Natural vs. Supernatural: Real Distinction or Made-Up Crap?

[Unification]

First, thank you for taking the time to share all of these ideas. I'm going to break up your post so I can discuss it in a couple of sections. Thanks!



I think we can agree here. I am not an expert in cognitive psychology by any means, but I do understand that perception of reality is interpretive, suggesting a subjective reality separate from an objective reality. I would only add that the objectively reality is independent of me, and the subjective reality is only me see the objective reality.



This is where you lose me, for several reasons:

1. The symbolic language you are using is not culturally universal. You use a set of concepts from a specific theist creation myth to build your entire subjective reality. The Iroquios, a nation of Native Americans, had a myth surrounding a series of angelic sky people. One of the women became pregnant, and the pushed her out, where she landed on a turtle in a world of water. The sea creatures kept adding mud to the turtle until if formed all of north america. In this myth, you may interpret the reptile as the saviour instead of an enemy to defeat. Motherhood protection suggests a harmony with all creatures and nature, and proper subjective experience embrace the whole brain as a single foundation. In other words, you can use any creation myth to produce any subjective meaning you desire.

2. The symbolic language you are using is not narratively universal. You use a specific myth that is not universal . You could substitute Greek gods for all of this, perhaps Apollo and Artemis, depicting sun and moon. Only instead of feminine submission, the female Aremis is a hunter, born of the wild. She is the strong one, untamed and running with the wolves. Apollo is the sun, but he's more of a metrosexual pretty boy from the city, skilled in poetry and the arts. Instead of a single snake representing the primordial mind, maybe you have a series of mythological beasts representing a series of base desires: The Minotaur refers to our lustful natures to be lost in mazes of our subconscious, the fire-belching chimera, which represents our multi-headed rage that takes on many forms of the stubborn goat, the boastful lion, and on and on. Point here is, the narrative texts you choose to pull your symbolism might as well be random, and that randomness changes the derived meaning.

3. The symbolic language you are using is not logically valid. Your subjective reality relies on opposites that are not so. A true opposite might include statements such as the opposite of on is off, the opposite of up is down, and the opposite of a proton is an electron, the opposite of white is black. However, there are other opposites that are not accurate by definition, but ones we accept culturally. The opposite of ketchup is mustard, the opposite of the east is the west, and the opposite of male is female. Remember, male and female humans are separate by a single chromosome, and you've chosen to produce this massive mythological construct based on the logical fallacy of not only their opposites, but a suggestion of superiority and subjugation. I understand why though. . . it's not like you're the first one to do this!



You suggest that there is a supernatural reality because you recognize truths based on your subjective reality, so do you have a billion others as yourself that you can communicate with regarding your subjective reality and have them understand it? Or are you alone. . . . lost in a billion other subjective realities, each making their own meaning regarding the same texts, using metaphors that only they can truly interpret for themselves?

I would suggest that you are a faith of a single person, cut off and alone because of your subjective perspective. You have your subjective interpretation, and a collected set of symbolic meanings that you've constructed. But ultimately, you and any other person in the universe will be speaking, metaphorically. . . a different language. You can try to explain it, but unless their cultural context and grasp of the symbols and their meanings are precisely identical to yours, you will not be able to truly communicate your insights. If your reality is personally, subjectively constructed. . . then so is everyone else's.

I hold a naturalist view, and I am able to share a common language with anyone who shares that view, without the incapacities of separate semiotic interpretive systems who do not share metaphorical meanings. I am happy with that. It is very comforting.



I consider myself to be intelligent, open-minded, and creative. I consider you to be so as well. I can tell that you have seriously thought through your belief system, and you aren't just swallowing something that someone else has fed you. I appreciate that! I have spent years attempting to find god, and I've flirted with various metaphors and interpretive systems before realizing that I have been an Atheist the whole time. . . just a very creative atheist with a pretty good imagination who can find reasons to believe just about anything because I wanted to and it felt good, not because it was there.

If you are smart enough to know the difference between subjective and objective reality, than so am I. I have considered it seriously, and while I have a subjective reality like everyone else, I choose to use language to build bridges between myself and others through the observations that we can share, as opposed to speaking only about the ones that I can only experience personally.

Thanks again for taking the time to talk with me. Look forward to your response.

Thank you for your insight, wisdom, and response as well. Awesome reasoning, peacefully.

Point being: the same principles, deeply behind just about every text. The brain and the mind and its interaction with the cosmos.

