Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is supernatural?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1 of 138 (131607)
08-08-2004 1:11 PM


Naturalistic science often comes under attack around these parts for failing to take into account "the supernatural", whatever that means.
So, what does "supernatural" mean? Obviously, "above nature", but that hardly sufficies to clarify the debate.
In this thread I'd like the people who fault science for ignoring the supernatural to define "supernatural" in such a way that it falls within the purview of science in the first place. For if the supernatural is not within the purview of science, how can science be faulted for ignoring it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jt, posted 08-16-2004 9:37 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 89 by mike the wiz, posted 09-10-2004 2:54 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 108 by jar, posted 09-12-2004 1:59 PM crashfrog has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 138 (131646)
08-08-2004 2:53 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 3 of 138 (132130)
08-09-2004 9:03 PM


Bump
I was particularly hoping Buz would contribute to this thread; he's routinely criticized science for ignoring the supernatural and conflated that with outright denial that it exists at all.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Glordag, posted 08-10-2004 12:19 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 5 by portmaster1000, posted 08-10-2004 9:56 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 54 by Buzsaw, posted 08-21-2004 8:46 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Glordag
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 138 (132189)
08-10-2004 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
08-09-2004 9:03 PM


Odd. For such a popular argument, you would think this thread would get a little more action. Perhaps if it was in the coffee house or something along those lines it would do better? Personally, I mainly just check the coffee house and F & B, as I have little time to participate elsewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 9:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
portmaster1000
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 138 (132551)
08-10-2004 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
08-09-2004 9:03 PM


Me too!
I had asked buzsaw a very similar question in the Why are there venomous snakes? thread. I was kinda disappointed that he didn't respond.
thanx
PM1K

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 08-09-2004 9:03 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 6 of 138 (134497)
08-16-2004 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
08-08-2004 1:11 PM


So, what does "supernatural" mean? Obviously, "above nature", but that hardly sufficies to clarify the debate.
I would define "supernatural" as an adjective which describes an entity which can exist outside of nature. Such an entity is not necessarily excluded from existing within nature, but retains the possibility of leaving nature.
For if the supernatural is not within the purview of science, how can science be faulted for ignoring it?
I don't fault science for not being able to examine something beyond its abilities. However, I do not think that science is the only way to obtain valid knowledge.
From the The nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science":
If God participates in the natural world, he becomes part of it, and amienable to scientific investigation.
Science is based completely upon the law of cause & effect. Where both the cause and effect cannot be examined, science cannot operate. By definition, we cannot examine causes that are supernatural, so when the supernatural is involved, science can't be.
From "The Mythical Bible":
I don't believe anything could convince me it was supernatural - it's not coherent with the definition of "supernatural" for such a being to be able to act in the natural world.
M-w online defines supernatural as: "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe."
The definition doesn't say something supernatural is outside of nature; it says it is of an order outside of nature. The order is outside of nature, not the entity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 08-08-2004 1:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2004 11:31 AM jt has replied
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2004 6:07 PM jt has not replied
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 08-23-2004 4:07 AM jt has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 138 (134671)
08-17-2004 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jt
08-16-2004 9:37 PM


but retains the possibility of leaving nature.
What does that mean, exactly? "Leaving nature"? I don't understand.
However, I do not think that science is the only way to obtain valid knowledge.
By what other means can one obtain knowledge that isn't indistinguishable from making stuff up?
By definition, we cannot examine causes that are supernatural, so when the supernatural is involved, science can't be.
But if the supernatural causes an effect, it ceases to be supernatural, by definition. It's stopped being "outside" of nature by choosing to take part in it.
I don't see how something can "flit" in and out of nature like walking in and out of a door. Either you're subject to the laws of physics in this universe, or you're outside of them altogether. It's simply not a coherent position to advance entities that can decide for themselves if the laws of physics will apply to them at that moment in time.
The definition doesn't say something supernatural is outside of nature; it says it is of an order outside of nature.
Right. Therefore, supernatural entities can't take action in our universe. If they could, they wouldn't be of an order outside the universe, and so they wouldn't be supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jt, posted 08-16-2004 9:37 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jt, posted 08-18-2004 2:12 AM crashfrog has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 8 of 138 (134850)
08-18-2004 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by crashfrog
08-17-2004 11:31 AM


