YHWH666

To my understanding philosophy can be divided into tree parts epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. In turn metaphysics can be divided into two parts [I]natural science[I] and [I]theologyI] (or supernatural "science"). So by definition something that is natural is anything that can be understood and studied by the scientific method whereas the supernatural cannot.

In a book I read, written by a supernaturalist who believes he has occult, powers he makes a distinction between the supernatural and the natural:



He also writes:


The terms “supernatural” and “natural” do have meanings. However this meaning is very useless seeing as how the supernatural does not exist in reality by definition, and there is no evidence to suggest that such things as magic, god, Unmanifest, miracles, spirits e.c.t. exist in some other reality. Even if this reality did exist there is no reason to think it interacts with this one in any way. Occam’s razor chops it off as an unnecessary complication of matters. As an atheist and a metaphysical naturalist I think the most logical thing to do is to conclude that there is no such thing as the supernatural realm. But theists don’t care very much for logic or reality they have “faith”.

Devilnaut

I agree with Taffy and I don't think he's making any covert attempt at debate either. Supernaturalism cannot exist by definition, and it is something that BD has posted about before (albeit better received)


devilnaut


I don't think it's so much worth quibbling over whether the actual word supernatural has any definition, for it clearly does. I think the question is whether this definition has any relevance or meaning to anything, and it looks like that's what Taffy is getting at. To me at least.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Bill

I had previously posted this: However, Taffy, you deliberately cut off the above quote when you copied only this much of it: You then took issue with what I posted, thusly: Of course, you must have known that I had already responded to this point in the part of my quote that you deliberately cut off.

My assertion is that theists are falsely interpreting their actual experiences and attributing them to God when, in point of fact, they are of entirely natural origin. This point was made quite forcefully in last year's II Book-of-the-Month <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=690" target="_blank">Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief</a>. Thus, science declares that "believers" in God are mistaken. They are not actually experiencing God but are rather having quite normal and natural experiences which are defined as experiencing God through some sort of dogmatic theistic appropriation of those sorts of experiences (in other words, theists teach their followers that when they have this sort of experience, they are actually experiencing God, so this is a sort-of self-perpetuating meme of delusion).

Accordingly, if theists accept my definition of what is "natural" AND they also accept that scientific investigation produces scientific truthes about the "natural" realm, then they really ought to question those religious dogmas which define those sorts of "religious experiences" we have been discussing here as being actual experiences of "God" (whatever "God" might be in any given theistic worldview).

You are trolling, Taffy by engaging in the totally reprehensible behavior of first misquoting me and then responding to your false quote. CUT THAT OUT, PLEASE! Actually, I don't see why not either. And in fact, one of the proofs I accept for the non-existence of this "God" thing you are discussing here is the plain fact that science has never been able to gather together any acceptable evidence to the effect that any such "God-induced" experience or event of any nature whatsoever actually occurs.

Classically, these sorts of arguments go something like this: If Moses could part the Red Sea in the Torah story, then why can't we have some equivalent miracle today, with film at 11? In other words, if God had no problem revealing Himself and His power to a large body of Jews in ancient times, then just what does He have as a reason for not so revealing Himself today? It simply cannot be argued that whatever might actually exist of God today is extremely hidden from the senses (and sciences) of mankind. Modern atheological arguments now make this case rather emphatically. (See <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/nonbelief.html" target="_blank">Arguments from Divine Hiddenness and Nonbelief</a> in the II Library.)

In view of the many scriptural claims for divine overtness (God as a "major and overt player" in the events described in the Bible), the entire idea that God is for some reason forced into "divine hiddeness" in modern times tends to ring rather hollow.

In view of the scientific claims to explain "religious experience" in entirely naturalistic terms, in my view, the burden of proof now shifts to the theists who wish to use this sort of "religious experience" as proof for the existence of God to demonstrate, in some scientific or logical way that there is an actual causal link between some supernatural "thing" (God?) and the experiences they are claiming as proof of the supernatural.

If God and the supernatural does exist in fact, then there must be some point of interface between the supernatural and the natural world. (The only rational alternative would be that the supernatural world does not in any way impinge upon, or connect with, the natural world. In that case, it can safely be ignored as it cannot cause any effect here within the natural world.) If there is such a point of interface between the natural and supernatural (God-populated) realms, then science ought to be able to detect, measure, and otherwise treat empirically each and every effect on the natural world which is in any way connected to God and/or the supernatural realm. The plain fact is that science cannot in any way detect, measure, or otherwise treat empirically any such phenomena. This is additional strong scientific evidence for the clear non-existence of any "God" and/or any "supernatural" realm. Again, you are trolling for an argument, and you are doing so by redefining what "supernatural" means. I won't let you get away with this. Your claim is meaningless drivel when the usual understanding of what "supernatural" means is substituted in the above.

Given that I am a metaphysical naturalist, how else do you expect me to ground my worldview other than in the realm of the natural world? You might claim it is not reasonable for me to decide that science is the proper epistemological method to use. But once you grant me the right to choose that epistemology, you cannot claim that this is in any way a "supernatural" belief. Science is the antithesis of "supernaturalism." No, that is not what I'm saying at all!

Remember that the definition most people understand for "supernatural" is that the "supernatural" cannot be in any way accessed by empirical (experience) means. (This, of course, makes those who claim "religious experiences" as coming from the supernatual as asserting an oxymoronic claim.) While you have been casting stones at the metaphysical naturalists here who have taken issue with you, Taffy, you have strictly avoided making any claim whatsoever for what the word "supernatural" actually means to you. Instead, you have claimed that there is no distinction between the words "natural" and "supernatural." While I can see a purpose in your making such a claim, that purpose would generally be to attempt to confuse the issue. This is a common theistic trolling technique. Yes, true. And not only that "such a realm COULD exist," but also that causes from such a realm COULD produce effects over here within the natural realm. The more science debunks these claims of effects from alleged supernatural causes, the less likely the actual existence of the supernatural realm becomes.