1. Angelic sky people (12 legions of angels/twelve tribes of Israel/12 signs of zodiac/12 cranial nerves, etc) This story is all throughout the bible as well. The sea creatures(physical domain) kept adding lies/evil thoughts/desires/emotions to the brain. The pig in the texts I read is symbolic for rolling around in the mud (which the lower mind does). Being about what we think (thoughts). Creating all of North America: ones own reality and world in the brain or mind. The powerhouse subconscious. Motherhood protection sounds like the tender mother being the "pia mater" of the brain. Tender mother caressing an infant with water(truth) only to have that fall into the trappings of the world (more and more mud) from the turtle(reptilian brain)

2. Apollo and Artemis: sun and moon: proton and electron: higher mind: poetry and arts (spirituality/intuition) lower mind: untamed, running with Wolves (conformed to surroundings of world: lust, desire, lies, deceit, etc.)

3. Referred down below with opposites of universe, how the mind reacts with the cosmos. Not literal man and woman, male and female... But rather opposites.

Same principles of the brain and mind in just about all cultural and ancient texts.

Here is a good interpretation:
Biblical/religious symbols have always had a deep impact upon the human psyche, even when the individual isn’t consciously aware of what those symbols mean. As spiritual beings we can’t help it. We are drawn to these symbols subconsciously. The question is, “why?” What power lies therein?

I believe there is a subconscious impulse within us that desires to become conscious. This impulse is something much bigger than our egos, yet it is an intrinsic part of our divine nature. The ancient mystics who had awakened to this divine impulse designed Biblical symbols to be a catalyst to awaken you. The true power of these symbols is what they represent: the divine nature as a potent potential already within you. This truth is locked away somewhere deep in the subconscious, and that subconscious part of you is naturally drawn to it.

This divine impulse is only ready to be awakened when the mental-emotional nature of the individual is ripe. If awakened to early, it can do more harm than good. And that’s why the Biblical writers veiled divine truths in symbol, allegory, and parables. It hid the truth from those who weren’t ready, and it gently nudges those who were.

Essentially, Biblical symbols can help awaken us to a greater reality when we realize that these symbols represent potent spiritual forces latent within the human body.

That means shutting down the human intellect by separating from thought in meditation, and turning on the right hemisphere of the brain where the truth dwells.

The book of Genesis:

The book of Genesis is the book of Genes.

It is the book of Genetics.

It is the origin of things, the origin of life.

You even see that word gene as part of Genesis.

Adam and Eve

The scripture says God took a rib from Adam and made Eve.

This describes and ionic bond.

What this means is an ionic bond took place.

The rib is symbolic for the electron.

An electron was removed from Atom, making Atom a positive ion.

It was placed in another Atom making that Atom a negative ion, which the Bible called Eve.

There you have positive negative, yin yang, male female, man woman, light darkness, good evil, clean unclean, Adam and Eve.

All life began by the splitting of an Adam/atom.

We fight and kill and argue and judge each other over stories that never happened.

The culprit is most religions.

I think we have all seen and experienced enough of religion to be totally disillusioned with it.

What it has contributed to the societies of the world, is war and violence, hate for one another, degrading of women, abuse of children, and a total misunderstanding of the true nature of life and of ourselves as people of light.

We fight and kill each other over stories that never happened, but were written to convey a hidden truth, that because of religion the world has totally missed.
And that’s also why you cannot “search” for God outside of yourselves. You will not find him there! This is also the reason you will not find an answer to your experiences “outside” of yourself: there is no reason there! All events in life that happen outside of you are just fleeting moments that pop into and out of existences from the spirit of infinite potential.

"Light” and “darkness” are the polar opposites to the spectrum of experience. It is the potential between these polar opposites which make experiences possible! Without darkness, there is no revelation of the light. If all was light, what would you see or experience? If all was darkness, what would you see? It is the infinite number of potential perspectives one can take between the two that gives rise to individual experiences.

Many things are the opposite, the mirror image, of what people think. For example, people think it is the context surrounding a statement that reveals the meaning of the statement, and that is true with normal books. With the Bible or most religious texts, the opposite is true. The context hides the meaning.

What makes the most rational and objective sense is that Evolution and intelligent design both happened.

We've evolved as life has evolved meaning we didn't just pop up into the peak of creation as intelligent, advanced being's.. We were once dinosaurs, fish, microbes, insects, etc. That would be one hell of a scientific discovery heh?

