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?
This will be like watching a lesson in Macremé (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macram%C3%A9), have at it folks :)
The natural can be explained. The supernatural is inexplicable hocus pocus.
To be asupernatural is to be a naturalist.
Quote from: Sophus on June 14, 2011, 10:42:15 AM
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Quote from: hismikeness on June 15, 2011, 12:15:22 AM
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.
:D
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
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.
Quote from: Nimzo on June 14, 2011, 10:00:02 AM
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.
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)
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".
Quote from: leedan on July 06, 2011, 04:05:44 AM
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.
I've heard this type of argument before. It is something to the effect of, since our minds are made of physical stuff and our perceptions are products of physical stuff. Then anything we think, imagine or dream is natural stuff rearranged. This would make it impossible to imagine anything truly "supernatural".
Quote from: leedan on July 06, 2011, 04:05:44 AM
It is inevitable that what we perceive to be supernatural will become evident.
Translation:
The supernatural will become "Clearly revealed to the mind or the senses or judgment"
That's nice, will the wicked be punished?
I think there's a real problem with what supernatural would mean in a natural world. Is it something that's not part of the natural?
Do people who believe in the supernatural see their thoughts as being that? ???
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on July 06, 2011, 05:21:14 PMThat's nice, will the wicked be punished?
With whips and hand cuffs and leather suits. :D
Rea
Quote from: Tank on July 06, 2011, 08:13:58 AM
Quote from: leedan on July 06, 2011, 04:05:44 AM
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.
It is natural for us to imagine, dream and hallucinate. I have noticed all kinds of variations in the thought process of all humans. No one is immune including myself. Reasons for these (mal)functions have yet to be discovered. For now we classify some as supernatural.
Quote from: leedan on July 09, 2011, 01:41:23 PM
ReaQuote from: Tank on July 06, 2011, 08:13:58 AM
Quote from: leedan on July 06, 2011, 04:05:44 AM
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.
It is natural for us to imagine, dream and hallucinate. I have noticed all kinds of variations in the thought process of all humans. No one is immune including myself. Reasons for these (mal)functions have yet to be discovered. For now we classify some as supernatural.
I don't see/understand why, in the absence of evidence, why any phenomenon could be attributed to a supernatural agent? It makes no sense whatsoever.
As humans, we have an instinctively dualistic view of matter and spirit. Even though we have discovered scientific/natural mechanisms for specific thought processes and emotions, it is difficult for us to conceptualize our minds on the chemical level. Evolution can provide explanations for why our brains have evolved this way, but it is difficult for us to relate to nonetheless.
I think this is part of the reason religion exists in the first place. We're the only species (supposedly) who has evolved to think this way, and we're arrogant enough to assume everything in the universe is subject to the same dualism that we are. Our concept of the supernatural is our projection of our need to personify nature and thus make it subjective like we are.
In other words, we've evolved enough as a species to be able to question these things, but we haven't evolved enough to understand everything in the universe yet. The combination of those conditions frustrates us, so we use our mind to create reasons for those events we can't explain. Knowing that something is unexplainable to us simply because we haven't yet reached an explanation doesn't fulfill our intellectual desire to be right. We want the unanswered to be answered in our lifetime, so its comforting if we can assume what is unanswered is controlled by a supernatural force. Supernatural is therefore anything we give up on explaining. Explaining things through science takes a long time.
Quote from: Tank
I don't see/understand why, in the absence of evidence, why any phenomenon could be attributed to a supernatural agent? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Let me clarify, and sorry for being away so long, but for people like you and me the "supernatural" simply does not or should not exist. Its presence in the minds of others, although very disturbing, is proof of its relevance. I can imagine all kinds of reasons for this but still the question remains.
Sometimes I wish I could have had the experience of illusion that some take so serious that it affects their lives. Hearing personal accounts makes me feel as if I'm missing out on something. The confusion becomes escalated when listening to someone near and dear to me. How can a seemingly rational individual with intelligence and perseverance become totally engrossed in ideals of the supernatural?
Don't get me wrong, I have been a skeptic since childhood and my conviction towards atheism grows stronger with age. I am optimistic that science will prevail once we are able to manipulate matter and energy. Religion and the supernatual will become a fallacy .
Quote from: leedan on July 18, 2011, 06:54:21 PM
Quote from: Tank
I don't see/understand why, in the absence of evidence, why any phenomenon could be attributed to a supernatural agent? It makes no sense whatsoever.
Let me clarify, and sorry for being away so long, but for people like you and me the "supernatural" simply does not or should not exist. Its presence in the minds of others, although very disturbing, is proof of its relevance. I can imagine all kinds of reasons for this but still the question remains.
Sometimes I wish I could have had the experience of illusion that some take so serious that it affects their lives. Hearing personal accounts makes me feel as if I'm missing out on something. The confusion becomes escalated when listening to someone near and dear to me. How can a seemingly rational individual with intelligence and perseverance become totally engrossed in ideals of the supernatural?
Don't get me wrong, I have been a skeptic since childhood and my conviction towards atheism grows stronger with age. I am optimistic that science will prevail once we are able to manipulate matter and energy. Religion and the supernatual will become a fallacy .
The bit I have bolded is the bit that resonates with me. I cannot comprehend why some people put so much value in wishful thinking.