semantics, philosophy, supernaturalHere’s my thought process.
A supernatural thing, by definition, does not behave according to “natural law” - the laws of physics.
However, the “laws” of physics are simply our best description of how things behave in the universe. When we find something which does not “obey” the laws of physics, we simply change the laws to better describe reality.
So it seems to me that the definition of “supernatural” precludes it from existing: if it existed, it would be “natural”.
Put another way: given a thing which exists, I cannot think of a way to determine whether it is “natural” or “supernatural”.
Is something wrong with my reasoning? Have I misunderstood the meaning of “supernatural”?
That’s very accurate. Supernatural is useless without an example. The best examples to date are simply concepts that fit in the gaps of human knowledge about the natural world.
I would say therefore supernatural is simply a concept, in reality it could not exist, as to exist, it would be natural.
I think you’re correct in that any phenomena which exists in our universe is, by definition, natural.
From what I’ve encountered, it seems that the use of the term ‘supernatural’ is related to the concept of a spiritual realm distinct from the physical universe. E.g., Heaven and Hell are believed to be somehow ‘outside’ this universe, not physical in nature, and are thus supernatural. I think the belief that the term is a meaningful one stems from confusion between concrete and abstract concepts (as henkvanderlaak suggested), leading to the reification of the latter. Those who use the term don’t think that the phenomena are simply natural phenomena which are not yet well explained by natural physical laws; they seem to believe that the phenomena are well understood (at least in some cases, e.g., Shamans believe they understand the spirit world), and they are not and cannot be described by physical laws, since they transcend the physical universe. The concept of transcendence falls apart under scrutiny; if something is transcendent in the sense that it has no interaction with the physical universe, how do you know it exists? If it has some form of interaction with the physical universe, how could that be unless that interaction was governed by physical laws?
Of course every example of supernatural phenomena that I’m aware of has either been shown to not be supernatural, or has a supernatural explanation which is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless as an explanation (though it may have personal meaning to the individual).
So as you and others have implied, the concept of supernatural phenomena stems from ignorance. If those phenomena are real, once they’re understood they can no longer be meaningfully considered supernatural, however special they may be.
In definitional terms, no “real” meaning. In terms of how it is used rhetorically to achieve political, religious purposes? HUGE meaning.
It’s a tool in the belt of the “believer” (particularly the priest class) that fits really closely with the claims that “We are made in God’s image, yet God is the “super” everything that we are. We are knowing; God is All knowing. We are powerful, God is ALL-Powerful. We are natural, god is SUPERnatural. God can do things you can’t. You’re bound by natural laws, God isn’t. You are SO wretched!! Grovel!”
It’s a sham concept, but a very meaningful and useful “tool of repression” invented to further denigrate the human condition, so one feels unworthy and in need of God (through the Priest’s intercessions, of course.)
I shall now avert my eyes. ;-)
One thing that could be thought of as supernatural are events that have no observable regularity. Since such regularity (even stochastic regularity) is thought to help define natural laws, perhaps things without such regularity that have no apparent physical cause (e.g. miracles) could be thought of as supernatural.
Alternatively, things could be thought of as provisionally supernatural. That is, until the underlying regularity can be explained to sufficient degree, the properties themselves are supernatural.
That said, depending on what a sufficient degree is thought to be, you might classify everything from behavioral biology to sociology as examples of fields that study supernatural entities.
If instead you appeal to things that cannot be explained except by appeal to axioms, then gravity is itself a supernatural entity.
Its things like this that make this such a messy issue. I’m going to have to check out that link though, it definitely sounds interesting.
Concepts can be either concrete or abstract. I claim that any abstract concept cannot be immediately categorized as either natural or supernatural. It depends on the interaction with the natural world.
Example: The concept of ‘friendship’ is abstract. It doesn’t obey the laws of physics, but it isn’t supernatural. It affects the real world though in a natural way, thus we call it natural.
As soon as claim is made that the abstract concept interacts with the natural word in an supernatural way, it must be called supernatural.
So the concept of God could be called ‘natural’, as long as no claim is made that it can interact in any special way with the natural world.
I think it’s not much different to appealing to “superlogic” when we cannot reach the conclusion we want, or “supermathematics” to make anything equal 42. It’s the point where rational inquiry stops and imagination and/or emotional needs take over.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.