The Natural/Supernatural Distinction

[Nimzo]

This is really inspired by Tank's label of "asupernaturalist", and now that I'm over the 50 post threshold, he (and some of you?) may be interested in this question:

What is the "natural"?  What is the "supernatural"?

And underlying these questions is this one: Why is the distinction between natural and supernatural important, ontologically and epistemically?

[Tank]

This will be like watching a lesson in Macremé, have at it folks 

[Sophus]

The natural can be explained. The supernatural is inexplicable hocus pocus.

To be asupernatural is to be a naturalist.

[Nimzo]

The natural can be explained. The supernatural is inexplicable hocus pocus.

To be asupernatural is to be a naturalist.

Are these your definitions of natural and supernatural?

[Stevil]

Natural is interactive reality (that which is constrained by time, space and substance)
Supernatural is only constrained by not being natural, hence at least one of the natural constraints must be broken.

[Whitney]

Natural is anything that is constrained by the physical 'laws' of the universe.

Supernatural would be anything that could interact in the universe without having to obey physical 'laws.'


Example: 
Walking on top of the surface of deep water using boat shoes= natural
Walking on top of the surface of deep water water without any devices for support=supernatural

[Crow]

Read the dictionary and there is your distinction.

The distinction is important due to the fact that they do not mean the same things and not to be confused.

[hismikeness]

I think of it like this: You can have something that is 100% natural. I know- my peanut butter is that way. Something bragging about the fact it was 100% supernatural would be ridiculous.

[Sophus]

I think of it like this: You can have something that is 100% natural. I know- my peanut butter is that way. Something bragging about the fact it was 100% supernatural would be ridiculous.

[Too Few Lions]

I'd define 'natural' as pertaining to nature / the natural world / physical reality, and 'supernatural' as relating to things that appear to be outside of the laws of nature / natural world.

From personal experience I'd also say that I generally use the word 'natural' to refer to things that I can see to exist / a logical argument can be made for their existence, and 'supernatural' to things that I have good reason to believe don't exist, such as voodoo, gods, fairies, ghosts etc

[xSilverPhinx]

Once it can be detected in the natural world, it's not supernatural. Also, I think it's pointless to posit a supernatural explanation for natural events, since I see those as just interpretations that I can't disprove but have no legitimate reason to accept either. They're just as good as any other explanation that can't be detected or proved and so not conducive to valid knowledge.

IMO the natural and supernatural really only overlap in the human psyche, not in reality.

[Twentythree]

This is really inspired by Tank's label of "asupernaturalist", and now that I'm over the 50 post threshold, he (and some of you?) may be interested in this question:

What is the "natural"?  What is the "supernatural"?

And underlying these questions is this one: Why is the distinction between natural and supernatural important, ontologically and epistemically?

If I were to look at this question ontologically I would say that for something to exist it has to have a qualifier. I would assume that qualifier to be an indicator of existence, perhaps mass or energy. It seems to me to be virtually impossible to even imagine a something that is not made up of matter or energy or a combination thereof. Epistmically then, to know something or to have knowledge of something would have to mean that it is perceivable. Right, Can you know something that you have no perception of? If a something does not consist of matter or energy then it is unperceivable therefore unknowable. It is just my thinking of course but there is no logical way to explain supernatural. In a way I feel like supernatural is an unrealizable abstract concept not a type of thing.

[Asmodean]

Natural: Of nature. Not contradicting laws of physics or other natural laws. All observable and verifiable phenomena I know of classify as such.

Supernatural: Contrary to laws of physics or any natural law, unverifiable, largely unobservable. Many constructs of human fantasy classify as such. (ex: ghosts)

[leedan]

   It is inevitable that what we perceive to be supernatural will become evident. Everything is natural, we just don't understand it yet. Our wonderfull ability to combine logic and reason with imagination created the word "supernatural".

[Tank]

  It is inevitable that what we perceive to be supernatural will become evident. Everything is natural, we just don't understand it yet. Our wonderfull ability to combine logic and reason with imagination created the word "supernatural".

Not 100% sure about the underlined. My reason for scepticism is that humans have imaginations, dreams and in extremis hallucinations. So some of what humans perceive has no basis in reality, except as spurious (mal)functions of our minds.