Does "Supernatural" equal "un-natural"?

Originally posted by twhitehead
My argument is new for me ans so probably has lots of holes in. But let me try it again.
First some comments:
1. If we observe a new phenomena in the universe, as scientists we do not immediately suggest the supernatural but instead assume it is a natural phenomena.
2. It is popular to suggest the supernatural when one believes that he knows the laws o broken by a supernatural even then it wasn't a law. So supernatural events cannot take place.

I know I am not explaining it in the way I see it in my mind.

Man, I know the feeling! Let me just throw out some thoughts willy-nilly, and maybe they’ll stimulate your own thinking—

Your argument seems to be:

(1) A supernatural event is one that violates some natural law. [definition]

(2) A natural law cannot be violated. [by definition]

(3) Any actual violation of a perceived natural law means that it was not in fact a natural law. [by (2)]

—In which case, our understanding of that natural “law” must be reconsidered.

(4) Therefore, there is no such thing as a supernatural event.


This seems to me to reduce to:


(1) A supernatural event is one that violates what cannot be violated. [from (1) and (2) above]

(2) Therefore, there is no such thing as a supernatural event.


But, if that is the case, it is simply because you have defined “supernatural” in such a way that it entails a logical contradiction. That seems to be a bit of question-begging. Of course, it works—if the supernaturalist accepts your definition.

A supernaturalist, I suspect, would argue that, since nature is subject to supernature, natural “laws” can only be said to hold in the natural realm so long as the natural realm is not acted upon by the supernatural.

____________________________________________

And some random thoughts based on my prior post—

My focus was on the question of the supernatural communicating to the natural domain via events that, although they may appear to violate natural laws, are at least sufficiently “naturalized” that we can observe and analyze them. We are in agreement that such “weird” events are no reason to leap to a supernatural category.

Any purely supernatural event would not be observable at all by our natural faculties. Is this in line with your argument? I base it on the notion that a truly supernatural category would be “wholly other” to the natural order in which our perceptual apparati function. If such a supernatural category is not “wholly other”, then why call it supernatural at all, rather than simply an extension of the natural?

I have the sense that this is correct, but...

Therefore, for any observable event—no matter whether it seems to violate the natural order as we understand it thus far—there is already prima facie evidence that it is a natural event: which evidence is simply that it is observable to us.

This means that no purely supernatural event can ever be identified as such?

I think the key here may be the distinction between a supernatural domain (category) and the possibility of a purely supernatural event in the natural world. That is why—on my less strict definition of the supernatural (category)—I raise the communicability issue. To be clear, a Christian supernaturalist-theist, for example, is likely to admit (I think most do) that the “supernaturally revealed” scriptural texts are nevertheless “naturalized” in terms of language and accessible meaning. (Otherwise, we end up with SwissGambit’s bizarro language.)

Originally posted by vistesd
A supernaturalist, I suspect, would argue that, since nature is subject to supernature, natural “laws” can only be said to hold in the natural realm so long as the natural realm is not acted upon by the supernatural.

Can we reverse that and claim that unless we already know about and understand the supernatural, it is impossible to know whether a 'natural law' is truly a 'natural' law as it might in fact be the overall result of a natural and supernatural effect. For example all the weirdness in quantum physics might not be natural but supernatural. Even things that seem perfectly natural such as gravity may in fact be a supernatural effect.

This of course begs the question 'what is the difference'.

If we take the 'supernaturalist' definition you suggested then it becomes completely arbitrary as to what effects are 'natural' and what effects are 'supernatural' (unless some further definition is added).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Can we reverse that and claim that unless we already know about and understand the supernatural, it is impossible to know whether a 'natural law' is truly a 'natural' law as it might in fact be the overall result of a natural and supernatural effect. For example all the weirdness in quantum physics might not be natural but supernatural. Even things that s ...[text shortened]... ural' and what effects are 'supernatural' (unless some further definition is added).

Hmmm...

My initial reaction is that you’re right.

My second reaction is that that is itself a problem with introducing a so-called (you’ve now forced me to add that!) supernatural category: all epistemology flies out the window. Thunder might really be the beating of fairie wings, and who’s to say other wise?

But then, how are we defining “natural”? (I suspect that your point about observability is key there.)

Hmmm again...

[Gets up, pours a drink, paces a bit...]

Okay, TW, it’s been a long enough day that my brain is now creamed corn. I’ll just say that I can’t offhand think of a reasonable application of the concept “natural” that, if it is to have any meaning, does not simply banish the supernatural along the lines you’re arguing. What definition of “natural” that makes any sense does not lead to a contradiction if you then also posit a so-called supernatural category?

[paces again...]

But, cannot the supernaturalist make the same point? That, for example, “spooky action at a distance” could really be the result of some supernatural spooky god(s)? Well, of course, it could...but that’s part of the point you’re making. (See how creamed my brain is now?)

It’s really not just a matter of parsimony then: it’s a matter that—once you introduce the so-called supernatural category—everything “cancels out”, so to speak, in such a way that one can not claim to know anything at all about how the universe works. Epistemology is cut down. Elves, demons, gravity—shrug—who knows? Believe whatever satisfies you...

Good stuff! Let me let it kick around in my head for a while (a few days probably). I now think you’re right; I want to see if I can come up with any new objections...

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I would say no. Anything supernatural would be out of the ordinary (unnatural)--but there are plenty of unnatural acts that are far from supernatural.

Do you mean un-natural as in 'offends me'?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
Do you mean un-natural as in 'offends me'?

