“Supernatural” as an empty, useless term
Here’s something I recently added to a paper I’m working on.
Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod in 1752; the religious condemned it as "the heretical rod."
[b]As late as 1770 religious scruples regarding lightning-rods were still felt, the theory being that, as thunder and lightning were tokens of the Divine displeasure, it was impiety to prevent their doing their full work.
In America the earthquake of 1755 was widely ascribed, especially in Massachusetts, to Franklin's rod. The Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of the Old South Church . . . expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "iron points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He goes on to argue that "in Boston are more erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! there is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."
--- White, A. D. (1910). History Of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. IV. Franklin's Lightning-Rod[/b]
There is an anecdote that the young student Max Planck was advised not to study theoretical physics because there was little left to be discovered. Planck, of course, later created the idea of the quantum. Later still, Einstein developed his theories of Relativity.
“Supernatural” means above and beyond the natural world. It’s a valid, internally consistent concept. It’s also an empty, useless concept because we do not know the limits of the natural. We do not possess the means of verifying that some phenomenon is, in fact, above and beyond the natural world.
We have yet to discover all that is possible. We may believe phenomena such as lightning, walking on water, riding a winged horse, or rising from the dead are phenomena beyond nature, but we cannot know it. In the past, we might have believed someone in Africa could not have a real-time conversation with someone in South America. We might have believed that we would never be able to ask a tiny handheld box for directions home. Today, mobile phones routinely perform both tasks.
Old Theology ontologies often include supernatural beings and places: Gods and demons, heaven and hell, Bodhisattvas and nirvana. New Theology has no use for the concept of the supernatural. Until we know for certain the limits of the natural universe, we cannot know if something is beyond its limits.
Benjamin Franklin invented the lightning rod in 1752; the religious condemned it as "the heretical rod."
[b]As late as 1770 religious scruples regarding lightning-rods were still felt, the theory being that, as thunder and lightning were tokens of the Divine displeasure, it was impiety to prevent their doing their full work.
In America the earthquake of 1755 was widely ascribed, especially in Massachusetts, to Franklin's rod. The Rev. Thomas Prince, pastor of the Old South Church . . . expressed the opinion that the frequency of earthquakes may be due to the erection of "iron points invented by the sagacious Mr. Franklin." He goes on to argue that "in Boston are more erected than anywhere else in New England, and Boston seems to be more dreadfully shaken. Oh! there is no getting out of the mighty hand of God."
--- White, A. D. (1910). History Of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. IV. Franklin's Lightning-Rod[/b]
There is an anecdote that the young student Max Planck was advised not to study theoretical physics because there was little left to be discovered. Planck, of course, later created the idea of the quantum. Later still, Einstein developed his theories of Relativity.
“Supernatural” means above and beyond the natural world. It’s a valid, internally consistent concept. It’s also an empty, useless concept because we do not know the limits of the natural. We do not possess the means of verifying that some phenomenon is, in fact, above and beyond the natural world.
We have yet to discover all that is possible. We may believe phenomena such as lightning, walking on water, riding a winged horse, or rising from the dead are phenomena beyond nature, but we cannot know it. In the past, we might have believed someone in Africa could not have a real-time conversation with someone in South America. We might have believed that we would never be able to ask a tiny handheld box for directions home. Today, mobile phones routinely perform both tasks.
Old Theology ontologies often include supernatural beings and places: Gods and demons, heaven and hell, Bodhisattvas and nirvana. New Theology has no use for the concept of the supernatural. Until we know for certain the limits of the natural universe, we cannot know if something is beyond its limits.
