Essence of Supernatural

Alerik the Fortunate · Post by **Alerik the Fortunate** » 2006-07-30 07:08pm

Azrael wrote:

What exactly is the point in taking words like "Normal" and "Natural" and putting meaningless prefixes like "Para" and "Super" in front of them? If Ghost, Gouls, Goblins, Extra dimensions and all that other Supercalifragalisticexpialinormal bullshit actually existed, wouldn't they be as natural as everything else in the universe and deifned by normal processes?

Isn't it implicit in the use of these prefixes the assumption that you don't know shit about the things that recieve these labels? Aren't you slyly admitting that you want a workaround to all that nasty proof and evidence necessary before you get to call an object/process a natural one without being laughed at?

This leads me to a question I've had recently. Is there a concensus on useful definitions of the supernatural? I assume anyone who has dealt with the concept has some operating definition of it, whether or not they believe in the existence of the supernatural or its validity even as a concept. Religious writers (creationists and apologetic philosophers even at different points along the fundie to contemplative spectrum) often deride as biased and immature a priori dismissal of the supernatural by scientists, skeptics, other philosophers, etc. Behe says so explicity in
Darwin's Black Box. However, I don't recall him giving any explicit definition of what constitutes supernatural.

I was just wondering if any passers by here at SD would contribute their own thoughts on the matter, or critique other presentation on the subject of which they are aware. If this has been dealt with before, then please pardon my ignorance and point out where I may best find more information. I do hope to get an interesting variety of responses.

Oh, I have consulted Webster on the matter. Brevity is the soul of wit, but not necessarily of comprehensive understanding.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-07-30 07:20pm

I thought the definition of supernatural was simply that which violates natural laws. Naturally, scientists reject the notion of the supernatural because if something appears to violate a natural law, then the correct scientific approach is to conclude that the natural law must have been slightly erroneous, and work on an improved version of the natural law which can explain the event.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2006-07-30 07:29pm

I HATE "supernatural" as a definition, it is incoherent and annoying. It is one of the reasons one of my more infamous internet aliases in yahoo is "aprioriantisupernaturalbias," as well as mocking the creationists that use it to assert people are being "closed minded."

I would think that if reality as we know it, i.e. the physical universe, were "editable" by an extension of reality that we don't know about, let us call it "heaven" or "the warp," then it would simply be another facet of the natural makeup of the universe. It would be magical, sure, bit it wouldn't be "supernatural." You can't go "above" the automatic state of existence in the hierarchy of existing things.

Essentially, what would be allowing God to do miracles or whatever would just be another bit of the nature of matter and energy. To use an analogy, imagine an untitled text document on your desktop. This document has in it an arrangement of letters and words. If you then open that document with a text editor and rewrite it to something you prefer, it is not "supertext" or "transcendence of the computer" that's involved, it would just be an application of the nature of the text editing software. Likewise, using magic in this universe, if it existed, would be in a similar category in relation to matter and energy instead of text.

Of course, such magic doesn't actually exist, but that category is much more consistent and straightforward than "supernatural".

SWPIGWANG · Post by **SWPIGWANG** » 2006-07-30 07:38pm

Supernatural is the UBER!

Supernatural is something that is impossible yet still happen.

Azrael · Post by **Azrael** » 2006-07-30 07:46pm

Well, I guess you already know where I stand, but just for fun I'm going to say it anyway; Paranormal, Supernatural and Bullshit are interchangeble, basically have the same meaning and if you just use the last third option instead of the other two, your sentences will carry the same message, and be more honest to boot.

Religious writers (creationists and apologetic philosophers even at different points along the fundie to contemplative spectrum) often deride as biased and immature a priori dismissal of the supernatural by scientists, skeptics, other philosophers, etc.

Of course. They want special treatment for their pet theories, none of which has surived peer review by other (*cough*real *cough*) scientists. I find it intresting that they color the scientific community's categorical rejection of the ParaSuperUltraNormal as "immature" even though the lot of them hold on to the 'truth' of their theories even when either no or very little evidence supports said theory or when a mountain of contradictory evidence stares said theory in the face. Well, tough shit boys. If the peer review system is good enough for GR, it's good enough for their bullshit.

