Vorkosigan

They might, except that there's still no way we could communicate with it. Our consciousness has no way to act on reality outside of our own bodies. Also, of course, there is no reason to assume that it IS the body of anything.

Vorkosigan

Taffy Lewis

Vorkosigan:

What makes you think that? If God can act directly on any part of the universe (ie. it is his body) then he could cause us to have experiences of him. And since we obtain information about the world through our bodies God should be able to gain information from us when we pray or perform other religious activities.

I was just wondering what naturalism and supernaturalism are supposed to be. Not whether or not one or the other is true.

You seem to want to define "naturalism" in terms of the mind/brain problem. This diverges from common usage. Your "naturalism" is really just mind/brain physicalism and your "supernaturalism" could be a type of mind/brain dualism.

himynameisPwn

You overlook the fact that the supernatural doesn't exist, so it has no true definition. Naturalism(as far as I understand) means everything that acts according to the rules of our universes(or in the case of multiple universes that uniserves) laws. Since you really can't prove that things outside of our reality exist, theres no way to prove the supernatural exists. If it can't be proven, its either not true, or we need more evidence for its case. So, wait for God to rip the sky apart and instill his fear into you, because accepting anything before that is blind faith.

Bill

In this sense, the word "nature" is used most in accordance with its sixth definition: Likewise, the word "natural" is used most in accirdance with its sixth definition: Of course, metaphysical naturalists rely upon "science" to perform the aforementioned "study and research" activities: The above definition of "science" relies, in the key third definition, upon the definition of "scientific method," which I will now also quote: Early in the 20th century, the Logical Positivists asserted that no statement could possibly be "meaningful" unless it was at least possible to verify the statement empirically (through the application of scientific method). Various objections to this idea have contributed to the death of Logical Positivism as a foundational philosophy, but some of the ideas developed by the Logical Positivists do live on.

==========

Anyway, what 20th century philosophy was largely concerned with was the idea that language lacks precision, and that in order to give rational meaning to foundational statements, they must be made with some real precision. How to precisely formulate truly meaningful foundational statements using natural language has bedeviled philosophers for virtually all of this past century, and I'm not personally convinced that we've yet had any real answer.

==========

With that in mind, Taffy Lewis, the question as to whether or not the words "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" have any real "content" are subject to your own "private language" definition of those words. Accordingly, nobody can convince you that those concepts really do have meaning unless your own "private language" definition either allows for such a meaning or else you first become convinced to alter your definition of those words in order to allow for meaning to exist.

==========

Your objection that "electrons were supernatural" before they were discovered can be distinguished by the fact that, prior to their discovery, nobody was claiming that they were real. The "supernatural," on the other hand, is claimed to be "real" by "believers" in spite of the fact that science has not (and probably cannot) every discovered any trace of any effect of any "supernatural" realm. So, in this sense, the term "supernatural" can be used to distinguish things that are broadly claimed to be "real" (by a fairly large number of people), but for which science can obtain no acceptable evidence of their actual reality.

And in point of fact, the truest and most sophisticated "believers" in the "supernatural" all would assert that it is impossible for science to ever obtain any such evidence of the existence of the "supernatural" because: <ol type="1">[*]Obtaining such evidence would eliminate the need for "faith" for said "believers"; and[*]Any such evidence would rather obviously be part of the "natural" world, and thus not authentically "supernatural" in any case.[/list=a]So, after considering all of the above, I believe that we can develop a meaningful set of definitions for "natural" and "supernatural" so as to have a meaningful discussion of their distinctions and possibilities of existence:

• natural - The "natural" realm consists of everything that is in any way discoverable and/or studyable, now, or in the future, by science; and
• supernatural - The "supernatural" realm consists of everything that is claimed to be "real" by any substantial number of people, but which cannot be in any way discoverable and/or studyable, now, or in the future, by science.

My use of the words "in the future" would eliminate your example of the electron, Taffy.

Any further objections?

== Bill

snatchbalance

If it's supernatural it's magic.
If it's natural it's not magic.

SB

Taffy Lewis

Bill:

Thank you for your reply.

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?

A logical positivist might claim that science is the only reliable source of information about reality. But science cannot tell us that so that claim would be "supernatural" by your definition. No logical positivist would claim that one of his beliefs was a supernatural belief. Following your definition it would be.

Further, you never really say what the realm of "supernatural" would include. You only tell me what it IS NOT. There isn't any attempt to give a positive description of what WOULD be "supernatural" if it existed. My suspicion is that "natural" is so open-ended for you that it would necessarily include anything you could describe or think of as real or possible.

So I remain unconvinced that there really is a meaningful distinction between that which is "natural" and that which is "supernatural". I think neither term has any meaning.

Bill

My definition of science, quoted in my prior post (above), rests upon the classical claim of empiricism: all knowledge originates in experience. So, we have yet-another distinction between "natural" ("experiencable") and "supernatural" (not "experiencable"). My claim would be that any believers in the "supernatural" who claim that they "experience" the "supernatural" are mistaken in that belief. Yes, they have an "experience," but that "experience" is, virtually by definition, "natural." The "supernatural" is, virtually by definition, not "experiencable." Logical Positivism was developed before <a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/g5.htm#goed" target="_blank">Godel developed his famous "incompleteness" theorum</a>. I'm not certain, but I believe that had a great deal to do with killing off Logical Positivism as a viable foundational philosophy.

These days, we are forced to realize that each of us must take some idea on faith. I choose to take on faith the idea of scientific method as the only valid epistemology. From an historical perspective, that would appear to be the safest sort of epistemological choice. Well, since my personal choice of epistemological systems ("scientific method") results in neatly dividing things into the metaphysically natural (and existing) and the metaphysically supernatural (and non-existing), then you are correct that I do not personally have any positive (existing) definition of the supernatural because I personally disbelieve in its actual existence.

As to defining certain things that would, if they did exist, be within the supernatural realm, I can do that. The usual Christian ideas of soul, Heaven, and Hell are all clearly part of the "supernatural" realm. Yes, I lack all positive belief in their reality, and in fact, I have a strong belief in their unreality. Does that mean there is no distinction between "natural" and "supernatural?" NO! At least to me, personally, there is a strong distinction to be seen here, even though I totally deny the reality of all things "supernatural." I said earlier that so long as you adhere to your own definitions of those terms, nobody could convince you otherwise. My assertion is that your definitions are wrong (or, they are at least at odds with common and accepted usages). If your definitions were not wrong, you would see a clear distinction.

== Bill

Vorkosigan

You seem to want to define "naturalism" in terms of the mind/brain problem. This diverges from common usage. Your "naturalism" is really just mind/brain physicalism and your "supernaturalism" could be a type of mind/brain dualism.

Thanks, Taffy, but the simple definition I gave clearly eliminates the problem of dualism, which is a problem of consciousness. The universe cannot be god's body except by a definition of "body" that makes no sense at all. Which part of the universe is god's digestive tract? In which part do his cognitive functions reside?

Further, you never really say what the realm of "supernatural" would include. You only tell me what it IS NOT. There isn't any attempt to give a positive description of what WOULD be "supernatural" if it existed. My suspicion is that "natural" is so open-ended for you that it would necessarily include anything you could describe or think of as real or possible.

That's right. You can include anything you think of as real or possible. The hitch is, whatever we think of as real or possible must obey natural law. There's a limit on our imagination.

There is no need to give a positive definition of "supernatural." Supernatural is anything that does not fall under natural. In any case, your comment is rather strange. You take Bill to task for not giving you a strict definition of "supernatural" but then claim it is the "natural" that is open-ended. But Bill clearly maintained that it is the natural that is closed, and the supernaturalthat is open-ended (being limited only by believers' imaginations). So you seem to have misread Bill.


Bill:
so I remain unconvinced that there really is a meaningful distinction between that which is "natural" and that which is "supernatural". I think neither term has any meaning.

I am glad you think neither term has any meaning. That is clear from your assertions in this thread. However, for the rest of us, including all working scientists, the two terms are pretty clear. Perhaps the existence of large numbers of people who are clear on this issue, including dictionary writers, should make you rethink your position.

Vorkosigan

Taffy Lewis

Bill:

Many theists believe they experience God. Therefore if they accept your definition of "natural" then they must believe that God is "natural". Further, if God exists I don't see why he couldn't be experienced. If that is so then he is "experiencable" and thus "natural". In order for you to maintain that God would be "supernatural" if he existed would mean that you would have to say that God cannot possibly be experienced. But surely if God exists he could bring about a direct experience of him. I don't see why not.

Clearly it would be circular for you to argue that science supports the claim that it is the only source of reliable information about reality. As I said before, that renders your faith a "supernatural" belief. So even a naturalist can be a supernaturalist.

Are you saying that "supernatural" just means that something isn't real? If it is defined as "that which is not real" then any "evidence" for its existence must be considered misleading. When people talk about the existence of the supernatural they usually at least think such a realm COULD exist.

What makes them "supernatural"? It's certainly not clear to me that if they existed they would be supernatural. Why wouldn't they just be another aspect of the "natural" world? Do you think they are "supernatural" because you think they don't exist?

I have no definition for these terms. As I have said, I think they have no content. When one hears different definitions of these terms it is easy to find counterintuitive implications for them.

Jayhawker Soule

I suspect that this is, at best, a clever pretense adopted solely for the sake of debate. If I insist to you that I saw a plane rise noisily and powerfully into the sky, you will form some opinion. If I insist that I saw a glowing man rise majestically and unaided into the sky, you will form a radically different opinion. And, I suspect that you'll 'remain convinced' that the distinction between these two responses is meaningful and warranted.

Words approximate reality. Beat on any meaningful word and you'll find that it commonly falls short of any expectation of perfection. Relying on this shortcoming to defend or defeat theism seem less than useful.

The universe we live in gives every appearance of being governed by scientific laws and, at least in principle, ammenable to scientific investigation. To the best of my knowledge, naturalism is the assertion that such a universe exemplifies all that exists.