Comments (72)
Supernatural, interpreted as something extraordinary, elecits/begs one of two responses:
1. Revision of our theories pertaining to the supernatural event: Science [we could be wrong, back to the basics].
2. Maintaining the theories pertaining to the supernatural event, but hypothesizing an entity/being that caused the supernatural event: Religion [we're right, but now there's something else, god(s)]
Once you have reduced the understanding of lightning to science, you haven’t exhausted at all the understanding of the whole that happens. The same way, once you understand that the crocodile, that ancient Egyptians considered a symbol of divinity, is just an animal, you haven’t exhausted all the stuff connected to that experience. Once you have mastered all the features and characteristics of a letter (how many words, how much ink, how much paper, its weight and anything else measurable), you have understood nothing until you are able to understand its language, its content, its style.
Any material object can be understood in an infinity of ways, from an infinity of perspectives, that make it really infinite.
By reducing the fenomenon of lightning to what science is able to understand about it, you are making exactly the same identical error that you mentioned
Quoting Art48
The reasoning to be made is simple: if already happened in the past that people thought they had exhausted what was there to be known about certain things, while now we see that actually they had no idea of the infinite iceberg hidden behind what they considered all that we need to know, what makes you think that the same cannot happen in the present and in the future, even about the same things?
The fact that we don't know the limits of the natural doesn't matter - supernatural is a provisional term and its boundaries are easily understood and agreed upon and can be adjusted the moment our knowledge changes.
The best it could do is create little inferiors like us to give its existence some meaning but that would be like offering a dollar to the richest man/woman in the world to give him/her purpose. I cant see how that would work.
Words like supernatural, evil, god etc, are just manifestations of human curiosity about questions they can't answer yet. They are just emotive exaggerations, like:
Quoting Angelo Cannata
A large number of ways is not anything like an infinity of ways, but that's what humans do, including me, at times, we embellish, we dramatise, we exaggerate, we attempt to create excitement about what we don't know and coin emotive phrases like 'supernatural,' in the same way we create other fantasies like, superman/woman/boy/dog etc.
I think you are making the same mistake I already said:
Quoting Angelo Cannata
I accept your opinion, as your opinion and I am sure you return that accommodation. But that which manifests in reality and that which are mere manifestations of a curious human imagination regarding that which is currently misunderstood or is currently unknown, should never be conflated.
I am not suggesting we stop pursuing any new knowledge.
:up: :up:
Science can do without the term and just study phenomena, but then has to replace indistinguishable 'man and nature' with indistinguishable 'subjective and objective', or indistinguishable 'observer and observation'.
The notion of supernatural is predicated on the completeness of our knowledge bank - we must know all that is natural. In other words, omniscience in re the natural is a sine qua non. If not we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the supernatural and the natural we're ignorant of.
Since we're, to my reckoning, not omniscient, it would be gross error to label things/phenomena supernatural.; it could be that our knowledge of the natural is deficient.
This pattern of thinking squares perfectly with the god of the gaps idea, oui?
Here's the simplified version: a word has meaning by virtue of referring to something and not referring to other things. Thus if 'supernatural' refers to nothing, 'natural' refers to everything, and both terms lose their meaning. Thus science as 'the study of nature' simply becomes science as 'study'.
This seems problematic to me. Consider the term, "Shoreline". I think it is a useful term that designates the extent of an island. Yet it turns out on examination that its length is indeterminate because it is fractal, and it is constantly changing because of the tides. But this makes "island" an empty, useless concept because we do not know the limits. Better to notice the limits of ourselves and be content with some vagueness in our talk, because one cannot fit the world exactly in one's mind.
To deny meaning to "supernatural" is equivalent to claiming that "all is one" (all is natural), which, ironically, is very much the cry of the mystic.
Another way of putting this is to say that our ideas map the world, but a map is useful only to the extent that it leaves out all the fine details and radically simplifies everything. A road becomes a line, and the abandoned shoe on the verge is ignored.
I do not really see why this is a thread. Equally empty and useless? ;)
Do you also have this benevolent infection or do you really consider yourself as your 'handle' suggests, unenlightened?
Quoting unenlightened
What a bizarre and somewhat illogical concoction.
