Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Definitions: Natural Vs. Supernatural.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Definitions: Natural Vs. Supernatural.

    I have gone around this issue a bit, and I still maintain that the definitions of natural and supernatural are so ambiguous as to be without meaning. Why can't a supernatural universe, for instance, be open to investigate with knowable laws and function? The problem is we have no way to compare these two ideas. Unlike with with most things we define, like a table or chair, there is no objective way to distinguish between supernatural and natural - it is a complete guess.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I have gone around this issue a bit, and I still maintain that the definitions of natural and supernatural are so ambiguous as to be without meaning. Why can't a supernatural universe, for instance, be open to investigate with knowable laws and function? The problem is we have no way to compare these two ideas. Unlike with with most things we define, like a table or chair, there is no objective way to distinguish between supernatural and natural - it is a complete guess.
    It's something I've seen taken up quite a bit on this forum. I believe Nick holds a similar view, and pre Enlightenment, there wasn't really a distinction. But I think the word "supernatural" is still useful if for nothing more than to distinguish between the processes of the natural world, and direct divine intervention in the natural world regardless of whether or not that divine intervention is purely through knowable laws of physics or some sort of mystical interaction. If you're using the word "supernatural" to mean something like "spiritual," or "divinity," then I think distinguishing between natural and supernatural is still useful in the sense that the natural explains those processes we can examine/investigate through natural means, whereas it seems it requires spiritual means to examine/investigate much of the spiritual realm.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      It's something I've seen taken up quite a bit on this forum. I believe Nick holds a similar view, and pre Enlightenment, there wasn't really a distinction. But I think the word "supernatural" is still useful if for nothing more than to distinguish between the processes of the natural world, and direct divine intervention in the natural world regardless of whether or not that divine intervention is purely through knowable laws of physics or some sort of mystical interaction. If you're using the word "supernatural" to mean something like "spiritual," or "divinity," then I think distinguishing between natural and supernatural is still useful in the sense that the natural explains those processes we can examine/investigate through natural means, whereas it seems it requires spiritual means to examine/investigate much of the spiritual realm.
      It is a useful short hand but for the reasons I stated it is no meaning - in the objective sense. I mean in what sense is this a natural world? Compared to what?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        It is a useful short hand but for the reasons I stated it is no meaning - in the objective sense. I mean in what sense is this a natural world? Compared to what?
        Natural in the sense that it can be perceived and examined by the physical senses I think.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          Natural in the sense that it can be perceived and examined by the physical senses I think.
          Natural to me would be that which is created and sustained by natural forces (non-intelligent forces of nature).
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            Natural to me would be that which is created and sustained by natural forces (non-intelligent forces of nature).
            I guess it depends on who you're asking then. An atheist is obviously going to refuse the notion that "nature" has anything to do with a creator/sustainer. And since most people in the sciences and philosophy disassociate their fields from the religious, you're probably going to be talking past people who use non-religious language to describe ordinary phenomena.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              I guess it depends on who you're asking then. An atheist is obviously going to refuse the notion that "nature" has anything to do with a creator/sustainer. And since most people in the sciences and philosophy disassociate their fields from the religious, you're probably going to be talking past people who use non-religious language to describe ordinary phenomena.
              But that is my point Adrift - they have no objective justification for their position. The distinction is arbitrary, philosophical.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                I think a theist could say "natural" means something like "consistent with the way things normally operate according to the laws of nature God has created". This leaves plenty of room for miracles and doesn't risk heading into the territory of deism. I think Christians who argue there is no distinction between natural and supernatural are promoting a position that they know deep down is indefensible.
                "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  But that is my point Adrift - they have no objective justification for their position. The distinction is arbitrary, philosophical.
                  I don't think it's arbitrary necessarily (as I explained in my first post). But anyways, if we lived in a pre-Enlightenment world, making your point might be easier. In a world that is now familiar with heavily secularized language I think you're going to be swimming upstream. For a lot of people you're going to have to first justify belief in the spiritual before you can move on to why words like "supernatural" are unjustified.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    I have gone around this issue a bit, and I still maintain that the definitions of natural and supernatural are so ambiguous as to be without meaning. Why can't a supernatural universe, for instance, be open to investigate with knowable laws and function? The problem is we have no way to compare these two ideas. Unlike with with most things we define, like a table or chair, there is no objective way to distinguish between supernatural and natural - it is a complete guess.
                    I think I understand what you're saying. But just to play devil's advocate, the distinction could be made clearer than a complete guess, couldn't it? What if the stars lined up to spell "I am that I am"? Even the most hard-nosed naturalist would have to concede that something is probably going on other than naturalism.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      I have gone around this issue a bit, and I still maintain that the definitions of natural and supernatural are so ambiguous as to be without meaning. Why can't a supernatural universe, for instance, be open to investigate with knowable laws and function? The problem is we have no way to compare these two ideas. Unlike with with most things we define, like a table or chair, there is no objective way to distinguish between supernatural and natural - it is a complete guess.
                      Perhaps if you look up the definitions of the two terms you might undersand the difference.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        But that is my point Adrift - they have no objective justification for their position. The distinction is arbitrary, philosophical.
                        No. YOU have no “objective justification” for your position, it is based upon the unevidenced assumption of an intelligent creative force.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          Perhaps if you look up the definitions of the two terms you might undersand the difference.
                          I have Jim, so how do you know the definition are correct? Based on what?
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            No. YOU have no “objective justification” for your position, it is based upon the unevidenced assumption of an intelligent creative force.
                            Tass, if you are not going to play well stay out of my thread...
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              I have Jim, so how do you know the definition are correct? Based on what?
                              Because we are the definers of things.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X