What does that mean, exactly? "Leaving nature"? I don't understand.
In the same way that a human can enter/leave a lake at will, but a fish can't.
By what other means can one obtain knowledge that isn't indistinguishable from making stuff up?
By following scientific and rational principles as closely as possible for a given situation.
Either you're subject to the laws of physics in this universe, or you're outside of them altogether.
Take a lake. There are fish in the lake, and they cannot leave it; they are aquatic. The only things the fish can observe are those which occur in the water. Along comes a fisherman, who is capable of being outside the lake; he is "superaquatic." The fisherman is not affected by any of the causes in the lake, but he can cause a lure in the lake to move, with no cause visible inside the lake.
It's simply not a coherent position to advance entities that can decide for themselves if the laws of physics will apply to them at that moment in time.
What if one of the said entities created those laws? Couldn't that being be part of, or not part of, those laws it he wished?
Right. Therefore, supernatural entities can't take action in our universe. If they could, they wouldn't be of an order outside the universe, and so they wouldn't be supernatural.
Yeah, good point. I see what you mean by supernatural now, and your definition is aligned with the definition in the dictionary. Supernatural, as I understand it now, means completely seperate from nature. That is not how I concieve God, however, so I need another word.
For our debate I will define the word "preternatural" (although in reality it is a synonym of supernatural) as "an adjective which describes an entity which can exist outside of nature, but is not excluded frome entering nature in whole or in part." That is how I conceive God; so that is the concept I will be defending. I am quite sure you think there can be no preternatural being, but I will be more than happy to show you wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 08-17-2004 11:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2004 11:32 AM jt has replied
 Message 11 by lfen, posted 08-18-2004 6:37 PM jt has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 138 (134935)
08-18-2004 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by jt
08-18-2004 2:12 AM


In the same way that a human can enter/leave a lake at will, but a fish can't.
But neither of those groups are subject to different laws of physics than the other. In fact the laws of physics describe how humans can leave lakes just as well as they describe why fish cannot.
If supernatural entities exist, there must be laws of physics that describe their actions. If they can enter our universe, then the laws of physics that govern their actions are simply a set of physical laws in our universe we haven't discovered yet.
At that point, the so-called "supernatural" isn't beyond or above the laws of physics at all; it's just that the laws of physics are "bigger" than we thought they were.
The fisherman is not affected by any of the causes in the lake, but he can cause a lure in the lake to move, with no cause visible inside the lake.
But he's subject to the same laws of physics as the fish.
What if one of the said entities created those laws? Couldn't that being be part of, or not part of, those laws it he wished?
But that entity must have physical laws that govern its behavior.
I am quite sure you think there can be no preternatural being
By definition, there can't be. As soon as he's able to become part of the natural world, he is. The physical laws that govern his behavior become a subset of all physical laws; in other words, he becomes a part of our universe forever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jt, posted 08-18-2004 2:12 AM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jt, posted 08-18-2004 6:33 PM crashfrog has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 10 of 138 (135050)
08-18-2004 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
08-18-2004 11:32 AM


But neither of those groups are subject to different laws of physics than the other. In fact the laws of physics describe how humans can leave lakes just as well as they describe why fish cannot.
The fish/fisherman analogy was flawed; let me try another.
Say you are a game programmer. You create a virtual world, with a complete set of "physical" laws, and a bunch of characters running around. You could design a character for yourself, and program it appropriately so it would not be restricted by the laws governing everything else.
Whenever you wanted, you could create an instance of your character and take part in the world you created. If you desired, you could behave as if you were under the laws, and the other characters couldn't tell the difference. But you would also be able to behave without regard to the laws, and even delete the instance of your character and "flit" out of the world you created.
Does that make more sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2004 11:32 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2004 6:40 PM jt has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 11 of 138 (135053)
08-18-2004 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jt
08-18-2004 2:12 AM


