Natural and Supernatural

[student738]

If it is the case that were a broadly Islamic God exist, this God would be natural, it would seem that the claim, "The natural world is all there is," is largely uninteresting, or at least less interesting than it might otherwise be.

Similarly, if it is the case that were ghosts, ghouls, goblins, "spirits" or demons to exist, such entities would be natural, the claim, "The natural world is all there is," is not at all as strong a claim as it seems intended to be, or commonly taken to be.

More generally, its happening that a genuine violation of natural law occurs, it seems, should not be considered to be within the domain of what is natural. While perhaps it is quite unlikely or even impossible for any of us as we are now to come to know that a violation of a natural law has occurred, it certainly seems that it is possible for such a violation to occur; this is to say, it seems quite clear what it would be for a natural law to be violated, and what it would be to perceive a natural law to have been violated.

From the opposite approach however, it also seems quite difficult to produce a definition of what is natural which is satisfactory and comprehensive. For example, we might suppse that there are numerous parallel universes to our own, entirely unaccessible to our senses or any extensions of enhacements thereof (e.g. scientific instruments). Yet, if such universes exist, by traditional (perhaps vague) understandings of what might be supernatural, it seems incorrect to consider such parallel universes to be supernatural.

Perhaps we must seperate our definitions from influence by our traditional religious and folk-based understandings of what is supernatural and what is natural. Perhaps this can be done by making more common (again?) the employment of the term, "preternatural", if by "preternatural" we can mean, "natural, but having the appearance of being extraordinary or strange".

[freeth1nker]

I see no necessity for that. If the Islamic God, ghosts, ghouls, goblins, spirits, and demons, existed, and they are by nature (no pun intended) "supernatural", then it would suggest the existence of a supernatural world. Consequently, the law that "the natural world is all there is" would have to be false. If the latter is true, then they can't exist. It's that simple, as I see it. This isn't a matter of semantics.

[student738]

"...and they are by nature (no pun intended) "supernatural""
What I am trying to establish is first that within the domain of what is natural we would not include "a broadly Islamic God". That is, generally, whether we allow it is even possible that there exist things or even entities which are not natural, i.e. which are supernatural.

Your statement agrees with this position, that it is inappropriate to exclude the possibility by definition. I agree.

"This isn't a matter of semantics."
I raise this issue because I have found in some threads (and in discussions elsewhere) what seems to be the suggestion that anything which is real is by definition, natural. I do not believe that such a definition would be appropriate and as I understand your reply, neither would you.

But I still believe that my second point has merrit, perhaps at least in the case of a demon -- a demon as it was in medieval thought -- were such a thing to exist, whether it would be appropriate to consider it to be supernatural.

Such a demon was, as I understand it, considered to be a very sensible, tangible entity. It could speak, it had will and desire, it had tough skin and sharp claws. It could kill, it could kidnap, and it could have sexual intercourse with a woman alone in her bed at night.

Tradition would have it that such an entity, were it to exist, would be supernatural, but for all practical purposes it seems it would be very much within the domain of what is natural. It would be very much accessible to our senses in a completely straightforward way.

I wonder the same thing with the lower gods of various religions. These beings, while tradition would have it that if they were to exist they would be supernatural, they would in many cases very much accessible to our senses.

[freeth1nker]

Okay. I see what you are saying. But in those cases, calling them supernatural when they are clearly part of the natural world is just a misnomer.

[Keith Russell]

student738, it seems that you are tyring to claim that a thing undergoes a change when it is termed (or believed to be) 'supernatural', instead of 'natural'.

What, in your opinion, is the difference that makes the claims 'a broadly Islamic 'God' exists and is supernatural' more interesting to you than the claims 'a broadly Islamic 'God' exists, but is 'natural'?

I don't believe that what we call something changes it in any way. Whether I view something as 'natural' or 'supernatural' expresses almost no information about the thing; but a great deal of information about me.

If you wish to subdivide the universe into contradicting elements; into 'natural' parts, along with other 'supernatural' ones, the only question I can think to ask is 'why'?

K

[Starboy]

Guys it is all a word game. Anything that is discovered is natural. What else would it be?

Starboy

[Keith Russell]

Starboy, I agree that it is a word game. That's why I described it as such: "I don't believe that what we call something changes it in any way."

K

[student738]

It must be that I am not making myself clear, as I find I am somewhat disturbed by the resistance to discussing what it is I intend. I am not trying to put anything past anyone. Neither am I merely playing games with words. Surely there is benefit to be had by categorizing the objects of discourse. Am I failing to be clear due to a misuse of terminology? If so, please explain. I am admittedly somewhat lacking with the terms of philosophy of langguage. Although I do not here mean to discuss anything in that field. Perhaps this is the source of confusion?

