The Esoteric Knowledge Gambit

[Ana the Ist]

I saw another poster mention this, and I thought about creating this thread some time ago...but held back because it's more of a public service announcement than a topic ripe for discussion.

There's a particularly dumb claim made by some christians and other believers of various religions that literally has no substance to it at all. It's utterly worthless, yet it keeps popping up despite the fact that it never convinces anyone of anything. There's no formal name for this claim (to my knowledge) so I'm going to refer to it as The Esoteric Knowledge Gambit or EKG for short. It's constructed as follows....

Believer- I know certain truths/facts/knowledge that you don't because my faith in (insert religion here) has revealed it to me!

Non-Believer- Ok...let's hear this knowledge/facts/truths!

Believer- No! You wouldn't understand it because you don't believe in (insert religion here)!

Non-Believer- Try me! I'm a fast learner and I can pick up concepts rather quickly if they're well explained!

Believer- Nope! I don't cast my pearls before swine (or otherwise condescending remark)! You're the swine here and the truths/facts/knowledge are the pearls!

Non-Believer- You don't actually have any hidden knowledge/facts/truth....do you?

Believer- I do! I'm just not telling you because you don't believe in (insert religion here)!

Anyone who is a regular on these forums for awhile (I'd guess 6 months or so) has probably seen some similar form of this claim at least once. It's a rather poor claim, and obvious ploy, and it should stop entirely. Why? Because knowledge doesn't work that way. As long as we are speaking the same language...there's no reason that knowledge cannot be expressed through that language. Knowledge/truth/facts don't require a faith belief of any kind in order to be understood. For example...

Suppose I were to tell you that plants get energy from sunlight. That's a bit of knowledge/truth/facts. You don't have to believe it, or know anything about photosynthesis to understand what I'm saying. That's because you can read English (see how dumb this sounds now?). If you don't believe it, I can go on and give you more knowledge regarding the process of photosynthesis to help you understand why it's true. If you still don't understand it, we could meet up and I can use evidence to demonstrate the process of photosynthesis to you. If you still don't believe it...then the problem is probably on your end lol not mine.

Regardless, the point here is that there is no knowledge/truth/facts which can be revealed to someone who believes the same (insert religion here) things you do which cannot be revealed to someone who doesn't believe the same religious things you do. So please, for your own integrity, stop making this ridiculous EKG.

Thanks for reading, please enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Hieronymus]

---------------

 

[Ana the Ist]

If any part of the OP is confusing, feel free to ask questions. I'll be happy to answer.

 

[Chesterton]

It's a rather poor claim, and obvious ploy, and it should stop entirely.

You may deem it a poor claim, but please don't call it a ploy. You have no idea whether "knowledge works that way". Even if God appeared to me in person and I try to tell you about it, you will dismiss it. If it actually happened, it's not a ploy.

Regardless, the point here is that there is no knowledge/truth/facts which can be revealed to someone who believes the same (insert religion here) things you do which cannot be revealed to someone who doesn't believe the same religious things you do. So please, for your own integrity, stop making this ridiculous EKG.

I don't usually cut and paste long quotes, but I hope you'll read this:

But among these million facts all flowing one way there is, of course, one question sufficiently solid and separate to be treated briefly, but by itself; I mean the objective occurrence of the supernatural. ... Any one who likes, therefore, may call my belief in God merely mystical; the phrase is not worth fighting about. But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant's word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant's word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant's story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism -- the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence -- it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, "Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles," they answer, "But mediaevals were superstitious"; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say "a peasant saw a ghost," I am told, "But peasants are so credulous." If I ask, "Why credulous?" the only answer is -- that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland. It is only fair to add that there is another argument that the unbeliever may rationally use against miracles, though he himself generally forgets to use it.

He may say that there has been in many miraculous stories a notion of spiritual preparation and acceptance: in short, that the miracle could only come to him who believed in it. It may be so, and if it is so how are we to test it? If we are inquiring whether certain results follow faith, it is useless to repeat wearily that (if they happen) they do follow faith. If faith is one of the conditions, those without faith have a most healthy right to laugh. But they have no right to judge. Being a believer may be, if you like, as bad as being drunk; still if we were extracting psychological facts from drunkards, it would be absurd to be always taunting them with having been drunk. Suppose we were investigating whether angry men really saw a red mist before their eyes. Suppose sixty excellent householders swore that when angry they had seen this crimson cloud: surely it would be absurd to answer "Oh, but you admit you were angry at the time." They might reasonably rejoin (in a stentorian chorus), "How the blazes could we discover, without being angry, whether angry people see red?" So the saints and ascetics might rationally reply, "Suppose that the question is whether believers can see visions -- even then, if you are interested in visions it is no point to object to believers." You are still arguing in a circle -- in that old mad circle with which this book began.