Hey JT and Crash,
My analysis of supernatural would start with early experiences of unusual events and how people experienced or understood them. I think the concepts of natural and supernatural where in use long before science. If a two head calf was born for example that is so rare that it must have seemed like a "magical" event. Now science has explained many rare developemental defects. The same goes for certain events like lightning or strange clouds or winds. These these weren't day to day and so may have seemed supernatural. Also nature not being understood it was thought gods(s) controlled these things.
Then humans began to use the scientific method to explore and explain the world. The question is is if anything is left that falls into an unexplained and clearly unnatural catagory?
Western religions do seem to depend on something being supernatural as they claim that God is supernatural. I would like to suggest a third direction that of immanent and transcendent. Using the lake analogy with all the difficulties it possesses I would suggest that another mystery for fish might be water itself. Temperature, taste, smell, motion are all important but it's water that is so a part of a fish inside and out that it can't perceive it. Water here is a metaphor for consicousness. Instead of a supernatural god I am proposing god as consciousness and because that is how we know the universe we don't don't know it in itself. The eye sees everything but itself. This is a rough groping towards rather than a completed conjecture.
If this is outside your intended thread, Crash, give me the word and I will say no more here.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jt, posted 08-18-2004 2:12 AM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2004 6:42 PM lfen has not replied
 Message 14 by jt, posted 08-18-2004 7:20 PM lfen has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 12 of 138 (135055)
08-18-2004 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by jt
08-18-2004 6:33 PM


If you desired, you could behave as if you were under the laws, and the other characters couldn't tell the difference. But you would also be able to behave without regard to the laws, and even delete the instance of your character and "flit" out of the world you created.
Sure. "God mode", we call that.
But here's the thing. The game designer can't do that without adding special rules, or laws, just for himself.
That means what he's doing is still governed by the same law that governs the behavior of the other elements of the game; it's just that there's a subset of those laws that only he can take advantage of.
That's still not "supernatural", because he's in and of the same game world as everybody else, and subject to the same virtual laws of physics as everyone else. There's still one program running on one computer, and everything in it, including the designers character, is still a part of is and subject to it. Moreover another game character might be able to "discover" or model the additional laws that enable "god mode".
That's the case with every example of the "supernatural" you've described yet - it's not that they're above natural law, it's just that natural law has some additional laws we're not aware of that allow "supernatural-like" behavior under certain circumstances - circumstances that themselves can be examined and modelled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jt, posted 08-18-2004 6:33 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jt, posted 08-18-2004 7:28 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 138 (135057)
08-18-2004 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by lfen
08-18-2004 6:37 PM


If this is outside your intended thread, Crash, give me the word and I will say no more here.
No, i think you're getting right to my point.
Everything in history we've ever believed to be supernatural has turned out to be entirely natural; it's our understanding of natural law that has expanded.
So, in other words, how could we claim anything is outside of natural law when we don't yet know (and never will) the extent of natural law?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by lfen, posted 08-18-2004 6:37 PM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jt, posted 08-18-2004 7:33 PM crashfrog has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 14 of 138 (135072)
08-18-2004 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by lfen
08-18-2004 6:37 PM


My analysis of supernatural would start with early experiences of unusual events and how people experienced or understood them.
I agree that much of what was once thought to be supernatural is actually due to naturalistic processes, and I understand the possibility that what I believe to be supernatural is merely naturalistic phenomenon.
My belief in a supernatural God is mainly because I believe the new testament miracles involving Jesus to have actually occured, and Jesus claimed to be God. It is possible that Jesus was merely a being with access to more dimensions than we have access to, and was lying about being God. However, I think he told the truth, and I believe him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by lfen, posted 08-18-2004 6:37 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by lfen, posted 08-18-2004 8:37 PM jt has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 15 of 138 (135074)
08-18-2004 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by crashfrog
08-18-2004 6:40 PM


But here's the thing. The game designer can't do that without adding special rules, or laws, just for himself.
If the designer wanted, he could go through the game, pausing it each instant, and create an instance of himself however he wanted, without respect to any laws. Sort of like drawing special effects onto a film reel frame by frame. The special effects are subject to no laws, only the whim of the artist.
The point is, the designer, or artist, can do whatever they want. There are no laws in their respective worlds which they must obey.
Does that change things?

"People who think they know everything annoy those of that do" - t-shirt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2004 6:40 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2004 7:45 PM jt has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024