Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Taffy Lewis · 06-03-2002, 06:28 PM

The Other Michael:

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm pointing out that no meaningful distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" has been drawn.

You seem to agree. You ask (rhetorically I assume):

Quote:

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

So, to you, "natural" just means "anything I could ever think of". So, for you, nothing could ever be placed in the category of "supernatural". Again, there is no distinction.

In order to draw a distinction, some things must be included and some things must be excluded.

The Other Michael · 06-03-2002, 08:15 PM

I suppose that you can define things that violate natural laws as supernatural.

Therefore, I can conceive of random miracle claims (divine intervention at random to reverse natural laws like the earth coming to a dead stop, dancing the hokey-pokey, and then starting back up in retrograde orbit, all without spilling my glass of water), but as has been pointed out with the Clarke's Law quotation it may be that we just haven't advanced far enough to see how that might be a special case of a natural law rather than a claimed "super" natural experience.

But I think that Occams Razor would tend to have us, in those instances, presume that it is something "of the universe", i.e. natural, that is at work that we just can't fathom yet, rather than jumping to the conclusion that extra-universal hobgoblins are at work. Especially since that is what our scientific and technological history would lead us to expect.

But then I'm not sure I'm real clear even after all these posts about just what it is you are driving at.

cheers,
Michael

Vorkosigan · 06-03-2002, 09:03 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Taffy Lewis:
The Other Michael:

I'm not complaining about anything. I'm pointing out that no meaningful distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" has been drawn.

A more correct characterization is: there is no distinction Taffy Lewis is willing to admit is meaningful. For thousands of working scholars, however, the distinction seems to be clear enough.

Vorkosigan

Taffy Lewis · 06-04-2002, 05:19 PM

Vorkosigan:

Quote:

For thousands of working scholars, however, the distinction seems to be clear enough.

So how does this group of "thousands of working scholars" draw a distinction between that which is "natural" and that which is "supernatural"? What's the distinction they accept?

Taffy Lewis · 06-07-2002, 05:13 AM

fwh:

You suggested that naturalism/supernaturalism be defined in terms of the mind/brain problem. Presumably, mind/brain materialism (or physicalism or monism) would be "naturalistic" and "mind/brain dualism" would be "supernaturalistic".

The main problem I have with this suggestion is that if dualism were in fact true I see no reason why it would not be subject to scientific investigation. The "soul" would just be another aspect of reality of which we could apply the scientific method. Normally, people who use the term "supernatural" have a vague idea that the scientific method cannot be applied to such things.

Also, why not just refer to this debate with the usual terms? "Mind/brain monism" and "mind/brain dualism". If the natural/supernatural distinction is defined entirely in terms of the mind/brain debate then nothing insightful is gained by replacing the WORDS "monism" and "dualism" with "natural" and "supernatural".

The suggestion reminds me of those who wish to define "God" as the universe. They don't seem to realize that we already have a word for the universe---"Universe". We don't need to use the letters "g-o-d" to do that. It would only cause confusion.

Vorkosigan · 06-07-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Taffy Lewis:
Vorkosigan:

So how does this group of "thousands of working scholars" draw a distinction between that which is "natural" and that which is "supernatural"? What's the distinction they accept?

Taffy, here is what you said earlier:

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

Now, you've already been supplied with several different useful ways of looking at the distinction, ways used in science and scholarship all over the world. However, it is apparent that you have resolved not to be amenable to discussion on the issue.

As you said, in order to draw a definition, some things must be included, and some things must be excluded. You have already conceded that we do that, however, with this comment.

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.

That is correct. The supernatural is anything that is not natural. By definition.. It's a wide-open field, including everything from pixies to incoherent claims of the universe being the body of a god. The supernatural is a garbage dump for lots of really dumb, dangerous ideas.

The realm of the natural has already been defined. Natural things obey known physical laws, cannot be affected by direct action of the observer's consciousness, may be repeatable and predictable under controlled conditions, are testable and falsifiable, and so forth. Supernatural things are things that lack these qualities.

You declared earlier:
The problem I have with such definitions is that it leaves the realm of "science" and "natural" wide-open. What sort of in-principle limitations of science are there?

The answer is: there are no in-principle limitations of science, so long as the new descriptions of reality produced conform to the definitions set out above. Why should there be in-principle limitations of methodological naturalism?

Vorkosigan

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

Taffy Lewis · 06-07-2002, 07:44 PM

Vorkosigan:

Quote:

Natural things obey known physical laws, cannot be affected by direct action of the observer's consciousness, may be repeatable and predictable under controlled conditions, are testable and falsifiable, and so forth. Supernatural things are things that lack these qualities.

So which properties would a "supernatural" thing have? Again, you have merely told me what it is not.