G. K. Chesterton from Orthodoxy​

 

[durangodawood]

....Believer- I know certain truths/facts/knowledge that you don't because my faith in (insert religion here) has revealed it to me!

Non-Believer- Ok...let's hear this knowledge/facts/truths!

Believer- No! You wouldn't understand it because you don't believe in (insert religion here)!.....

I'm fine with the 'EKG' so long as the believer realizes he is departing from reasoned discussion, and entering into an appeal to strictly subjective experience.

 

[KCfromNC]

You may deem it a poor claim, but please don't call it a ploy. You have no idea whether "knowledge works that way". Even if God appeared to me in person and I try to tell you about it, you will dismiss it. If it actually happened, it's not a ploy.


I don't usually cut and paste long quotes, but I hope you'll read this:

But among these million facts all flowing one way there is, of course, one question sufficiently solid and separate to be treated briefly, but by itself; I mean the objective occurrence of the supernatural. ... Any one who likes, therefore, may call my belief in God merely mystical; the phrase is not worth fighting about. But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them.​

OK, so weird unexplanable things happen. How does that point to the supernatural? Seems like quite a jump to me considering the vast number of things which used to be unexplained that later came to be understood as normal natural processes. Are there any examples of miracles which have been proved to be supernatural - and if so, how? If you don't have examples of that happening, I'm not sure how one can confuse weird things occurring with them being supernatural.

 

[Chesterton]

OK, so weird unexplanable things happen. How does that point to the supernatural?

It may or may not point to the supernatural. It may not even be unexplainable depending on what one wants to accept for explanation. If I say I've felt a "presence" there are lots of atheists who'll explain it (or explain it away) with normal, natural processes of psychology, even if they can't be very specific.

Seems like quite a jump to me considering the vast number of things which used to be unexplained that later came to be understood as normal natural processes. Are there any examples of miracles which have been proved to be supernatural - and if so, how? If you don't have examples of that happening, I'm not sure how one can confuse weird things occurring with them being supernatural.

Well we're talking here about what individuals may experience internally, not about figuring out lightning or earthquakes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You may deem it a poor claim, but please don't call it a ploy. You have no idea whether "knowledge works that way". Even if God appeared to me in person and I try to tell you about it, you will dismiss it. If it actually happened, it's not a ploy.


I don't usually cut and paste long quotes, but I hope you'll read this:

But among these million facts all flowing one way there is, of course, one question sufficiently solid and separate to be treated briefly, but by itself; I mean the objective occurrence of the supernatural. ... Any one who likes, therefore, may call my belief in God merely mystical; the phrase is not worth fighting about. But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant's word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant's word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant's story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism -- the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence -- it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, "Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles," they answer, "But mediaevals were superstitious"; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say "a peasant saw a ghost," I am told, "But peasants are so credulous." If I ask, "Why credulous?" the only answer is -- that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland. It is only fair to add that there is another argument that the unbeliever may rationally use against miracles, though he himself generally forgets to use it.

He may say that there has been in many miraculous stories a notion of spiritual preparation and acceptance: in short, that the miracle could only come to him who believed in it. It may be so, and if it is so how are we to test it? If we are inquiring whether certain results follow faith, it is useless to repeat wearily that (if they happen) they do follow faith. If faith is one of the conditions, those without faith have a most healthy right to laugh. But they have no right to judge. Being a believer may be, if you like, as bad as being drunk; still if we were extracting psychological facts from drunkards, it would be absurd to be always taunting them with having been drunk. Suppose we were investigating whether angry men really saw a red mist before their eyes. Suppose sixty excellent householders swore that when angry they had seen this crimson cloud: surely it would be absurd to answer "Oh, but you admit you were angry at the time." They might reasonably rejoin (in a stentorian chorus), "How the blazes could we discover, without being angry, whether angry people see red?" So the saints and ascetics might rationally reply, "Suppose that the question is whether believers can see visions -- even then, if you are interested in visions it is no point to object to believers." You are still arguing in a circle -- in that old mad circle with which this book began.