No, I mean un-natural as
= vortices where cars appear to roll uphill
= a mother with a lack of maternal instinct
= a black swan
= Secretariat
= a duffer scoring a hole-in-one

all these are quite unnatural but their not miraculous. They can be explained.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
No, I mean un-natural as
= vortices where cars appear to roll uphill

Whats that all about? Do you mean a magic trick?

= a black swan
I didn't realize those were uncommon.

all these are quite unnatural but their not miraculous. They can be explained.

Previously:
Anything supernatural would be out of the ordinary (unnatural)--but there are plenty of unnatural acts that are far from supernatural.
So are you defining "supernatural" as:
1. An unusual event which cannot be explained.
And do you mean
2. 'can never be explained' or
3. 'has no current explanation'?
If 1. then an event caused by God is not supernatural as God is the explanation.
If 2. then how would you know?
If 3. then can some formerly supernatural events become natural once an explanation is found?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Whats that all about? Do you mean a magic trick?

[b] = a black swan
I didn't realize those were uncommon.

all these are quite unnatural but their not miraculous. They can be explained.

Previously:
Anything supernatural would be out of the ordinary (unnatural)--but there are plenty of unnatural acts that are far from supernatura ...[text shortened]... . then can some formerly supernatural events become natural once an explanation is found?

God as the explanation does not make an event supernatural; it defines it as such.

Vortices aren't magic--just strange places where things don't appear to follow natural laws. (I saw it on a Science Channed show called Weird U.S.)

Black swans are VERY uncommon; they weren't thought to even exist a decade ago.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
God as the explanation does not make an event supernatural; it defines it as such.

So when you say:
"Anything supernatural would be out of the ordinary (unnatural)"
Do you mean Gods actions are rare, or simply 'not of nature'?

Vortices aren't magic--just strange places where things don't appear to follow natural laws. (I saw it on a Science Channed show called Weird U.S.)
Don't believe everything you see on tv.

Black swans are VERY uncommon; they weren't thought to even exist a decade ago.
From what I can tell, black swans come from Australia and have been on the coat of arms of Western Australia since 1876. I make that a bit more than a decade ago.
I have seen a black swan here in South Africa - probably imported from Australia.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So when you say:
"Anything supernatural would be out of the ordinary (unnatural)"
Do you mean Gods actions are rare, or simply 'not of nature'?

[b]Vortices aren't magic--just strange places where things don't appear to follow natural laws. (I saw it on a Science Channed show called Weird U.S.)
Don't believe everything you see on tv.

Black ago.
I have seen a black swan here in South Africa - probably imported from Australia.

[/b]I’m going to be gone for awhile, tw.

I’ll just say that I think you’re right about my definition of supernatural; and I think the word natural (at least in this context) should just be taken to mean what is, period. I thought about how you reversed the whole question on me, and wondered how someone (especially a supernaturalist theist) would answer the question: “What is not supernatural?”

[Nor should “natural” be confused with “normal” (or “abnormal” with “unnatural” ).]

I agree that the whole natural/supernatural dichotomy makes no sense.

Be well.

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m going to be gone for awhile, tw.

I’ll just say that I think you’re right about my definition of supernatural; and I think the word natural (at least in this context) should just be taken to mean what is, period. I thought about how you reversed the whole question on me, and wondered how someone (especially a supernaturalist theist) would answer the ...[text shortened]... ural” ).]

I agree that the whole natural/supernatural dichotomy makes no sense.

Be well.

Be well too.

I know that everyone has in mind a clear separation of 'natural' and 'supernatural' and I guess we are just brought up to think that way. But now the idea has struck me I cant seem to rationalize any reason for a separation. The only rational definition I can come up with is to define 'supernatural' as equivalent to 'fairy tale' or 'imaginary'.
To admit belief in fairies is almost an admission that you believe in the imaginary. To scientifically discover a fairy would render it entirely 'real' and 'natural' and thus not really a 'fairy' but rather some real phenomena that has been historically mistaken for a 'fairy'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Be well too.

I know that everyone has in mind a clear separation of 'natural' and 'supernatural' and I guess we are just brought up to think that way. But now the idea has struck me I cant seem to rationalize any reason for a separation. The only rational definition I can come up with is to define 'supernatural' as equivalent to 'fairy tale' or 'imagin ...[text shortened]... rather some real phenomena that has been historically mistaken for a 'fairy'.

I agree with you that the traditional separating line between natural and supernatural is very artificial. Yet, I can think of a separating line that is perhaps more consistent.

The natural itself is subject to what you called 'rules', which are an integral part of the natural system. All we know and all we can ever know is conditional on those rules because we ourselves are part of such a system. We can therefore never know about the source of such rules.

Note that this doesn't mean that we cannot know about the source of gravity, for example. Just that if we find a natural source for gravity, then the problem is just transferred until we reach the 'true natural laws' that we cannot possibly find a source for.

Defining the supernatural as the source for such natural laws makes sense me. Even etymologically. 🙂

Originally posted by Palynka
Defining the supernatural as the source for such natural laws makes sense me. Even etymologically. 🙂

So you are saying that we cannot ever know anything about the supernatural so defined?
Would you agree that that definition is not close to the common usage and that the common usage is in fact incoherent?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you are saying that we cannot ever know anything about the supernatural so defined?
Would you agree that that definition is not close to the common usage and that the common usage is in fact incoherent?

Yes, I don't see how we can.

I don't know if we can agree to what is 'common usage', but I think we can agree that my definition isn't likely to be it. I just think that it would be more interesting to find a definition I personally find coherent, than simply bashing some assumed 'common usage'. As to other definitions proposed in this thread, I think you did a good job of handling them.