Are these three legs you concoct of equal status, do they provide equal contributions of strength and 'stability' via your tripod metaphor?
In your imagery man, is the equal of god. God is merely a tripod leg even though it is posited as creating the nature leg and from the 'ground dust' produces by the nature leg, god fashioned the man leg.
Surely god should get to be more that a mere leg in your tripod stabiliser and exactly what is it stabilising? Nature (the Universe). So nature is a leg used to stabilise nature? along with man (produced from nature) and god (who fashioned nature and man). Not a very logical concoction.
Quoting unenlightened
It is not possible to refer to nothing. It's a logical fallacy. 'Nothing' is a concept, where existence has no meaning, and therefore, it cannot be logically referenced. Supernatural does not refer to nothing.
I simply suggest that that which is supernatural, has never been evidenced in such a way that it stands up to scientific scrutiny.
I am prone to making emotive comments like 'the supernatural does not exist' or 'god does not exist,' just like anyone else is prone to emotive commentary but I will normally reduce that to something less emotive such as 'well, I am strongly convinced that the supernatural or/and gods don't exist.' If you push further then I will state my 'level of conviction indicator,' as the by now, well-known and emotive, 99.9%
The Wittgensteinian take on philosophy and language - words are empty, the are missing essences. Sunyata. They're like signs that point to nowhere!
BUT I think the idea of CURRENTLY 'above' what we accept as 'natural,' is a very valid and useful use/redefinition of the term. I am also attracted to stealing words from theism (sorry @Clarky) who has said that I am too disrespectful towards theists. Perhaps I am but they have been quite lethal towards nonbelievers in the past and still are in far too many countries.
I would suggest something like this:
could summarise that which I would currently label as supernatural.
If you listen to the individuals in this 'closer to truth' episode, then I would glean my list of supernatural or currently above what seems natural in classical Newtonian mechanics as:
1. Superposition.
2. Entanglement.
3. Quantum Tunneling
I am sure others could add to this list with 'multiverse, superstrings etc.
This could prise the word 'supernatural' out of the hands of the 'woo woo' peddlers and into the realm of 'science that we don't know enough about yet.' Waddyaallfink?' I can hear the click and whirs of many weapons starting to reposition toward my direction. Do I have any defenders?
Your statement here is performative contradiction. Go and ask your bank what it means to have nothing in your account, and they will explain it to you.
Quoting universeness
Yes, that is depressingly normal. So if the supernatural does not exist, it seems to follow that everything is natural. And this means that the term 'natural' does not make a distinction such that some things are natural, and some things are supernatural. And that means that in saying X is natural, one is not saying anything about X. One simply cannot have one half of a distinction and not the other half - left without right, true without false, this is how concepts work, by carving the world up.
Saying 'everything is natural' is equivalent to saying 'everything is', and the term 'natural' adds nothing, because it has no meaning. But you continue to use the term as if you are saying something profound, and as you say, deeply felt. It's not your fault, it's the result of the religious thinking out of which science was born and which it now usurps without much understanding.
If you would like to make a small adjustment that would save the situation at almost no cost to your scientistic philosophy, you simply say that you have no knowledge of the supernatural. This is called 'agnosticism', and allows you to be sceptical of other folk's claims about the supernatural and yet keep the meaning of the natural world coherent. At this point, the supernatural does indeed become 'whereof one cannot speak', but one cannot speak to deny or affirm.
What do you consider "new theology"? is there an example of a new religion?
Quoting Art48
sounds logical, but we know it's impossible to reach the ends of the universe and fathom beyond smallest thing which is singularity.
Your argument proves only that supernatural does not mean unknown natural.
@universeness
...Therefore you are wrong because you limit supernatural to undiscovered natural without knowing the limits of natural, no?
For starters...
Healing lepers: Dapsone + Clofazamine + Rifampicin
Curing blindness: LASIK/Cataract surgery/Corneal transplants
:snicker:
If you define "miracle" as something that only God can do then you might have a point.
otherwise the closest you can get with this is that somehow Jesus was a doctor few thousands year ahead of others or that there was treatment that is now lost in time.