That is, in fact, the whole point of discussions like this one. To the above, Taffy responded: Those things are supernatural because it is part and parcel of the claims made in favor of their existence that they cannot be "experienced" (or empirically verified) by inhabitants of the "natural" realm (i.e., scientists and/or scientific subjects).

Again, the dividing line between the "natural" and the "supernatural" is the ability of ordinary "natural" people to "experience" the existence of such a thing in some rational way, either now or in the future. The claim of the adherents of supernaturalism is that you cannot experience any such thing until you yourself make the transition from the "natural" realm into the "supernatural" realm (i.e., you die and your "soul" then experiences either Heaven, Hell, or some other sort of "afterlife," depending upon exactly which theistic system is being advocated).

If souls, Heaven, and Hell were part of the "natural" realm, then they could be experienced by people while those people (including scientists) are still alive (i.e., still part of the "natural" realm). It is clear that this is not the claim being advanced by most rational advocates of the reality of the supernatural realm (largely excepting Eastern religions, which make substantially different claims about these subjects, since those religions believe in "reincarnation" rather than an "afterlife" of some sort). Only a troll would adhere to this assertion at this point in this discussion. I rest my case.

== Bill

Taffy Lewis

ReasonableDoubt:

Arthur C. Clarke famously said "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." This is essentially what I am arguing.

What about the examples of the plane and glowing-man makes them "supernatural"? What would be the difference between a "sufficiently advanced technology" causing a glowing man to rise and a "supernatural" being or beings causing a glowing man to rise? I would like a positive characterization of the features of these events that makes them fit the "category" of the "supernatural" rather than the mere result of a "sufficiently advanced technology". It's not enough to just say they are "not natural". The reason is that I have the suspicion that "natural" will just turn out to be "anything whatsoever" or "anything I can think of" or "anything that can be described". In other words, the category of "natural" is so open-ended that it cannot, even in principle, exclude anything. Any failure to propose an actual positive feature of something "supernatural" demonstrates this.

The inability to draw a meaningful natural/supernatural distinction does nothing to defeat or defend theism.

What would it mean to say that the universe follows nonscientific laws? I have a feeling you won't be able to think of anything. Possibly, for you, the term "scientific" will just mean "however the universe happens to behave". Once again it is totally open-ended.

At any rate, thank you for your input.

Taffy Lewis

Bill:

One of your statements says:

But later after quoting my statement that "But surely if God exists he could bring about a direct experience of him. I don't see why not." you responded by saying "Actually, I don't see why not either". So you think the concept of God would include the capacity of being "experiencable". That means you believe the concept of God fits into the "natural" category. If even God would be "natural" then what could the "category" of "supernatural" possibly include?

My point here is that you cannot use "science" to justify the claim that "Science is the only reliable means to information about the world." because that would be clearly circular.

By your definition any statement that cannot be supported by the scientific method would be a "supernatural" claim. It follows immediately that your belief in the epistemology of the scientific method is "supernatural".

So again, a naturalist would be a supernaturalist. This is meaningless.

Vorkosigan

Taffy, science provides reliable information about the world. That is inarguable. The reliability of scientific knowledge is true even if the scientific division between natural and supernatural is false. "Science" is NOT used to justify the claim that "science is the only reliable means to information about the world." Science is justified by success. No other mode of knowing can replicate the ability of science to produce useful and reliable knowledge about the world.

When you come up with a more reliable method for knowing than scientific methods, by all means bring it on.

This success suggests that the distinction made by science between the natural and the supernatural is useful and reliable. Not to mention clear, or else thousands of scientists, from many different cultural backgrounds, could not successfully apply the method. This ability of humans from differing backgrounds to apply scientific methodology suggests that the problem here is not unclear definitions, but your refusal to understand.

Vorkosigan

Taffy Lewis

Bill:

You claim:

The authors of this book do not claim that theists "are falsely interpreting" their experiences. In fact they suggest otherwise. A clear statement of their beliefs can be found on pages 9 and 171-172.

fwh

I've been reading the exchanges re naturalism and supernaturalism with interest. I would like to comment but I don't like the terms being discussed, since supernaturalism depends on naturalism for its meaning. I would like to suggest materialsim(matter) and spiritualism(spirit) as terms for discussion. These can be more intelligently discussed, I think, but I will wait to see if anyone objects to my changing the terms.

Taffy Lewis

fwh:

That's the problem. "Supernatural" seems to mean "anything not natural" but "natural" is defined in such an open-ended or broad fashion that it can't exclude anything.

This is why none of the proponents of the natural/supernatural distinction can think of any positive features of the "supernatural". They can only tell you what it is not. They never tell you any actual features that it would possess if it did exist.

What is a "positive" feature of an electron? They have charge. That is an actual property that they have. Notice that pointing out actual features of the "supernatural" has not been done.

For the proponents of the distinction, any property or feature they could ever think of would simply be considered natural.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The Other Michael

Taffy,

there's an awful lot of stuff in this old universe of ours that can be described. You seem to be complaining because you can't get a description of the undescribable.

The supernatural is klsiuhdf and nreklaw, except when it ie slknrel't'tlt.

How are you going to conceptualize something which is, by definition, outside of the items we are able to perceive or conceive?

cheers,
Michael