Perhaps the best evidence is being conscious in itself, we have never been conscious of being unconscious. According to us, we are immortal. We have never experienced anything other than life. Which could make sense. Consciousness could not die, time and space never ends and energy cannot be created or destroyed, things will keep repeating in nature.

The universe is balanced by positive and negative energy/forces. . Thus so are we. Thoughts, emotions, knowledge, etc. Goes back and back in cycles, circles, etc.

Just like we cannot create anything from nothing, the mind cannot create anything that doesn't already exist either.

Regardless of a God, higher intelligence, multiverse, evolution, nature, supernatural, cosmos, universe ... Whatever anyone chooses to coin it.... It is still superior to the human and their brain and mind. We didn't give ourselves the body that we reside in, the circumstances and hand we've been dealt, when we die, and many many many endless other things we have no concept or control over.

God, nature, cosmos.... Either/or would all be our creator and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Atheist, theist, this that, etc.... Has zero relevance and does not matter. It reminds me of high school for me, every student needing to fit or belong in some kind of clique/social group and the desire to fit in and not be lonely. The truth is that whether one claims atheist or not it's about as delusional as complete free will.

I don't need to feel belonged to anything or anyone or any class of group. Everyone is an extension and one that I am part of collectively. I just am and am being in the present, creating and carrying out creation as everyone else, not worrying about useless things like past, future, fitting in, being accepted, and living an abundant life that comes to me from all angles, not me to it. Living in perfect love and peace mentally, within, and externally. Truly blessed and thankful.

The truth is that since you even exist, defying all odds in itself and all probability by the chance that's relatively non-existent albeit whether a higher intelligent design, nature, cosmos, abiogenesis, evolution, etc is supernatural in itself. If you want to know supernatural .... God... Know thyself. Your existence is supernatural and you are a God. Deeply within with no mind.

My experience within is personal and private and my own. What you ask would be equivalent of every human having the same level of awareness/conscious. . Which truthfully is not so. Any human can discover this, they all have the same objective brain and body components that I have in which they reside in and the same cosmos of nature: yet can never be me. Just as we individually and physically die independently and don't tell others about it collectively and objectively is because it's impossible to be aware of death(unconsciousness).
Life is all that we know and have experienced.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

For the sake argument, let's say God exists.

Would God then be labeled as natural? Why or why not?

God would not be labeled as natural, because God chooses.

Same as with human beings, the soul is not natural because the soul chooses.

So you can see that consistently everything which chooses is regarded as a matter of opinion, faith.

It is actually the logic of how subjectivity works which requires that one can only reach a conclusion about what it is that makea a decision turn out the way it does by choosing the answer, resulting in an opinion.

 

[outhouse]

I am not an atheist personally but,


Richard Carrier, in Sense and Goodness Without God, writes on page 255:

I use that line.

Like me, he stole it from Dawkins. I don't know if he invented it or lifted it from someone else.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

His ideas. . . some of which I will cover below.
.

Thank you again for your response.

Unfortunately, I have little more to add based on your recent post. I may not respond again unless you can show some more rigor in your applications. I have quoted the section I am going to deal with below.

But first, I want to take a step back and discuss the methods by which you are achieving these symbolic associations that are the foundation of your . . . is transcendent polytheism the right phrase? .I don't want to put words in your mouth, and you've already mentioned that you do not want to be labelled into a category. Respectfully sorry if that term is limiting. I didn't know how else to describe it.

In any case, I think there are two possibilities as to how you are arriving at these associations:

1. You have done an anthropologic study of the world's major religions, which took you years of careful research (as the scope of human history is magnificent) and have determine commonalities among them all that are universal. The fact that you pick the Genesis myth as the organizing structure of this symbolic structure is based on careful reasoning. That's fine if you believe that, but you would have had to had the discipline to make sure you aren't missing anything, or making assumptions to use that as your organising structure. .

2. You're making it up as you go along, and simply free associate anything to anything, assuming that because it popped into your head, that it is true. I've had some amazing insights under the influence in my early years, and I have had others write them down. When I would read them the next morning, we'd laugh. I'd say stuff like, "candy canes are actually weapons," "people need food to eat," and "most of our neighbours are mice." True story.

Now, as I cannot assume anything about your background, I have to pick based on what you are giving me. The section of your post I've highlighted above demonstrates why I have to assume #2.

Here is all the evidence I need for that claim.