Pretty much. The idea of the supernatural is simply phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature.
Can anyone demonstrate the existence of a single supernatural entity or phenomenon?
from Wiki:
The supernatural is featured in folklore and religious contexts, but can also feature as an explanation in more secular contexts, as in the cases of superstitions or belief in the paranormal. The term is attributed to non-physical entities, such as angels, demons, gods, and spirits. It also includes claimed abilities embodied in or provided by such beings, including magic, telekinesis, levitation, precognition, and extrasensory perception.
I am not aware of any evidence that establishes the truth of any of the above. I wouldn't say that there is no supernatural, but I would say there is no reason to believe such claims until there is good reason.
For those jokers who think that you can't use the term supernatural because we don't know the limits of nature, we can simply turn that around and say no theists can also know there is a god until they know the limits of nature and can properly rule out that what they call creation isn't just an entirely natural phenomenon.
Glad you asked.
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf
The natural order of things more or less maintains that EVERYTHING that exists has to obey certain laws. If something was able to do things that broke these laws it would be something beyond the way we currently understand them. However even if we didn't understand how such phenomenon worked it wouldn't necessarily mean that they are "supernatural".
Take for example the phenomenon of ghosts. Many people through out the world report seeing ghost and sometimes they even manage to take photographs of them. Even if they do exist, their existence may not break the natural order of things if somehow their existence can be understood and explained through scientific means. However even if they can be understood, there is a decent chance that such phenomenon happen through means that different than how we currently understand how we understand natural phenomenon. For example are they created somehow through the process of when someone dies and some residue and/or energy from that person still remains and can interact with the world around us or are they somehow created through through our own minds through something like our own psychic abilities. If either of these where true it would likely result in the rewriting of how we currently explain "natural" phenomenon.
Another example would be the existence of "magic". As far as we know "magic" does not exist (other than sleight of hand or other tricks), but if it did exist it and we would require us to change how we understand and explain natural phenomenon.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is there is a grey area of science were we kind of understand and explain things as well as things we really can't understand or explain things that well. In this area there very well may be phenomenon that borders what we today consider to be natural phenomenon and phenomenon that behaves in a way things that we use to consider to be "supernatural" such as ghosts, magic, etc.. Because of this difference between the two phenomenon it is still kind of important that we reserve the word "supernatural" for things that are beyond how we currently understand them.
While it is true that as time goes on we may be able to understand certain phenomenon that can not be explained with how we currently understand them and may even be able to produce technology that utilizes the processes that enables such phenomenon to exist, it is important to understand since we currently don't know how and or why they exist that they are phenomenon that are currently beyond our understanding and their existence could change the way we look and understand the world around us.
I hope you understand this and can appreciate this distinction between what is classified as natural and "supernatural" phenomenon. While "supernatural" phenomenon may not actually be "supernatural", it is different enough from what we consider to be natural phenomenon for us to make note of such a differences.
thanks, interesting book.
this proves atheism with the help of science is forming a new religion.
No, it's not my statement that's a performative contradiction, it is a statement such as 'nothing is something' or the concept 'nothing' exists. Just like the term 'solipsism' is a performative contradiction.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, correct! Including all knowledge that humans have yet to discover!
Quoting unenlightened
This just seems like desperation to hold on to your own attraction to or need for the supernatural.
Are you afraid of oblivion after you die when you have no knowledge of it before you were born?
Quoting unenlightened
I don't mind the term 'agnosticism,' it's an advance from theist or theosophist etc but it's too weak for me as my level of conviction is much higher than the average agnostic. Atheist for me, is a much more accurate label. I am sure you also reserve the right to choose labels that best fit your viewpoints no matter if I or/and others might judge them to be logically challenged.
