Volker.Doormann

On a very simple basis there could be a common understanding if ‘everything’, what has any existence - physically and/or immaterial (see thread about ’if there was a heaven’) would be accepted from Christianity as part of nature.

If there are assumed supernatural appearances, there is no reason, why this should not be a part of nature.

The problem, which occurs if one is leaving nature is, that simultaneously with leaving the fundamental order of nature as it is known without any contradiction in total, new contradictional synthetic ideas would be created and claimed as a ‘second nature’ beside nature, without any respect of that what is (to be recognized).

But it is not the job of a religious life to create more virtual idols or natures, it is rather the job to recognize and acknowledge nature as it is in hole. This mistaken understanding of nature in whole does increase conflicts instead to solve them. Recognition of that, what is alone, never ever has crated conflicts.

The origin religious meaning of god is perfection and harmony. Perfection is not compatible with contradictions. If one is teaching contradictions, he teaches imperfection. A very basic recognition from philosophy is, that truth cannot be simultaneously untruth.

You have mentioned causes. Nature is not limited to causes and effects. Causes and effects are dynamic processes in time and space exhibiting imperfect states. This means, that perfection cannot be taken from biased temporary states. It is necessary to understand the whole process of nature in its perfect state. Again from this, one can recognize, that perfection is to be found; contradictions of a second nature or a ‘super nature’, which is in contradiction to nature creates war, but not a common understanding of nature as a state of perfection and harmony.

Christianity knows, that their claims are not only in contradiction to recognizable truth of nature in hole. This Religion has damned individual recognition (Gnosis), the only path for a soul seeking truth. Christianity doesn’t respects the truth of the very one nature in hole; this is contempt of the spiritual laws, which are part of the very one nature.

Volker

Jamie_L

Chrisian,

I think you are attacking an incorrect formulation of naturalism.

People adopt the philosophy that there are no supernatural events based on all the evidence for natural events and the lack of evidence for any supernatural events - not just in their personal experience, but in the experience of all the other people and institutions that they have reasoned to be accurate and trustworthy in their observations.

We observe events. One can attempt to explain them naturally or supernaturally. Thus far, natural explanations have been proven out and supernatural events have not. Based on this solid history, it is rational to assume, unless proven otherwise, there are no supernatural events.

Here's where I think you are in error. I believe most naturalists assume, until proven otherwise, that naturalism holds because after addressing the evidence at hand, that is the conclusion they've come to. The notion that one adopts naturalism for a reason other than addressing evidence, and then a priori dismisses evidnece of the supernatural is not really what happens in most cases. Where someone to do this - say adopting naturalism because they just like it better - then I would say this is irrational. However, I think you are addressing the OP to naturalists in general, and I think naturalists in general view things as I have described.

Anyone who accepts the scientific method has to be prepared to revise any theory or hypothesis in the event that future evidence proves it wrong. To be completely closed-minded towards such things would indeed be irrational.

With that said, all evidence suggests that there are no supernatural events. I don't need to suspend judgement. I'm justified in believing that, until new evidence presents itself, there are no supernatural events. Someone postulating a supernatural event must provide some evidence to invalidate my current theory, which thusfar has held up to scrutiny.

Jamie

Alludium Fozdex

Please provide documentation of such events.

Biff the unclean

Christian a working description of insanity is to continually do the same things while expecting different results.
Science does not have an automatic stop that keeps it from investigating the supernatural. The fact that there is no supernatural keeps it from being investigated by all but mythologists and sociologists. And they investigate it only as fictional stories.

Every claim of the supernatural that has been investigated has been shown to be either a natural phenomenon that was being misinterpreted or a hoax. Not 'some claims,' not 'most claims'---every single last claim. All of them, without exception.

So the question isn't 'why don't scientists consider supernatural answers?' That's easy, because it has been shown to be a complete and utter waste of their time to do so.

No, the question is "why do you, in the 21st century, entertain magical thinking?" I mean, here you sit at a computer, talking with people all over the planet and you still cling to magic and superstition!! We aren’t going to laugh at you, some here, like Rhea, are bending over backwards to be polite to you. But how is it that you lack such a basic knowledge of how the world works that your resort to primitive fantasies? What brought you to this state?

Clete

Christian,

I would argue, and maybe I'm just debating definitions here, that it's impossible for something to be supernatural. If something happens then, to me, it is natural. If for example astronomers discovered another solar system in which the planets moved in a way which violated our concept of how gravity worked, then this would reveal inaccuracies in our understanding of physics but would still be "natural". I would even take it a step further and say that if it could be proven in some way that the mind does continue to exist indefinitely after the body dies, then life after death count then be counted as a natural phenomenon.

To quote a song by the band Love & Rockets:

You cannot go against nature because if you do
go against nature, it's part of nature too.

Now I try whenever possible to avoid defining terms via the lyrics of British rock bands of the 80s ( ) but in this case I have to make an exception simply because this part of this song describes my viewpoint so well, IMHO of course.

Jamie_L

Oh, and let's not forget the II Library.

When debate about naturalism starts to make my head hurt, I go back and re-read this article.

It also makes my head hurt, but in a good, natural sort of way.

Jamie

lpetrich

That's not quite how it happened, but the principle is broadly correct. What used to be thought is that some materials could only be produced by living things. Koehler's experiment of ammonium cyanate -> urea was only the first counterexample discovered. It did not make much impact at the time, but later experiments went much further.

A better example would be lightning rods. It used to be thought that ringing church bells was a good way of repelling lightning:

I call the living
I mourn the dead
I break the lightning

But it only got bell-ringers struck by lightning.

But in the 1750's, a certain Ben Franklin had been studying static electricity, and he noticed that lightning looked something like a giant electric spark. So he decided to check on whether clouds are electrically charged, which he did with his famous kite experiment.

But church officials were reluctant to put lightning rods on their church towers, and only did so very gradually. Some even considered lightning rods thumbing one's nose at God -- an eminent clergyman even claimed that some earthquakes in Boston were God looking for another way of punishing people's sins, since he was now thwarted by lightning rods.

And there is also the question of medicine. The main "therapies" in the New Testament are the likes of exorcism, magical spit therapy, and so forth.

But if such "therapies" are so effective, why have they not put mainstream medicine out of work?

Marduk

Pardon me while I interject my own jibber jabber; which was already touched on a bit,
Define supernatural, what am I suppose to accept? There are things that exist that I can’t perceive? Maybe, but if I can’t perceive them who cares if they exist?
Are there ‘super’natural things I should ignore? Like astrology, ghosts or fairies in my garden, or homeopathic medicine or some exotic ‘cure’ for what ails me? What criteria should I use to discern which things I can't perceive are '‘real”?
Explain, just for fun, how I would be able to decide what information from a supernatural source is true.
The universe has many levels,... with many things, groovy, what am I supposed to do about it?
What is the difference between gods and aliens? Neither are from Earth, so they are all extra-terrestrials by definition, so how could I tell a life-form millions of years more evolved than me from a god.
If such beings exist, we have no criteria or perspective to evaluate such things, so why bother.

GunnerJ

Not quite, you were closer the second time. My point is that the whole concept of "supernatural" events is nonsensical. It's nothing more than the gaps where we currently lack explainations. I think one of the main problems in discussing this with you is that I don't deliniate between "supernatural" and "natural" events. Things happen, and when they do, it's logical to find an explanation. If it turns out that that explanation is the action of some powerful intellegent agent working with methods we don't fully understand, than that's the way it is. But I wouldn't call such events "supernatural."

I'll try and elaborate more later.

Rhea

Thank you again, lpetrich. I'll just keep ill-remembering snippets of information and you can keep making them factual for me.