I will attempt to clarify.

Keith Russell wrote:
"student738, it seems that you are tyring to claim that a thing undergoes a change when it is termed (or believed to be) 'supernatural', instead of 'natural'.
No, I certainly do not mean to suggest that our naming or categorizing a thing affects it in any way, substantial or otherwise. Whatever else you may think of me, I assure you I have more sense than that.

"What, in your opinion, is the difference that makes the claims 'a broadly Islamic 'God' exists and is supernatural' more interesting to you than the claims 'a broadly Islamic 'God' exists, but is 'natural'?
As I understand it, the term "natural" has traditionally and does still today specifiy a category of objects and entities which is sharply distinguished from the category of objects and entities termed, "supernatural".

It makes as much difference as does referring to the objects in front of me as I type this by stating, "keyboard, screen, wall, pen, mouse", than by static, "things".

Do you suggest that by "natural", it is meant wholly, nothing more and nothing less than that which is meant by "real"?

"Okay. I see what you are saying. But in those cases, calling them supernatural when they are clearly part of the natural world is just a misnomer."
And so would I be correct to take your position as being that what is meant by "supernatural" is at least that which is meant by "not real"?

Do you mean to tell me that when someone who is both an atheist and a naturalist states, "The natural world is all there is," that he or she does not specifically disavow the existence of a God or gods? Surely this does not do the claim justice.

I am asking for your position on nothing but the definition of those terms by which we categorize the objects of discourse.

I am concerned specifically with -- and perhaps this is where I have been unclear -- sentences of the form:
1) "If x exists, x exists within the domain of the natural world".
2) "If x exists, x exists within the domain of the supernatural world."

I had used this form specifically to avoid the confusion which now seems to be present.

When I say "the natural world", what I understand myself to mean is something akin to, "the sensible world", or perhaps, "that ameanable to scientific investigation".

I merely wish to clarify that our language -- our definitions -- are adequate to categorize the objects of our discourse.

An example:
I would say it is true, "If an unsensible parallel universe exists, it exists within the domain of the supernatural world". And yet in my asserting this I mean to make no claim as to the existence of any such parallel universe.

From the dictionary. "supernatural":
www.m-w.org (emphasis mine):
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

www.dictionary.com (emphasis mine):
Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English:
from 1913 webster (emphasis mine)
Being beyond, or exceeding, the power or laws of nature; miraculous.

[Starboy]

Student738, it seems to me that you propose that someone investigating reality make a distinction between phenomena by classifying them as natural or supernatural. Is this so? (I am assuming the answer is yes.) Fine then, if you propose the distinction, what sorting or testing criteria must one use to place phenomena in the natural or supernatural category and what is the purpose for doing so. In other words what explanation of reality are you proposing that requires such a distinction?

Starboy

[sodium]

My impression is that something is supernatural if naturalists think it doesn't exist, but people who aren't naturalists think it does.

Naturalists and non-naturalists come to different decisions because of the kind of arguments they find persuasive. Naturalists tend to like the scientific method and don't see any reason for believing in the existence of something if the scientific method can't give evidence for its existence. Non-naturalists tend to see faith as a good source of beliefs. They also tend to think that the world is ordered with humanity in mind.

But I don't see a clear, precise definition for what is natural vs. supernatural. Just two camps that come to different conclusions because of different methods.

[Magic Primate]

One precise difference seems to be that ultimately nature is regarded as a single system with universal laws according to naturalists, while supernaturalists hold that there are other, independent or semi-independent forces or agencies at work within this system ie. souls, gods, demons etc.

[Will I Am]

One precise difference seems to be that ultimately nature is regarded as a single system with universal laws according to naturalists,
..independent or semi-independent forces or agencies at work within this system ie. souls, gods, demons etc.

But my impression is that these all in turn belong to a “system”. There are usually hierarchies, and defined relationships. Obeying “universal” moral or para-naturalistic laws.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Will I Am
One precise difference seems to be that ultimately nature is regarded as a single system with universal laws according to naturalists,
..independent or semi-independent forces or agencies at work within this system ie. souls, gods, demons etc.

But my impression is that these all in turn belong to a “system”. There are usually hierarchies, and defined relationships. Obeying “universal” moral or para-naturalistic laws.

You could call them a "system" or you could say they were an explanation based on the interpretation of particular phenomena. In any case as far as a scientist is concerned the validity of your particular explanation and the interpretations of phenomena that they require depend on how much new phenomena it predicts that can be observed and how much phenomena it predicts that cannot happen that can and cannot be observed. The problem with all older explanations of reality that interpreted phenomena as ghosts, demons and the like is that it was mostly only useful for tucking little and big children into bed at night. It still serves that purpose to this very day. Who would want to hear the bedtime story of the little electron that could? It's not very comforting. But a story about a fairy that gives out money, or an angel that watches over you, that is a different matter.