Right back at you, as we don't know the limits of 'natural,' so we think
Quoting SpaceDweller
We don't know such is impossible because we can even clearly define what such IS yet.
I agree with all you typed here Tom :up:
I think i more or less agree. Modern religion is having a hard time trying to prove that any "supernatural" event and/or being isn't anything more than any other natural phenomenon that we currently experience but just beyond how we currently understand them. In other words it is a given that things that we considered to be gods, "God", etc. always have some little man hiding behind a curtain pulling levers masquerading to be something beyond our world yelling at us to not look behind the curtain.
However, there is still a chance for us to be in awe of even natural phenomenon if it involves something well beyond our means of understanding of the world as we know it. For example the phenomenon of UFOs seems to suggest that there are aerial vehicles that are sometimes in our sky and are produced by technology that we currently can produce. Even if such things are not produced through "supernatural" means, understanding their existence better than what we currently do could create a paradigm shift in how we see the world around us. While such a shift would not be in the order of something like a real "supernatural" phenomenon, it is almost on the same level.
The winged horse does exist (in stories) but just isn't real.
Seems to me the word "supernatural" can more or less be replaced with "unknown" without incurring any informative loss.
As an explanation, when has "supernatural" ever done away with ignorance/errors?
This could benefit from some unpacking. UAP's are not known to be vehicles - that is assuming too much. They are, as the acronym spells out; unidentified areal phenomenon. And there may be a range of different explanations for different sightings, many explanations being terrestrial.
And here's the thing - you mention how they might lead to a paradigm shift. How might that be? Firstly, there is an assumption here that we are seeing technology which is advanced and potentially not human (or some similar narrative). And for the paradigm shift to take place, we would require physical proof or some other physical interaction that provides us with a fuller understanding of what UAP's are. In other words, good evidence.
I have often wondered if we can count UAP's as supernatural (remembering the word is not a philosophical term but more a common usage, or journalistic term). If UAP's are found to be able to defy the laws of physics, then maybe.
I didn't read it that way. The OP states the supernatural is an empty useless term, but the existence of the supernatural isn't necessary for the term to have meaning or use.
If the world consists entirely of X and only X and we speak of there being exactly two categories of X, X(a) and X(b), and we learn there are no X(b)s, we can cease referencing to X(a) and just say X. If howevee we continue to refer to X(b), even just to declare it doesn’t exist, it has usage and meaning.
‘Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature’ ~ St Augustine
Filing away.
Well, I am certainly not immune to misinterpreting the meaning of others. Clarification from the source is usually the road to solution of such misinterpretation.
I think I have been clear in my typings that I think it is a useless term when it is used to refer to woo woo. But I think it could be a useful term if it was disconnected from woo woo.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by the 'existence of the supernatural,' so that it can be clearly understood what alternative 'meaning or use' the term can have in your opinion.
Quoting Hanover
I find this confusing if your X = 'natural' as X(a) and X(b) would then have to be subcategories of natural.
Surely the contest is between x=natural and y=supernatural.
If y doesn't exist, then sure you can still reference it as a nonexistent, just like winged horses, orcs and elves or the word nothing.
@unenlightened exemplified not having money in your bank account as a possible use of the term 'nothing.' But having no money does not negate the existence of money just like having an empty tin of beans does not mean beans don't exist in the same way as the literal term 'nothing,' which is logically self-contradictory. Logically, 'nothing,' cannot have a reference to it.
Why do you keep referring to it?
So as what we know of nature expands, so-called miracles disappear.
Case in point: lightning.
However, there are some who would insist that natural things need not be caused, rejecting the principle of sufficient reason, attributing the existence of all naturally occurring things to some random fluctuation or a similar random event in a chaotic pool of randomness. But this approach stipulates that nature is inherently unintelligible, having no reason or cause for natural existence. Therefore it is counter-productive to the philosophical mind, which has the desire to know, extinguishing the desire to know by designating knowledge of this cause as impossible. I.e., there is no such cause. So such a position is extremely repugnant to a philosopher. And philosophers readily accept the reality of the supernatural as a logically necessary principle.