G. K. Chesterton from Orthodoxy​

I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the EKG. I don't know that it's supposed to refer to a miracle of some sorts, some truth that god whispered in the believer's ear, or something else entirely not supernatural. I don't know because they never say...

The point is that they think you cannot understand the "esoteric knowledge" because you don't believe...so there's no point to explaining it. They are confusing "understanding" with "believing". While it may be true that I won't believe whatever esoteric knowledge they're claiming to possess...there's certainly no reason I cannot understand it.

You may think not think that knowledge works this way...but certainly you think that language works this way, yes? It's not as if upon believing in christianity I'm suddenly more capable of speaking/reading the English language. Therefore, there's nothing that they could say after I believe in christianity that they couldn't have said before I believe in christianity.

In truth, I don't think there is any esoteric knowledge at all...it's simply a bluff that hopes to prey upon human curiosity. They're so incapable of understanding my position that they think they must appear mysterious to me...in possession of something that I don't know but would want to. That's the only reason I can think of that explains why they never back up this claim of esoteric knowledge. They bring it up...then immediately act as if it was a big mistake to do so and they cannot reveal this truth until I believe as they do. Silly, right?

Anyways, I read the quote...in full...and woof, where do I begin with that heaping mess? I had to look up who Mr. G. K. Chesterton was...and once I saw his time period, the quote made more sense. It reads like a man living in a world that he sees is rapidly disappearing from around him. Do you want an honest reply to it? I'm guessing by your name you're a fan of his and I'm not inclined to drop a deuce on something that you shared in good intentions...unless of course, you want my honest opinion.

 

[dysert]

You make the Believer in the OP sound like a bit of a jerk. The way I see it is this. There is knowledge that can be gained through the senses. If you can read, think, see, etc., then if you're smart enough you will be able to learn all kinds of stuff through your senses. But there is also knowledge that is non-experiential in nature. I'll call this spiritual knowledge. For this, it doesn't matter how smart you are you'll never gain this type of knowledge as a non-spiritual person because spiritual knowledge can only be conveyed spiritually. It's almost like trying to describe colors to a man born blind.

 

[Dre Khipov]

'm fine with the 'EKG' so long as the believer realizes he is departing from reasoned discussion, and entering into an appeal to strictly subjective experience.

All of the experience is subjective.

 

[Dre Khipov]

OK, so weird unexplanable things happen. How does that point to the supernatural? Seems like quite a jump to me considering the vast number of things which used to be unexplained that later came to be understood as normal natural processes. Are there any examples of miracles which have been proved to be supernatural - and if so, how? If you don't have examples of that happening, I'm not sure how one can confuse weird things occurring with them being supernatural.

I think intelligent people in general should rise above the "prove miracles or supernatural to me" type of requests, because it's meaningless.

It's like me asking a certain QM interpretation proponent... "prove to me that an entity can be in two different places at the same time".

You either see it as a likely explanation or you don't. When we start with a hypothesis that deals with infinitesimal, or supernatural... the ideas of "proof" are reduced to a certain line of reasoning that you either accept or reject.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...But there is also knowledge that is non-experiential in nature.

By this, do you mean it's just there - something you know without any idea how you know it?

Because there are plenty of things that I just know, without any idea of how I know them - but I can take a good guess that it's probably something I experienced (learnt) at some time, an experience I have no recollection of having, but which left some knowledge behind when it faded.

Can you distinguish between what I'm describing and what you're describing? If so, how?

 

[Dre Khipov]

As far as the general reply to this thread, all knowledge is "esoteric" when it comes to understanding the initially hidden factors that are unfolded as one progresses through some form of experience.

We can debate about some utilitarian approach to knowledge, where we have to collectively agree that some things are useful and that these demonstrably function a certain way, but we don't have to agree on everything, and we generally don't. There are always hidden parts of experience that will expand on any belief or knowledge in a way that can't be dished out on a silver platter as some form of proof.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I saw another poster mention this, and I thought about creating this thread some time ago...but held back because it's more of a public service announcement than a topic ripe for discussion.

There's a particularly dumb claim made by some christians and other believers of various religions that literally has no substance to it at all. It's utterly worthless, yet it keeps popping up despite the fact that it never convinces anyone of anything. There's no formal name for this claim (to my knowledge) so I'm going to refer to it as The Esoteric Knowledge Gambit or EKG for short. It's constructed as follows....