Starboy

[student738]

Starboy said:
"Student738, it seems to me that you propose that someone investigating reality make a distinction between phenomena by classifying them as natural or supernatural. Is this so?"
I don't know that I am claiming that our investigation or reality warrants such a distinction. I am here suggesting merely that discussions about those things which may possibly exist warrants this distinction. I am not making an empirical claim.

To reiterate a point from my previous posting, when a person who is both a naturalist and an atheist states, "The natural world is all there is," I take him or her to intend that this statement be understood as specifically disavowing the existence of anything supernatural (roughly, "not natural", but probably more accurately "beyond natural")..

Yet I do not take him or her to mean additionally, "The natural world is all that may possibly exist."

Do you understand such claims differently?

Further, if a person making this claim does as seems to be suggested by others here mean, "The real world is all there is," or, "The real world is all that exists", I find this to be "a less interesting claim than it might otherwise be" were a distinction of the sort I advocate maintained. I say this, because if this is the claim being made, it is not at all clear to me how I am to take it to differ from the claim, "The existing world is all that exists."

From this basic distinction, I would tentatively add that a thing may be supernatural and yet affect the natural world. However, it may be the case that observations of such interactions can never, ultimately, justify or warrant our distinguishing between a supernatural cause and no cause whatsoever (an uncaused happening).

A similar issue arises in the case of justified or warranted belief in miracles.

[Starboy]

I think I understand what you are getting at. Those that make claims that natural and supernatural phenomena exist certainly claim that both types are real. In other words everything that is real is not natural but everything that is natural is real. And everything that is supernatural is not natural but it is real. Scientists, however would say that everything this is real is natural and everything that is natural is real and doesn't consider the existence of the supernatural. In other words scientists make no natural and supernatural distinctions between real phenomena since there is no scientific theory of reality that requires it. As far as I know it is only religious explanations of reality that require the distinction. In other words, for science at the moment natural == real and is one to one and onto and the supernatural is an empty set.


The Infidel claim: “The natural world is all there is”, may be viewed as a declaration that a distinction between natural and supernatural is unnecessary. That those people who propose such distinctions do so to introduce theories for which no real evidence exists that cannot be explained by much better theories that do not require a natural/supernatural distinction. I do not know if that was the intention of the Secular Web but that is my assumption. As for advocating the avid pursuit of philosophy, well I guess many that will read this already know my views about philosophy.

As for the exact properties of natural and supernatural, that would very much depend on the particular (religious) explanation that was being proposed that required the distinction and in general would not rule out the possibility of phenomena that could be categorized as both natural and supernatural. But this brings me back to the question, what particular explanation of reality are you proposing that requires the distinction of natural and supernatural? The particular explanation will have great impact on the properties of natural and supernatural and how phenomena should be classified.

Starboy

[student738]

Starboy said:
The Infidel claim: “The natural world is all there is”, may be viewed as a declaration that a distinction between natural and supernatural is unnecessary.
I will leave it at this. I believe we are still speaking at the level of theories and not of those terms and their definitions by which we may most benefically discuss those theories.

Yes, it certainly might be viewed that way, and it certainly does seem to be viewed that way within a particular group. What I am suggesting, given what I understand to be the traditional distrinction between the terms, as well as the multiple ordinary dictionary entries I cited, is that any distrinction which makes "supernatural" to mean by definition "not existing", is simply misleading. I do not mean to base this statement on the claim that the distinction is misleading about reality; it is not a matter of reality. Instead, I say this because I believe it coopts the traditional understanding of the meaning of the term when there is no good reason to do so. In fact, the only significant effect is to alter the meaning of previously neutral terms to favor that particular metaphysical theory prevalent amongst a particular group of persons.

And yet, while I do find this to be both counter-productive and misleading, now that these particular definitions have been affirmed by several to no objections, clearly I do understand what is meant here, and so I shall simply remember this when employing the terms in the future.

Given our significantly different understandings of the terms, clearly this discussion was not without benefit, and I thank you for humoring me.

I will respond to the question you left me shortly in a seperate post, as it seems to be a concern of others as well, and I specifically do not wish to give the impression that I am attempting to play some trick or another on others by cleverly manipulating words as has apparently been thought.

I simply desire clarity; how will we have any meaningful conversation if we do not know what the other means by the terms he or she employs?