X = everything. X(b) world include the non-exustent, like elves, ghosts, and gods.
And so that's the point. The lack of a physical referent does not, as the OP argues, dissolve the term into uselessness. If it did, when you said "supernatural," I would look at you confused, as if you uttered gobblygook.
Don't read this as a suggestion that because the term supernatural is useful and non-empty that there must be elves. I'm not uttering objects into existence.
Which is why things which are not caused can't be empirically proved?
SUBTOPIC: Definition and conveyed Meaning.
?? et al,
[quote=”Art48”]
“Supernatural” means above and beyond the natural world.
[/quote]
[quote=”Angelo Cannata”]
Thinking of “Supernatural” as an empty, useless term is possible if and when you think that, by natural explanations, you are able to exhaust all that we need to know, essentially, about something.
[/quote]
[quote=”Tom Strom”]
The fact that we don't know the limits of the natural doesn't matter - supernatural is a provisional term
[/quote]
[quote=”universeness”] But that which manifests in reality and that which are mere manifestations of a curious human imagination regarding that which is currently misunderstood or is currently unknown, should never be conflated.
[/quote]
[quote=”Varde”]
Supernatural should refer to super nature, such as Stars and Solstices.
[/quote]
[quote=”unenlightened"]
Science can do without the term and just study phenomena, but then has to replace indistinguishable 'man and nature' with indistinguishable 'subjective and objective', or indistinguishable 'observer and observation'.
Thus if 'supernatural' refers to nothing, 'natural' refers to everything, and both terms lose their meaning.
To deny meaning to "supernatural" is equivalent to claiming that "all is one" (all is natural), which, ironically, is very much the cry of the mystic.
[/quote]
[quote=”Agent Smith”]
It looks like the supernatural refers to a class of things/phenomena that defies natural (read scientific) explanation.
[/quote]
[quote=”jorndoe”]
Seems to me the word "supernatural" can more or less be replaced with "unknown" without incurring any informative loss.
[/quote]
[quote=”Wayfarer”]
‘Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature’
~ St Augustine
[/quote]
(COMMENT)
The utility and definition (meaning) of the term "supernatural" is a matter of "context." The intention of the term is very dependent on what the communicator intended to convey and what the receiver of the communication actually understands.
I think, for the most part, all the contributors made some very thought-provoking commentary.
Excluding the introduction of "Dark Energy/Matter" and "Exotic Particles" or the duality (wave vs particle) concepts of the supernatural component, which most religions have, imply some tangible aspect (detectable energy) acting as a cause. IF you can "see" an apparition THEN there is some form of energy involved. That is true even if the energy is divinely inspired. And that is where the natural laws of the universe become ensnarled. The Abrahamic Religions have foundational beliefs that involve the supernational (and sometimes alchemy). In Matthew 14:13-21, there is a description of a compound event in which both the supernatural and alchemy seemed to have been enterlaced.
____________________________________________________________
CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT NOTES
David Hume defined the term "MIRACLE" as a violation of a law of
nature by a supernatural agent. (Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion Copyright © 2010 Charles Taliaferro, Elsa J. Marty and contributors, pp151 )
SUPERNATURAL From the Latin super, “above” and natura, “nature.” Refers to God or gods or incorporeal agents such as angels or demons. Because “supernatural” is sometimes associated with the “superstitious,” some use the term “supra-natural” to refer to God and/or other realities that are beyond corporeal, cosmic agents. (Dictionary of Philosophy of Religion Copyright © 2010 Charles Taliaferro, Elsa J. Marty and contributors, pp222 )
COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE [astronomy] (1) The universe is uniform, homogeneous, and isotropic* (2) The presence of intelligent life on Earth places limits on the many ways the universe could have developed and could have caused the conditions of temperature that prevails today.5 (3) Our existence necessarily puts some constraints on the evolution of the universe.^ (4) Associated anthropic coincidences support the thesis that God exists and does not support supernaturalism."
