Taffy Lewis

The terms "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" are used quite a bit on this site but I am not sure they really have any content.

What makes an object, property, event, or state of affairs "natural"? And what sorts of actual properties would a "supernatural" entity possess?

If "naturalism" is defined so broadly that it will necessarily include anything which could occur or everything that does occur then it doesn't really exclude anything and therefore makes no useful distinctions.

Further, it seems to me that many definitions of "supernatural" are purely negative characterizations. That is, they never say what qualifies as "supernatural" but rather say what it is not.

Anyone have any suggestions?

tronvillain

Since one could theoretically expand the boundaries of the natural to encompass anything, the division between natural and supernatural in the real world is meaningless. On the other hand, the term "supernatural" is useful for labelling claims that appear to be outside the realm of known reality - gods, ghosts, magic, etc.

Taffy Lewis

tronvillain:

That would entail that any undiscovered facts about the world are supernatural. So one hundred years ago, electrons were supernatural.

This doesn't seem consistent with the intent of those who use the terms "natural" and "supernatural".

Vorkosigan

In my opinion, the simplest way to think about it is to think about consciousness. Naturalism is the belief that no consciousness operates directly on the world outside its own body, and the world outside the body cannot be changed by consciously willing it to change.

Vorkosigan

Jamie_L

To me, something is "natural" if it originates from and obeys the physical laws of the universe.

Something is "supernatural" if it violates those laws. Those who steadfastly believe in the supernatural usually attribute it not to some undiscovered natural property, but to properties that operate above and beyond those natural laws. Essentially, the traditional supernatural universe is split into two parts: the natural part that operates just according to the laws of physics, and the supernatural part that operates independently according to its own laws (or no laws at all), but that can interact with the natural universe.

A true naturalist will tend to believe that anything that occurs IS the result of a natural phenomenon, but just one we don't understand yet. In this way, naturalism can be expanded to include the supernatural. However, when arguing if the supernatural exists, this muddies the argument, IMO. Most arguments of naturalism vs. supernaturalism are really arguements about whether or not its reasonable to believe in this 2-part natural/supernatural world.

At least, that's the way I see it.

Jamie

Taffy Lewis

Jamie_L:

Thanks for your response.

The problem I have with this suggestion is that the concept "physical laws of the universe" seems to be wide-open and that it would include anything except maybe that which behaves completely chaotically. So if you find ANY pattern that can be described you will probably be inclined to describe it as "natural" and there wouldn't be anything even in principle that you could make sense of and NOT be capable of describing it.

Further, your definition of "supernatural" is presented completely in negative terminology. In other words, you say what it is NOT and don't say what it is.

Basically, I think there really is no meaningful distinction between "natural" and "supernatural".

However, at least to me, theism makes sense. It would be the claim that there is a personal being of great power and knowledge upon which everything else depends for its existence. Whether that claim is true or false, I at least know what it means. I don't know what supernatural means.

Taffy Lewis

Vorkosigan:

Thanks for your post.

I agree that this at least makes sense. But I don't see why the term "naturalism" should be used to refer to it.

You seem to be suggesting that something is "supernatural" if it is 1)conscious and 2)not dependent on any nonconscious state of affairs. Or that it must be 1)conscious and 2)capable of acting "directly" on any state of affairs. Is that right?

Vorkosigan

No, you've completely misunderstood. Supernaturalism is essentially the belief that consciousness of one kind or another (human, god) can act directly on the stuff of reality outside the body, simply by willing it. Like with telekenesis. Or in magic, which generally appeals to a consciousness of one kind or another. Once that is permitted, the universe quickly collapses into silopsism.

Vorkosigan

Taffy Lewis

Vorkosigan:

It is interesting that versions of theism which claim that the universe is God's body would qualify as "natural" given your definition.

owleye

Taffy...

Let me assume that naturalism is the position that nature is all that exists. Supernaturalism then becomes the position that while admitting the existence of nature, rejects that this is all there is and posits transcendent beings (or a transcendent being) that presumably can intervene in nature (possibly through miracles) or has dominion over nature, either maintaining it in accord with laws, or originating the laws and allowing it to unfold in accordance with them. (I'm sure I'm not exhausting the possibilities inherent in supernaturalism.)

With respect to what nature is, we might consider Kant's definitions:

Formal definition 1: Nature "signifies the connection of the determinations of a thing according to an inner principle of causality."

Formal definition 2: Nature "signifies the primal, internal principle of everything that belongs to the existence of a thing."

Formal definition 3: Nature is "the existence of things as determined by universal law."

Note that the formal definition refers to its use when we ask the nature of a thing, and should be contrasted with the essence of a thing, defined as: "the primal, internal principle of everything that belongs to the possibility of a thing." This makes it possible to say that a geometric figure has an essence but not a nature, "(since there is thought in its concept nothing which expresses an existence)."

It is the material definition that undoubtedly is what is being referred to:

Material definition 1: Nature is the "sum of appearances in so far as they stand, in virtue of an inner principle of causality, in thoroughgoing interconnection."

Material definition 2: Nature is the "sum total of all things insofar as they can be objects of our senses and hence also objects of experience, under which is therefore to be understood the whole of appearances, i.e., the sense-world with the exclusion of all objects that are not sensible."

I suspect you would wish to query these definitions whether unobservables (such as electrons) are part of nature. This will of course be tricky for Kant, but it is not really much of a stretch to suggest that (if we wish to consider these unobservables as really existing) the only distinction between a body that we observe to exist by how it appears to us and an unobservable we say exists because of how it appears to us is that the latter kind is merely too small to observe. If I could magnify it (and if the uncertainty principle does not interfere with this possibility) I could in principle observe it. However, because of the uncertainty principle I'd concede that I'm prevented from observing it in principle. In that case, if I take it to exist, it is because of its value in accordance with a theory. I'd then represent them as part of nature if as theoretical particles they have an existence to the extent that the theory successfully accounts for what we can and do observe.

Presumably supernaturalism would not wish to be bound by observation.

owleye