Believer- I know certain truths/facts/knowledge that you don't because my faith in (insert religion here) has revealed it to me!

Non-Believer- Ok...let's hear this knowledge/facts/truths!

Believer- No! You wouldn't understand it because you don't believe in (insert religion here)!

Non-Believer- Try me! I'm a fast learner and I can pick up concepts rather quickly if they're well explained!

Believer- Nope! I don't cast my pearls before swine (or otherwise condescending remark)! You're the swine here and the truths/facts/knowledge are the pearls!

Non-Believer- You don't actually have any hidden knowledge/facts/truth....do you?

Believer- I do! I'm just not telling you because you don't believe in (insert religion here)!

Anyone who is a regular on these forums for awhile (I'd guess 6 months or so) has probably seen some similar form of this claim at least once. It's a rather poor claim, and obvious ploy, and it should stop entirely. Why? Because knowledge doesn't work that way. As long as we are speaking the same language...there's no reason that knowledge cannot be expressed through that language. Knowledge/truth/facts don't require a faith belief of any kind in order to be understood. For example...

Suppose I were to tell you that plants get energy from sunlight. That's a bit of knowledge/truth/facts. You don't have to believe it, or know anything about photosynthesis to understand what I'm saying. That's because you can read English (see how dumb this sounds now?). If you don't believe it, I can go on and give you more knowledge regarding the process of photosynthesis to help you understand why it's true. If you still don't understand it, we could meet up and I can use evidence to demonstrate the process of photosynthesis to you. If you still don't believe it...then the problem is probably on your end lol not mine.

Regardless, the point here is that there is no knowledge/truth/facts which can be revealed to someone who believes the same (insert religion here) things you do which cannot be revealed to someone who doesn't believe the same religious things you do. So please, for your own integrity, stop making this ridiculous EKG.

Thanks for reading, please enjoy the rest of your day.

I do think there is something to the EKG, although my particular view of this kind of thing probably isn't the same idea as the one to which you allude in your post.

In short, the Biblical writers do express epistemological indications that SOME aspects of Christian Faith are given, mediated, moderated, and at times even revoked, by God's Spirit Himself. So, in essence, despite the core of traditional teaching about Christ and accompanying theological entities, there are some aspects of faith that are individually tailored by God for each person who attempts a response of faith and won't be the kind of things that can be empirically demonstrated or rationally articulated, at least not for the purpose of persuading others as to their legitimacy.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Chesterton]

I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the EKG. I don't know that it's supposed to refer to a miracle of some sorts, some truth that god whispered in the believer's ear, or something else entirely not supernatural. I don't know because they never say...

The point is that they think you cannot understand the "esoteric knowledge" because you don't believe...so there's no point to explaining it. They are confusing "understanding" with "believing". While it may be true that I won't believe whatever esoteric knowledge they're claiming to possess...there's certainly no reason I cannot understand it.

You may think not think that knowledge works this way...but certainly you think that language works this way, yes? It's not as if upon believing in christianity I'm suddenly more capable of speaking/reading the English language. Therefore, there's nothing that they could say after I believe in christianity that they couldn't have said before I believe in christianity.

If something is truly personal people may not want to put it up on the internet for others to dissect and ridicule. But you have a point in that they probably shouldn't bring it up in the first place if they're not going to explain it, which is why I don't much talk about personal stuff. Plus it's simply that some things can be very real, but yet ineffable, very hard to explain.

In truth, I don't think there is any esoteric knowledge at all...it's simply a bluff that hopes to prey upon human curiosity.

On what do you base the belief that there's no esoteric knowledge?

They're so incapable of understanding my position that they think they must appear mysterious to me...in possession of something that I don't know but would want to. That's the only reason I can think of that explains why they never back up this claim of esoteric knowledge. They bring it up...then immediately act as if it was a big mistake to do so and they cannot reveal this truth until I believe as they do. Silly, right?

Someone tells me they love their mother and she was a wonderful woman. I've never met the mother, so this would be esoteric knowledge for them, wouldn't it? I can tell them scientifically that no, you didn't love her, and she wasn't wonderful. Love is just a useful biological illusion, and that whatever wonderful things she did were not wonderful, they are just normal, natural things that human females are programmed by nature to do.

Anyways, I read the quote...in full...and woof, where do I begin with that heaping mess? I had to look up who Mr. G. K. Chesterton was...and once I saw his time period, the quote made more sense. It reads like a man living in a world that he sees is rapidly disappearing from around him.