(Dictionary of scientific principles / by Stephen Marvin Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp60)
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE [astronomy, genetics](Brandon Carter, b. 1942; theoretical physicist, British mathematician) (1) The nature of the universe is constrained because of our presence as observers. (2) Life, even if abundant on many worlds, is only an infinitesimal portion of t h e cosmos. The presence of intelligent life on Earth places limits on the many ways the universe could have developed and could have caused t h e prevailing conditions. (Dictionary of scientific principles / by Stephen Marvin Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp9)
Most Respectfully,
R
To illustrate the point!
Many people constantly reference nonexistents such as god or ghosts or winged horses.
They are constructing or relaying a fable or they are trying to convince others that a nonexistent exists.
In my case, I am trying to convince others that nonexistents don't exist based mainly on the logical inference of the term.
I think you assign arrogant status to humans. I am not convinced 'nature' cares about the 'state' or dissatisfied status of the philosophical or even the scientific mind. I think you need to demote humans a little in their role in the natural world. The Universe may contain many intelligent species.
Science does not insist 'natural things need not be caused'
Sentient life did have a cause on this planet, science does not know exactly how that happened yet but perhaps they will in time. Many in science argue against the idea that the natural universe needs a FIRST CAUSE.
Philosophers will simply have to 'suck up' their feelings of repugnancy until science can provide them with more of the knowledge they seek.
You'll be telling us next that the pope is Catholic and bears shit in the woods. :cool:
Ok, so what's wrong with attempts to redefine/restrict the term supernatural as a reference to 'that which science cannot yet offer an answer to.' The word would signify a solution that is CURRENTLY above the capacity of science but the solution IS part of the natural world the solution is not UNNATURAL, in the sense of god, commonly and ridiculously imo, described as 'outside of space and time.'
The Pope is the inheritor of the residue of the Roman empire and represents a very rich, very sinister organisation. As for bears, they shit anywhere they like!
If you see the contents of my posts on this thread as obvious truths then, I am happy that your fog has cleared.
Sadly not. That nonexistents don't exist is fairly obvious, but it is equally obvious that you can refer to them, because you keep doing so.
Why does your opinion that I am wrong in my main viewpoint on this thread make you sad?
The opinion you are expressing does not make me sad.
Quoting unenlightened
We were discussing the logic of such references, not the human ability to utter or type such references.
I take it that you are quite familiar with people making utterances or typing that which you deem illogical.
You have already suggested you place me in such a category based on my typings on this thread.
We are both ok with that, yes?
Quoting universeness
Sadly, it seems you are. I can only leave you to your nonsense at this point.
Btw, for me, X= everything is synonymous with X=natural.
It's a shame you experience these bouts of sadness. Yes, you have the power to leave me to your 'nonsense,' at this point. Do you consider such power, supernatural?
As I was saying earlier, one does not need to posit elves, angels or miracles. Rather, one posits human subjectivity as a moral dimension that is distinct from nature. This preserves the old meaning of the term "nature" as excluding the man-made, because humans have 'a higher nature'. Which is to say that we are not slaves to our physicality. At which point the miracle is that we can tend to the physical.
https://ashidakim.com/zenkoans/80therealmiracle.html
The miracle is to walk on Earth.
~ Nhat Hanh
In your nature/man/God division, the above distinguishes between nature and man, but not God. The God category though is the question of the OP, which refers to it as the "supernatural." It is clear what we mean by nature and by man, with a trip to nature being a trip to Yellowstone National Park and a trip to the man-made to Disneyland.
In common parlance, we mean nothing metaphysical by the nature/man distinction. We just note the two categories, even if ultimately humans are part of nature and Disneyland is as natural as a park.
