, but it isn't the basis of a "theist's" claims (not all theists are Christians, after all), nor is it the basis of mainstream Christianity. Very few mainstream modern theologians care about the inerrancy of the Bible, and even several early Christian leaders talked about intentional errors being placed in the Bible in order to require Christians to read it more carefully.
You're taking the position of some (mostly Protestant) fundamentalists and extending that to all of Christianity (or "theism"), and that's just wrong. The mainstream of the tradition HAS insisted on defending itself by logical reasoning. That's what philosophical theology and fundamental theology are about, which informed a great deal of the development of medieval and early modern philosophy.
mjm6783Feb 7, 2012Buried
Possibility and absolutism are not the same thing. I accept the possibility of the supernatural, I just don't believe that millennia old superstitions qualify as proof of a moral argument.
Your assertion that claims of the supernatural, (things which defy the known laws of physics) require no proof and must be considered equally likely as a "rational" explanation borders on the existential.
anglach3lFeb 7, 2012Buried
I'm just saying that your conclusions depend on your initial perspective. If you believe the supernatural is possible, obviously the way you interpret the evidence around you will reflect that. If you believe it is not possible, you will never come to conclusions that allow for supernatural involvement. I do believe that a person should require proof to believe something. Traditions and superstitions don't qualify. But you won't find any real proof of the supernatural if you approach the observable evidence around us with the preconceived idea that the supernatural is impossible. And of course, if you approach the evidence around us with the idea that the supernatural MUST exist, you will find that the things you observe can be interpreted in such a way as to back up your idea.
I don't think it's possible to be truly objective, actually. The closest we can get is to look into other models of understanding and find out how they make sense to the people that adopt them without assuming that said people are less intelligent or perceptive than we are.