I think he's a bit futuristic. He once wrote a work of fiction about a time when Islam takes over Britain. Another novel of his had a scene which was inspiration for a scene in the novel/movie "Fight Club". He inspired Ghandi to strive for Indian independence from Britain. He described "political correctness" before Mao thought up the words. Lots of other stuff.

Do you want an honest reply to it? I'm guessing by your name you're a fan of his and I'm not inclined to drop a deuce on something that you shared in good intentions...unless of course, you want my honest opinion.

I wouldn't bother chatting if I didn't want your opinion, and I prefer honest opinions over other kinds.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think intelligent people in general should rise above the "prove miracles or supernatural to me" type of requests, because it's meaningless.

It's like me asking a certain QM interpretation proponent... "prove to me that an entity can be in two different places at the same time".

A slightly misleading simile; in the latter case, the claim is a conveniently intuitive simplification of what is known to be a more subtle situation for which the evidence is clear, objective, and unambiguously non-classical.

Claims of miracles or the supernatural generally lack one or more of those characteristics - which is why the evidence for QM is not considered supernatural or miraculous by those with expertise in the field.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think intelligent people in general should rise above the "prove miracles or supernatural to me" type of requests, because it's meaningless.

It's like me asking a certain QM interpretation proponent... "prove to me that an entity can be in two different places at the same time".

You either see it as a likely explanation or you don't. When we start with a hypothesis that deals with infinitesimal, or supernatural... the ideas of "proof" are reduced to a certain line of reasoning that you either accept or reject.

Is this a post in response to the OP? If it is, I'll say again...I don't know if the EKG is meant to be a "supernatural" truth or an entirely natural truth. The conversation never reaches that point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You make the Believer in the OP sound like a bit of a jerk. The way I see it is this. There is knowledge that can be gained through the senses. If you can read, think, see, etc., then if you're smart enough you will be able to learn all kinds of stuff through your senses. But there is also knowledge that is non-experiential in nature. I'll call this spiritual knowledge. For this, it doesn't matter how smart you are you'll never gain this type of knowledge as a non-spiritual person because spiritual knowledge can only be conveyed spiritually. It's almost like trying to describe colors to a man born blind.

Spiritual knowledge or spiritual truths was the subject of another thread I created awhile back. I don't remember if you participated or not dysert. If you didn't, and you could answer some questions, it would help a lot with explaining what you mean by spiritual knowledge...

Is this knowledge capable of being expressed in words? Is it capable of being expressed another way (like pictorially, mathematically, conceptually, emotionally, etc)?

If not, how is it possible that you can think of it? If you can't "think of your spiritual knowledge" how do you know you have it?

If you can express it, and someone else expresses a contradictory spiritual truth, how can you tell which of these "truths" is true?

 

[Dre Khipov]

A slightly misleading simile; in the latter case, the claim is a conveniently intuitive simplification of what is known to be a more subtle situation for which the evidence is clear, objective, and unambiguously non-classical.

Claims of miracles or the supernatural generally lack one or more of those characteristics - which is why the evidence for QM is not considered supernatural or miraculous by those with expertise in the field.

But the evidence isn't really the issue in this case. One can claim alien abduction and present some mutilation as evidence, for example. Evidence is generally secondary to explanation of any given event.

Sure, evidence will contribute to explanation, but strict empiricism won't get you very far in science. In science there are plenty of "supernatural" explanations that are simply wrapped up in "natural" language. Sure, we are not talking about super-human entities, but not all miracle claims center around these concepts. Some people make miraculous claims without any given explanation. This thing happened. I can't explain it, but most empirically-minded will not be pleased with the claim.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Is this a post in response to the OP? If it is, I'll say again...I don't know if the EKG is meant to be a "supernatural" truth or an entirely natural truth. The conversation never reaches that point.

That's the thing. People will always have explanations. Some choose the side of empirical consistency. Some choose to propose unconventional explanations. Take any course on philosophy of science, and generally there's a very clear demarcation problem when it comes to what should be considered scientific and what is not in terms of clearly definable concepts.

We generally take the pragmatic stance of "Well, great, it happened to you that seems to bend the laws of nature, but we choose to go with what we generally know about nature and say that there's probably better explanation than you give". It doesn't have to always be the case, but to save us all time debunking certain things, we generally tend to go with reality and pragmatic explanations of generally observable.

BUT, in itself it doesn't automatically rule out any given claim.