Should I be stranded in the wild, unable to cross a river back to civilization, finding a fallen tree bridging the river would be a lucky event, with some debating whether it was a natural event and others supernatural divine intervention,, but whether it was man-made would be simply an empirical inquiry, looking for evidence of saw marks and the like.
The point here is that we do need to talk about elves and angels if we want to maintain the natural/supernatural distinction. Talk of the subjective and the moral only protects the supernatural for those who think it the result of something beyond humanity, not just a creation of humanity. The supernatural is beyond nature and humanity. That's just how we use the word.
Good point. Many theists and fans of supernatural ideas :razz: have a need to describe the world we live in as a miracle (manufactured by a cosmic consciousness or a god) which is foundational to their worldview. The advantage of this is that they can point to humans and nature and say, there's the 'proof'. Identifying actual miracles or supernatural entities (such a god/s) is much more problematic. :wink:
You mean like a coincidence?
Quoting universeness
I am not talking about whether nature cares, I'm talking about whether human beings care.
Quoting universeness
But the problem is the people who say that there is no cause, that it's a random occurrence. Whoever believes this will not seek a cause. And, if we agree the natural must have a cause, this cause must necessarily be something other than natural, i.e. the supernatural.
I mean to be able to reproduce something with the goal to prove it, we need to be able to cause whatever to have an effect.
supernatural may have a cause, but we can't cause supernatural.
:up:
I know what you are suggesting and that's my point. You are giving too much universal priority to what human beings care about!
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Natural must have a cause, yes, but the Universe does not need a FIRST CAUSE. So no supernatural required. If such as the Penrose bounce is true then that pushes first cause, way, way back. Existence of 'something' (probably energy) can imo be declared 'eternal.'
I see no reason why the theists can declare their god eternal and not in need of a first cause but science cannot offer 'eternal energy,' based on posits such as the Penrose bounce as also not in need of a first cause.
One can make the distinction because God. This is the story of the enlightenment. Leave God out of things, and then man is an animal indistinguishable from nature, and morals are 'subjective' aka. fiction. Meaning is lost and all the philosophers thereafter are trying to sort out the mess.
Quoting Hanover
No, not at all. This is the materialist's finest folly, to look for the supernatural in nature and then declare it absent. Man is the image of god in the world, and it is in the judgement, caring, and moral discernment of man that the supernatural is manifested in the world, not some sky god's thunderbolt, operating on tree trunks for the convenience of the traveller. It is the intrusion of moral awareness into material sensitivity that is the unnatural miracle.
If the universe is natural then it must have a cause. If all natural things are within the universe, then the cause of the universe, not being within the universe, must be supernatural.
Quoting universeness
You said "natural must have a cause". If something is eternal, like your proposal of "eternal energy", then it does not have a cause, and it must be supernatural.
Energy is a concept, the capacity to do work. It is a potency, or power, which is attributed to moving things. As such, it is not an actual part of the universe, it is supernatural. So your offer of "eternal energy" is just an alternative form of "the supernatural".
If you insist! Let's make the Penrose bounce the cause. (much better than the god or supernatural (outside of space and time) posit imo.) So if you insist on a cause for THIS Universe then the answer is, a previous universe and that can regress eternally.
If you insist on a trigger for that cycle then I can offer you a mindless, no longer existent, spark, as opposed to any still existent divine spark.
If you insist that my 'mindless spark,' should be labeled 'above' or 'beyond' or 'super' natural then I can live with that single use of the label supernatural as something which has never had any significance in THIS universe, but may have been the mindless trigger of the cyclic universe reality.
So stating that the label supernatural has no existence in this universe is correct.
I find this much more convincing than any god posit but I still can't prove it's true.
Quoting universeness
This is exactly what I rejected, for the reasons I explained.
Ok, suffice to state then that I don’t find your reasoning convincing.
I agree. "'Supernatural' as an empty, useless term!" :smile: