Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Plump-DJ · 10-14-2002, 08:14 PM

I've been thinking lately about the terms "Natural" and "Supernatural" which seem to crop up so often in discussions on the existence of God. Anyway I found this quote which seemed to express quite well, some of the thoughts about the usefulness (or lack there off) of these terms.

"The term "naturalism" is no more determinate than the terms "physical" and "material". All it really involves is a rejection of anything classified supernatural relative to a given conception of the natural. But we do not know the limits of the natural. We cannot be sure we know the nature of the natural, any more than we can be sure we know the nature of the physical. Most naturalists think that all naturalists must be materialists. But this is true only if everything natural is physical or material. We can't know that it is true unless we make it true by definition."

From Mental Reality by Galen Strawson
<a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000359" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000359</a>

So when talk of the natural is invoked, as contrasted with the supernatural, I think it is done without much consideration for our limited knowledge of the ontology of the natural and physical.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

Tom Sawyer · 10-15-2002, 11:20 AM

My own definition of the difference would be that "natural" means things that can be studied by science and "supernatural" means things that cannot. I believe that everything can be studied by science, once science advances enough, so there is no supernatural world at all, except as exists in our imaginations (which themselves are governed by natural laws dealing with the firing of neurons, etc).

As an example, assume that we live in a universe where witches are real and they can do magic. If you make a witch angry, she can turn you into a newt or set you on fire. This would be classified as a supernatural event. However, if this universe has an unseen energy force and some people are born with a genetic mutation that allows them, through whatever means, to manipulate this energy force to alter your genetic structure into that of a newt or change molecular activity in your area to produce fire around you, then that "magic" is a natural event in that universe that can be studied.

"Supernatural" is just a lazy way to describe things that we don't understand or are just not real. Since everything can be potentially understood once our abilities to analyze it become advanced enough, I believe that using it to describe things does nothing but get in the way or the search for what the universe is and how it works.

Jamie_L · 10-15-2002, 11:39 AM

There's an article in the library where Keith Augustine goest through the torturous process of trying to define naturalism in a meaningful way. Reading it makes my head hurt, but once I get past the pain, it's a good article.

Check it out <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Jamie

10-14-2002, 08:14 PM	#1
Plump-DJ Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Oztralia (Aussie Aussie Aussie) Posts: 153	Does the word Naturalism really tell us anything? I've been thinking lately about the terms "Natural" and "Supernatural" which seem to crop up so often in discussions on the existence of God. Anyway I found this quote which seemed to express quite well, some of the thoughts about the usefulness (or lack there off) of these terms. "The term "naturalism" is no more determinate than the terms "physical" and "material". All it really involves is a rejection of anything classified supernatural relative to a given conception of the natural. But we do not know the limits of the natural. We cannot be sure we know the nature of the natural, any more than we can be sure we know the nature of the physical. Most naturalists think that all naturalists must be materialists. But this is true only if everything natural is physical or material. We can't know that it is true unless we make it true by definition." From Mental Reality by Galen Strawson <a href="http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000359" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000359</a> So when talk of the natural is invoked, as contrasted with the supernatural, I think it is done without much consideration for our limited knowledge of the ontology of the natural and physical. [ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

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

10-15-2002, 11:20 AM	#2
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	My own definition of the difference would be that "natural" means things that can be studied by science and "supernatural" means things that cannot. I believe that everything can be studied by science, once science advances enough, so there is no supernatural world at all, except as exists in our imaginations (which themselves are governed by natural laws dealing with the firing of neurons, etc). As an example, assume that we live in a universe where witches are real and they can do magic. If you make a witch angry, she can turn you into a newt or set you on fire. This would be classified as a supernatural event. However, if this universe has an unseen energy force and some people are born with a genetic mutation that allows them, through whatever means, to manipulate this energy force to alter your genetic structure into that of a newt or change molecular activity in your area to produce fire around you, then that "magic" is a natural event in that universe that can be studied. "Supernatural" is just a lazy way to describe things that we don't understand or are just not real. Since everything can be potentially understood once our abilities to analyze it become advanced enough, I believe that using it to describe things does nothing but get in the way or the search for what the universe is and how it works.

10-15-2002, 11:39 AM	#3
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	There's an article in the library where Keith Augustine goest through the torturous process of trying to define naturalism in a meaningful way. Reading it makes my head hurt, but once I get past the pain, it's a good article. Check it out <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/thesis.html" target="_blank">here</a>. Jamie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.