Scientists would reject the supernatural for reasons darth wong already posted and because it is superfluous to the concept of what is natural. If Natural laws are defined by what we see happen in our environment and inter dimensional portals are a part of our environment, then in just what way are they "Super"?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-07-30 08:07pm

SWPIGWANG wrote:Supernatural is the UBER!
Supernatural is something that is impossible yet still happen.

If it happens then it can by definition not be impossible

I'm with Azrael and Mike. If something happens that ought to be physically impossible it doesn't transcend the laws of physics, it means them laws apparently don't work the way we think they did. There CAN be no such thing as the truly supernatural.

Alerik the Fortunate · Post by **Alerik the Fortunate** » 2006-07-30 11:54pm

I had recently come to similar thoughts on the nature of the "supernatural" as Rye has expounded; however I have not really pursued the matter in depth. The only way I can see retention of some form of supernaturalism is artificial restriction of the realm of existence we are allowed to perceive by higher intelligences conversant with the larger reality. Some Christians apparently believe this, a world literally controlled by demons, but I don't see retaining this and theism without resorting to God the Liar or some inevitable construct that ends up undermining all basis for Christianity again. This is entirely in addition to the evidence issue. Still, I need to put more thought into it. Just out of curiosity, are there any (self-professed) thoughtful enthusiasts of supernatural possibilities patrolling this net (please restrain the impulse to point out the apparently obvious oxymoron) that have not yet removed themselves by abject stupidity?

Alerik the Fortunate · Post by **Alerik the Fortunate** » 2006-07-31 12:02am

In short, the search goes on for genuine specimens of that rare creature, the truly questioning theist. If or when I completely reject any form of theism similar to that in which I was raised, I intend not to be open to a priori accusations of lack of thoroughness or closemindedness from the other side. It is my plan in the near future to revisit the local Living Word Fellowship and see what reasons besides glossolalia they have for their supernatural worldview. However, I want to have explored all related issues first so as not to have a serious enough vacuum to be filled with their FUD. I survived exposure to them once; it was painful, but I intend to use the second time to explore ideas more fruitfully, if that is possible. Any suggestions on how one might best prepare?

Alerik the Fortunate · Post by **Alerik the Fortunate** » 2006-07-31 12:07am

Though perhaps I ought best not to be inquiring for advice from those who are clearly the pawns of Satan?

::: )

(smiling spider)

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2006-07-31 06:31am

Darth Wong wrote:I thought the definition of supernatural was simply that which violates natural laws. Naturally, scientists reject the notion of the supernatural because if something appears to violate a natural law, then the correct scientific approach is to conclude that the natural law must have been slightly erroneous, and work on an improved version of the natural law which can explain the event.

That's the logical argument, that the supernatural is a pointless idea. However, the supernatural can be something that 'transcends' the natural world when a person's idea of the natural world is that it's a dogmatic, immutable worldview. Most people don't know of or understand science's continual process of improvement, and instead see it as bizarre and dishonest that a tribe's members can repeatedly 'betray' its code of truths and claim new truths.

E.g.

Men in Black wrote:"1500 years ago, everybody knew the Earth was the center of the Universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat... and 15 minutes ago, you knew people were alone on this planet. Think about what you'll know tomorrow."

Ignoring the true nature of science makes the idea of the supernatural easy. It's what has been suggested is true, but which conflicts with natural, scientific reality; i.e. them damn scientists say it's impossible. In fact, i think that terms like 'supernatural' are tacit admissions that proposed phenomena are more similar to fiction and imagination than reality. You might as well say 'the superreal'.

Desperately trying to reconcile supernatural phenomena with reality leads to 'the paranormal', where supernatural things really are a part of explorable reality, but the monolithic tribe of Science refuses to acknowledge them as real.