That means shutting down the human intellect by separating from thought in meditation, and turning on the right hemisphere of the brain where the truth dwells.

The book of Genesis:

The book of Genesis is the book of Genes.

It is the book of Genetics.

It is the origin of things, the origin of life.

You even see that word gene as part of Genesis.

Adam and Eve

The scripture says God took a rib from Adam and made Eve.

This describes and ionic bond.

What this means is an ionic bond took place.

The rib is symbolic for the electron.

An electron was removed from Atom, making Atom a positive ion.

It was placed in another Atom making that Atom a negative ion, which the Bible called Eve.

There you have positive negative, yin yang, male female, man woman, light darkness, good evil, clean unclean, Adam and Eve.

All life began by the splitting of an Adam/atom.

.

The word Genesis is a Greek word. That's the name of the book according the Greek translation. The actual Hebew word for that book is called bre****, or "in the beginning." Obviously, genes and genetics are also Greek terms, which mean "origins." You are drawing an association between the word Genesis and Genetics, solely based on a common etymology that requires our word for the first book of the Old Testament/Torah to be. . . . luckily for you, Genesis. If it had remained Bre****, well. . . so much for your mystical insight. Though it's quite similar to the word for what comes out of a bull's. . . uh. . .

But it gets stranger. You also take two words like Adam and Atom and imply a symbolic association. These do not even share a common meaning or etymology. Adam is the Hebrew word for "man." Atom is Greek for the "inability to be cut or divided." The rib thing was creative, but two things: 1.) the meaning of the word atom is the inability to be split. 2.) The actual splitting of an atom requires a splitting of the nucleus (protons and neutrons). After nuclear fission, there may be oppositely charged isotopes of unequal atomic weight, but they are not the same element, nor is there a guarantee that there will only be two of them. This is truth?

The association you make between these two words is purely phonetic. The words just sounded the same to you. Sorry, but that's the straw that breaks the camel's back here, and based on this telling section of your (admittedly creative) posting, I have to deny you any credibility to speak intelligently about these symbolic constructions or the faith they imply.

 

[Unification]

Thank you again for your response.

Unfortunately, I have little more to add based on your recent post. I may not respond again unless you can show some more rigor in your applications. I have quoted the section I am going to deal with below.

But first, I want to take a step back and discuss the methods by which you are achieving these symbolic associations that are the foundation of your . . . is transcendent polytheism the right phrase? .I don't want to put words in your mouth, and you've already mentioned that you do not want to be labelled into a category. Respectfully sorry if that term is limiting. I didn't know how else to describe it.

In any case, I think there are two possibilities as to how you are arriving at these associations:

1. You have done an anthropologic study of the world's major religions, which took you years of careful research (as the scope of human history is magnificent) and have determine commonalities among them all that are universal. The fact that you pick the Genesis myth as the organizing structure of this symbolic structure is based on careful reasoning. That's fine if you believe that, but you would have had to had the discipline to make sure you aren't missing anything, or making assumptions to use that as your organising structure. .

2. You're making it up as you go along, and simply free associate anything to anything, assuming that because it popped into your head, that it is true. I've had some amazing insights under the influence in my early years, and I have had others write them down. When I would read them the next morning, we'd laugh. I'd say stuff like, "candy canes are actually weapons," "people need food to eat," and "most of our neighbours are mice." True story.

Now, as I cannot assume anything about your background, I have to pick based on what you are giving me. The section of your post I've highlighted above demonstrates why I have to assume #2.

Here is all the evidence I need for that claim.



The word Genesis is a Greek word. That's the name of the book according the Greek translation. The actual Hebew word for that book is called bre****, or "in the beginning." Obviously, genes and genetics are also Greek terms, which mean "origins." You are drawing an association between the word Genesis and Genetics, solely based on a common etymology that requires our word for the first book of the Old Testament/Torah to be. . . . luckily for you, Genesis. If it had remained Bre****, well. . . so much for your mystical insight. Though it's quite similar to the word for what comes out of a bull's. . . uh. . .

But it gets stranger. You also take two words like Adam and Atom and imply a symbolic association. These do not even share a common meaning or etymology. Adam is the Hebrew word for "man." Atom is Greek for the "inability to be cut or divided." The rib thing was creative, but two things: 1.) the meaning of the word atom is the inability to be split. 2.) The actual splitting of an atom requires a splitting of the nucleus (protons and neutrons). After nuclear fission, there may be oppositely charged isotopes of unequal atomic weight, but they are not the same element, nor is there a guarantee that there will only be two of them. This is truth?