[student738]

"But this brings me back to the question, what particular explanation of reality are you proposing that requires the distinction of natural and supernatural?"
At the moment I have no intention of advancing any explanation of reality; I thought I had made it quite clear that even if I were, such considerations are irrelevant to the point at hand.

However, intending to discuss justified or warranted belief as it concerns violations of natural law, merely the possibility, I find it to be entirely unacceptable if by "supernatural" I am forced to mean also specifically and always, "not existing". It is unacceptable, because discussing whether a thing of some sort may possibly exist should reasonably be expected to be undertaken without -- due to some peculiar definition of terms -- finding onself implicitly made to also be discussing -- no, affirming -- whether a thing of this sort does or does not exist.

"Is it possible within the domain of the natural world to be justified or warranted in believing -- not arising from some deception or deficiency -- that a happening has a supernatural cause as opposed to no cause at all (uncaused)?" It is hardly fair if by this statement I am forced to be understood, "...has a non-existing, non-real cause as opposed to no cause at all...".

What would you have me do?

[Starboy]

Originally posted by student738
What would you have me do?

Why do you ask me? It is your contrived problem. You present a definition of the supernatural that, as far as I know, almost no advocate of the supernatural would ever present and then you claim it causes you to have to make a choice and then you ask me to tell you what to do. It all seems very fishy to me.

Starboy

[student738]

"It all seems very fishy to me."

Does the bloody dictionary sound "fishy" to you?

I simply have to say, this is too far. You have completely ignored what I have said, what I have said repeatedly in the clearest of language possible. You are completely unwilling to respond to me in a rational or reasonable manner. Instead you continue to believe that there are conspiracies and trickery about in every thing I say.

The best you can do is to tell me that it seems "fishy"?

"\Why do you ask me? It is your contrived problem."
Do you mean to tell me that it is my "contrived problem" that you have choosen to coopt traditional and theory-neutral terminology to by definition presume the truth of a particular metaphysical theory? Are you so unsure of yourself that you are unwilling to permit the use of traditional and widely accepted theory-neutral language, instead favoring to redefine terms to presume the truth of your position by definition?

You are attempting to argue by definition. I am attempting to point out that our definitions must not make our arguments for us; instead, our terms must be sufficiently neutral so as to allow the discussion of competing possible explanations without a priori presuming the truth of any one.

How many times and in how many ways must I tell you that this has absolutely nothing to do with an "advocate of the supernatural". This has nothing whatsoever to do with advocating or advancing a particular explanation of reality. It has only to do with the possibility of discussing possible theories in hypothetical scenarios without presuming a priori the truth of any. I do not care whether you have adopted or endrose naturalism. I am not advancing or endorsing a competing possible theory. I am merely advancing the possibility for discussion of competing possible theories and the use of fair, neutral, traditional and widely understood terms to facilitate this.

"You present a definition of the supernatural that, as far as I know, almost no advocate of the supernatural would ever present and then you claim it causes you to have to make a choice and then you ask me to tell you what to do."
I see. A person neither would nor should consider not just claiming, but even asking and pleading that our terms not presume by definition the truth of what may possibly be discussed. It is unreasonable to except that a group not redefine terms to -- contrary to their widespread and traditional use -- presume by definition the truth of the metaphysical theory which at the moment is prevalent in this group.

In this case, I shall simply have to introduce new terms, and hope that they too not be similarly coopted by yourself or like-minded individuals.

[student738]

As you can tell, I am less than flattered by the numerous hintings, rumorings, and now your explicit, plain as day accusation that I am trying to trick something out of others by "word games", that I am purposely being deceptive, or that my asking and pleading is for something completely unheard of, especially when I can cite common usage in multiple dictionaries to my defense. Especially when I can cite the "motto" of the website hosting these forums to my defense. Especially when I have illustrated in multiple ways how the terms have been coopted and twisted so as to prevent the fair and open discussion of that which may possibly be the case without mandating that we a priori assume the truth of a particular one.

It's as though it is a group of fundamentalist Christians or creationists in a presentation of scientific research on the habitat of field mice, and every statement is made to end, "...and God made it so".

A distinction does not become "unnecessary" in light of new or alternative theories coming into favor. I fail to see the basis for such behavior, but if I were to posit a reasonable explanation, and proceed to base future behavior on this principle,

it would similarly be appropriate to define "capitalist democratic republic" to mean "that political/economic system which works best", and "state socialism" to mean "that political/economic system which doesn't work."

I know a few republicans who would like that one.

[wordfailure]

student738:

You seem to be offended that persons with beliefs in opposition to yours use language that reflects those beliefs. Using myself as an example, for me the distinction between natural and supernatural is between those things that exist outside of mind and those things that are merely products of mind. To suggest that I modify my language so as not reflect this distinction seems incongruous. What purpose would be served by hiding or obscuring the distinction? Seems like political correctness gone awry. What if I were to suggest that whenever anyone speaks of their gods they modify their language so as not to exclude the possibility that they don't exist? For example "It is God's will, if he exists...", or "We have a duty to God, if he exists, and our country..." Wouldn't you agree that this language would not reflect their beliefs at all? In fact, wouldn't I be attempting to impose my beliefs on them?

[Starboy]

Originally posted by student738
Does the bloody dictionary sound "fishy" to you?

student738, the dictionary at times also sounds fishy to me. But there is an explanation for it. The definitions in a dictionary reflect the common uses of words, not necessarily my use of a word or even the use of the word by those who are defined by it. Since this is primarily a Christian society, there are many definitions that have a decidedly Christian slant. Take the word atheist for example. There are many dictionaries that say it is someone that believes or thinks that god does not exist, whereas many here that call themselves atheists would not say that. Such a definition is what Christians think about atheists in general not what atheists think about themselves in general.

So even if your definition of supernatural is contrived remember that atheists didn't write the friggen dictionary, it was most likely Christians that did it and if you have a bone to pick about the definition take it up with them. I have no definition for supernatural because the only claim I make about it is that it is irrelevant. It is the religious that make claims regarding the supernatural. Why ask an atheist for the definition of something that they think is irrelevant? And why ask atheists about an argument that relies on that definition? Get real student738.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Originally posted by student738
As you can tell, I am less than flattered by the numerous hintings, rumorings, and now your explicit, plain as day accusation that I am trying to trick something out of others by "word games", that I am purposely being deceptive, or that my asking and pleading is for something completely unheard of, especially when I can cite common usage in multiple dictionaries to my defense.

student738, I am being nice to you. I am restrained from telling you what I really think about you and your ravings by fear of being banned again.

Starboy

[Keith Russell]

We are able to imagine things that do not exist. We are even able to convince others that they are real, and we might even sincerely believe in them ourselves.

Calling these notions 'supernatural' in no way makes them any less imaginary...

K

[wordfailure]

Keith Russell:
Calling these notions 'supernatural' in no way makes them any less imaginary...

Not applicable. Student738 seems to be objecting to usage of the word 'supernatural' as meaning 'not real' on the grounds that such usage is not sufficiently agnostic regarding the existence of a supposed world beyond detection of the senses.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by wordfailure
Not applicable. Student738 seems to be objecting to usage of the word 'supernatural' as meaning 'not real' on the grounds that such usage is not sufficiently agnostic regarding the existence of a supposed world beyond detection of the senses.

Student738’s tactics appalls me. They are tactics that I have seen employed by religious posters in the past. (S)he appears to have some very definite ideas as to what the supernatural ought to be, yet doesn't seem to want to come right and state them, but instead wants atheists to comment on what (s)he implicitly assumes. It is a backhanded way to get atheists to make statements about something they think is irrelevant. If student738 thinks that the supernatural is relevant then they have the responsibility to define the supernatural, list its properties, state how to reliably identify it and explain why the distinction is important for understanding anything. Otherwise we are discussing nothing.

Starboy

[Robert Anthony]

Originally posted by Starboy
Student738’s tactics appalls me. They are tactics that I have seen employed by religious posters in the past. (S)he appears to have some very definite ideas as to what the supernatural ought to be, yet doesn't seem to want to come right and state them, but instead wants atheists to comment on what (s)he implicitly assumes. It is a backhanded way to get atheists to make statements about something they think is irrelevant. If student738 thinks that the supernatural is relevant then they have the responsibility to define the supernatural, list its properties, state how to reliably identify it and explain why the distinction is important for understanding anything. Otherwise we are discussing nothing.

Starboy

Precisely. Student738, either clarify your epistemological stance with regard to the supernatural, or quit wasting people's time with stock religious dogma and empty rhetoric.

[Keith Russell]

student, thank you for answering my questions.

Yes, I believe that the set of objects which may correctly be termed 'natural', is identical to the set of objects which may correctly be termed 'real'.

You claim that there is a set of objects which may be correctly termed 'supernatural'--but I have yet to actually observe any of these objects.

Oh, I know their names: soul, spirit, angel, prayer, miracle, eternity, sin, absolution, demons, paradise, etc.

But, you have only a set of objects--a set categorized with labels (much like an empty file drawer) instead than objects.

You have a place reserved for these entitites, but you haven't yet shown me the actual items themselves, nor have you offered me any reason why I should believe that such 'things' actually exist.

K