Consider this dialogue:

Smith: I believe only poys exist.

Jones: What's a poy?

Smith: Well, it's not a car.

Jones: But what is it?

Smith : Ok..it's not a table.

Jones: Yeah. But tell me what it is.

Smith: Hmmm....it's not a television.

Jones : Sure. But what IS it???

Smith : Well it's not anything I could ever think of or describe.

Jones: Oh...I see...you're a naturalist. Nevermind.

Hopefully you get the point.

As to the features you say a "supernatural" thing wouldn't possess:

1. What other sorts of laws would an object follow if not a physical law? I have a feeling that if some object behaves in a law-like way then for you it will just BE physical. So the expression "physical law" would be redundant. Are "supernatural" things just things that behave totally chaotically? That would rule out "pixies" since presumably there is some way in which they behave that can be described.

2. Isn't your brain directly affected by your consciousness? I doubt that it is "supernatural".

3. If human behavior should turn out to be unpredictable would we be "supernatural"? Can you predict the behavior of people under controlled conditions? I doubt you can. So people are "supernatural".

Lastly :

4. If there were other universes exactly like ours yet not spatially and temporally related to our universe we would not be able to test and falsify this claim. So a universe exactly like ours would be "supernatural". If it is exactly like ours and it is "supernatural" doesn't that mean our universe is also "supernatural"?

Vorkosigan · 06-07-2002, 08:49 PM

Vorkosigan:
So which properties would a "supernatural" thing have? Again, you have merely told me what it is not.

Again, that is all I need to tell you. Naturalism divides the world into two categories, those truth-claims that fall within its purview, and those which do not.

Jones : Sure. But what IS it???

Smith : Well it's not anything I could ever think of or describe.

Jones: Oh...I see...you're a naturalist. Nevermind.

Hopefully you get the point.

It's a pretty silly point. What properties unite supernatural ideas? They are not testable or falsifiable. They demand operations that violate natural laws. And so on. Just reverse the ideas that people have been giving you.

1. What other sorts of laws would an object follow if not a physical law? I have a feeling that if some object behaves in a law-like way then for you it will just BE physical. So the expression "physical law" would be redundant.

What other sorts of laws would objects follow? I have no idea, not believing in other sorts of laws. But I hear people talk about the "Law of Karma" or "Higher Law" or "Moral Law" as if these things existed and followed laws, which are certainly not physical. You might also consider expressions like "Civil law" or "common law." So the expression "physical law" contains no redundancy, but refers to a certain kind of law.

Are "supernatural" things just things that behave totally chaotically? That would rule out "pixies" since presumably there is some way in which they behave that can be described.

Where did anyone say they behaved totally chaotically? We already told you that supernatural things have several qualities, and are not distinguished from natural by single factors or characteristics, but by a locus of them. If you want a boiled down definition, a supernatural claim would involve something that:

is untestable
is non-falsifiable
requires processes or entities that violate known natural law

2. Isn't your brain directly affected by your consciousness? I doubt that it is "supernatural".

I doubt it too, which is why the quickie definition I gave at the beginning of this thread excluded one's own body.

3. If human behavior should turn out to be unpredictable would we be "supernatural"? Can you predict the behavior of people under controlled conditions? I doubt you can. So people are "supernatural".

As I said, the definitions we have given are comprehensive and cover many factors. For example, does human behavior violate natural law? Then it ain't supernatural!

4. If there were other universes exactly like ours yet not spatially and temporally related to our universe we would not be able to test and falsify this claim. So a universe exactly like ours would be "supernatural". If it is exactly like ours and it is "supernatural" doesn't that mean our universe is also "supernatural"?

As I said, the definition of natural is robust and encompasses many factors. For example, if this universe is exactly like ours, it follows natural law, and hence would not be supernatural.

Vorkosigan

Taffy Lewis · 06-08-2002, 06:00 AM

Vorkosigan:

Quote:

What properties unite supernatural ideas? They are not testable or falsifiable. They demand operations that violate natural laws. And so on.

So "supernatural" things are NOT testable and they are NOT falsifiable and they do NOT follow "natural" laws.

So what are some features they do have?

You have merely told me what they are not. That was the point of my imaginary dialogue.

Quote:

For example, does human behavior violate natural law? Then it ain't supernatural!

Since, for you, "ANY way in which it behaves" will just be "natural" it wouldn't be possible for you to observe "supernatural" behavior. If you were to observe any behavior whatsoever you would say that it is "natural" or else you would not be able to understand it. The reason is that any object will behave according to some deterministic or probabilitistic law unless it is behaving in a totally chaotic way. Deterministic, probabilistic, and chaotic are exhaustive of the possible ways an object can behave.

Quote:

I doubt it too, which is why the quickie definition I gave at the beginning of this thread excluded one's own body.

And if a god were able to directly affect everything in the universe then the universe would be its body and thus it would be "natural".

Quote:

As I said, the definition of natural is robust and encompasses many factors.

You listed 4 or 5 factors. That doesn't sound like many to me. And remember those factors are completely negative characterizations. You have defined the category "natural" to be completely wide-open so that anything that could be coherently described would be "natural".

Quote:

For example, if this universe is exactly like ours, it follows natural law, and hence would not be supernatural.

Since we could not verify or falsify its existence it would also be "supernatural". So it would be both "natural" and "supernatural".

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Taffy Lewis ]

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Taffy Lewis ]

Vorkosigan · 06-08-2002, 02:37 PM

So "supernatural" things are NOT testable and they are NOT falsifiable and they do NOT follow "natural" laws.

So what are some features they do have?

You have merely told me what they are not. That was the point of my imaginary dialogue.

Your dialogue was a guessing game. I gave you a definition. A supernatural truth claim is any that is non-testable, non-falsifiable, and violates known natural law.

Since, for you, "ANY way in which it behaves" will just be "natural" it wouldn't be possible for you to observe "supernatural" behavior.

Why, yes it would. If a behavior violated known natural law in a flagrant and obvious way, then it would be supernatural.

If you were to observe any behavior whatsoever you would say that it is "natural" or else you would not be able to understand it. The reason is that any object will behave according to some deterministic or probabilitistic law unless it is behaving in a totally chaotic way. Deterministic, probabilistic, and chaotic are exhaustive of the possible ways an object can behave.

Thanks. What does this catalogue mean?

And if a god were able to directly affect everything in the universe then the universe would be its body and thus it would be "natural".

This is nonsense. Your conclusion is unwarranted; Christians believe that god can affect everything in the universe, but that the universe is not its body. In any case, it would not be a "body" in any sense we know it. Your proposal is incoherent (incoherence is another marker for the supernatural).

You listed 4 or 5 factors. That doesn't sound like many to me.

Opinions are like noses....

And remember those factors are completely negative characterizations.

That's right. The supernatural can be defined as "anything not X." In that view, everything not naturalistic is by definition, supernatural.

You have defined the category "natural" to be completely wide-open so that anything that could be coherently described would be "natural".

Is it testable? Falsifiable? Conforms to natural law? Then it is probably naturalistic. If not, I'd suspect supernatural. The category is not "wide open" since anything natural must fall within the constraints of natural law. It is open-ended, which is very different.

Since we could not verify or falsify its existence it would also be "supernatural". So it would be both "natural" and "supernatural".

Whatever.

Vorkosigan

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

06-07-2002, 08:49 PM	#38
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Vorkosigan: So which properties would a "supernatural" thing have? Again, you have merely told me what it is not. Again, that is all I need to tell you. Naturalism divides the world into two categories, those truth-claims that fall within its purview, and those which do not. Jones : Sure. But what IS it??? Smith : Well it's not anything I could ever think of or describe. Jones: Oh...I see...you're a naturalist. Nevermind. Hopefully you get the point. It's a pretty silly point. What properties unite supernatural ideas? They are not testable or falsifiable. They demand operations that violate natural laws. And so on. Just reverse the ideas that people have been giving you. 1. What other sorts of laws would an object follow if not a physical law? I have a feeling that if some object behaves in a law-like way then for you it will just BE physical. So the expression "physical law" would be redundant. What other sorts of laws would objects follow? I have no idea, not believing in other sorts of laws. But I hear people talk about the "Law of Karma" or "Higher Law" or "Moral Law" as if these things existed and followed laws, which are certainly not physical. You might also consider expressions like "Civil law" or "common law." So the expression "physical law" contains no redundancy, but refers to a certain kind of law. Are "supernatural" things just things that behave totally chaotically? That would rule out "pixies" since presumably there is some way in which they behave that can be described. Where did anyone say they behaved totally chaotically? We already told you that supernatural things have several qualities, and are not distinguished from natural by single factors or characteristics, but by a locus of them. If you want a boiled down definition, a supernatural claim would involve something that: is untestable is non-falsifiable requires processes or entities that violate known natural law 2. Isn't your brain directly affected by your consciousness? I doubt that it is "supernatural". I doubt it too, which is why the quickie definition I gave at the beginning of this thread excluded one's own body. 3. If human behavior should turn out to be unpredictable would we be "supernatural"? Can you predict the behavior of people under controlled conditions? I doubt you can. So people are "supernatural". As I said, the definitions we have given are comprehensive and cover many factors. For example, does human behavior violate natural law? Then it ain't supernatural! 4. If there were other universes exactly like ours yet not spatially and temporally related to our universe we would not be able to test and falsify this claim. So a universe exactly like ours would be "supernatural". If it is exactly like ours and it is "supernatural" doesn't that mean our universe is also "supernatural"? As I said, the definition of natural is robust and encompasses many factors. For example, if this universe is exactly like ours, it follows natural law, and hence would not be supernatural. Vorkosigan

06-08-2002, 02:37 PM	#40
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	So "supernatural" things are NOT testable and they are NOT falsifiable and they do NOT follow "natural" laws. So what are some features they do have? You have merely told me what they are not. That was the point of my imaginary dialogue. Your dialogue was a guessing game. I gave you a definition. A supernatural truth claim is any that is non-testable, non-falsifiable, and violates known natural law. Since, for you, "ANY way in which it behaves" will just be "natural" it wouldn't be possible for you to observe "supernatural" behavior. Why, yes it would. If a behavior violated known natural law in a flagrant and obvious way, then it would be supernatural. If you were to observe any behavior whatsoever you would say that it is "natural" or else you would not be able to understand it. The reason is that any object will behave according to some deterministic or probabilitistic law unless it is behaving in a totally chaotic way. Deterministic, probabilistic, and chaotic are exhaustive of the possible ways an object can behave. Thanks. What does this catalogue mean? And if a god were able to directly affect everything in the universe then the universe would be its body and thus it would be "natural". This is nonsense. Your conclusion is unwarranted; Christians believe that god can affect everything in the universe, but that the universe is not its body. In any case, it would not be a "body" in any sense we know it. Your proposal is incoherent (incoherence is another marker for the supernatural). You listed 4 or 5 factors. That doesn't sound like many to me. Opinions are like noses.... And remember those factors are completely negative characterizations. That's right. The supernatural can be defined as "anything not X." In that view, everything not naturalistic is by definition, supernatural. You have defined the category "natural" to be completely wide-open so that anything that could be coherently described would be "natural". Is it testable? Falsifiable? Conforms to natural law? Then it is probably naturalistic. If not, I'd suspect supernatural. The category is not "wide open" since anything natural must fall within the constraints of natural law. It is open-ended, which is very different. Since we could not verify or falsify its existence it would also be "supernatural". So it would be both "natural" and "supernatural". Whatever. Vorkosigan [ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-03-2002, 08:15 PM	#32
The Other Michael Honorary Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: In the fog of San Francisco Posts: 12,631	I suppose that you can define things that violate natural laws as supernatural. Therefore, I can conceive of random miracle claims (divine intervention at random to reverse natural laws like the earth coming to a dead stop, dancing the hokey-pokey, and then starting back up in retrograde orbit, all without spilling my glass of water), but as has been pointed out with the Clarke's Law quotation it may be that we just haven't advanced far enough to see how that might be a special case of a natural law rather than a claimed "super" natural experience. But I think that Occams Razor would tend to have us, in those instances, presume that it is something "of the universe", i.e. natural, that is at work that we just can't fathom yet, rather than jumping to the conclusion that extra-universal hobgoblins are at work. Especially since that is what our scientific and technological history would lead us to expect. But then I'm not sure I'm real clear even after all these posts about just what it is you are driving at. cheers, Michael

06-03-2002, 09:03 PM	#33
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Taffy Lewis: The Other Michael: I'm not complaining about anything. I'm pointing out that no meaningful distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" has been drawn. A more correct characterization is: there is no distinction Taffy Lewis is willing to admit is meaningful. For thousands of working scholars, however, the distinction seems to be clear enough. Vorkosigan

06-07-2002, 05:13 AM	#35
Taffy Lewis Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: North America Posts: 203	fwh: You suggested that naturalism/supernaturalism be defined in terms of the mind/brain problem. Presumably, mind/brain materialism (or physicalism or monism) would be "naturalistic" and "mind/brain dualism" would be "supernaturalistic". The main problem I have with this suggestion is that if dualism were in fact true I see no reason why it would not be subject to scientific investigation. The "soul" would just be another aspect of reality of which we could apply the scientific method. Normally, people who use the term "supernatural" have a vague idea that the scientific method cannot be applied to such things. Also, why not just refer to this debate with the usual terms? "Mind/brain monism" and "mind/brain dualism". If the natural/supernatural distinction is defined entirely in terms of the mind/brain debate then nothing insightful is gained by replacing the WORDS "monism" and "dualism" with "natural" and "supernatural". The suggestion reminds me of those who wish to define "God" as the universe. They don't seem to realize that we already have a word for the universe---"Universe". We don't need to use the letters "g-o-d" to do that. It would only cause confusion.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.