The associate you make between these two words is purely phonetic. The words just sounded the same to you. Sorry, but that's the straw that breaks the camel's back here, and based on this telling section of your (admittedly creative) posting, I have to deny you any credibility to speak intelligently about these symbolic constructions or the faith they imply.

It is a shame to see you go so soon, especially with the beautiful metaphor you used (straw that breaks the camels back) not literally but with a meaning behind the textual phrase. Yet use the polar opposite approach with your reference to "man" as literal "man" rather than the meaning behind its textual word in the "origin of life, in the beginning of life, genetics, atom, and opposites" discussion.

Option 1 and option 2 are both inaccurate.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

It is a shame to see you go so soon, especially with the beautiful metaphor you used (straw that breaks the camels back) not literally but with a meaning behind the textual phrase. Yet use the polar opposite approach with your reference to "man" as literal "man" rather than the meaning behind its textual word in the "origin of life, in the beginning of life, genetics, atom, and opposites" discussion.

Option 1 and option 2 are both inaccurate.

There's nothing wrong with using metaphors. I'm not claiming the camel is God and the straw is the radioactive material of nuclear fission from
The Big Bang.

I used the literal word for man to represent the word Adam, because that's what it means.

It's not a logical inconsistency to use both metaphors and literal meanings in the same text. The are common rhetorical devices.

I am happy to be wrong about option 1 and 2. I'd like to know what option 3 is. Thanks!

 

[Jared Jammer]

The atheist argument, in short:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  
• God is supernatural.
• Thus, God does not exist.

Would you say that's accurate?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The atheist argument, in short:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  
• God is supernatural.
• Thus, God does not exist.

Would you say that's accurate?

Not exactly. I think it's more about the distinction between what can be observed and what is beyond observation.

 

[outhouse]

The atheist argument, in short:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  
• God is supernatural.
• Thus, God does not exist.

Would you say that's accurate?

No.

That is inaccurate as can be.

I see exactly how man created gods for a very long time. And the same pattern I see others creating their gods, I see exactly how Israelites created theirs.


I also see exactly how ONLY MAN has redefined the concepts at will as cultural needs to change.


The fact your chosen deity lies in the supernatural category means nothing to me.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not exactly. I think it's more about the distinction between what can be observed and what is beyond observation.

Agree.

The latter, hence supernatural, is really plain made up jargon in an effort to get a complete picture of things.

Supernatural simply doesn't apply anywhere at all. There's no basis upon using the term except in fantasy.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The atheist argument, in short:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  
• God is supernatural.
• Thus, God does not exist.

Would you say that's accurate?

No.

 

[Bunyip]

The atheist argument, in short:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  
• God is supernatural.
• Thus, God does not exist.

Would you say that's accurate?

No, it is about as far from accurate as you could get. Pretty much the exact opposite of the truth.

 

[atpollard]

Personally, I find Quantum Tunneling and Relativity pretty close to being 'Supernatural'.
As a Civil Engineer, I like Newtonian Physics.

 

[columbus]

The atheist argument, in short:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  
• God is supernatural.
• Thus, God does not exist.

Would you say that's accurate?

I am sure that there are some simple thinkers who agree with this.
Most atheists like those here on RF have rather more sophisticated views.

I would not be surprised if most of the atheists you describe are nominal churchgoers. Plenty of people can see through the made up crap they were taught as children. But they also learned to value community and domestic harmony more than intellectual honesty.
So they don't talk about it.
Tom

 

[Sapiens]

The atheist argument, in short:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  
• God is supernatural.
• Thus, God does not exist.

Would you say that's accurate?

If you made a few small changes:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
• If a god is supernatural.
• Then that god does not exist.

I'd have no problem defending it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The atheist argument, in short:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  
• God is supernatural.
• Thus, God does not exist.

Would you say that's accurate?

Haha.......hold it buster...if anything that exists is natural, then logically that automatically categorizes all supernatural and natural existence as natural.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We often see the terms natural and supernatural pitted against each other. I have a couple of questions, if you wonderful people don't mind giving me your thoughts.

Question 1. What exactly do these terms mean?

As far as I can tell:

- natural: that which exists
- supernatural: that which is poorly understood, and either exists (and is therefore natural) or is mistakenly thought to exist.

However, I've seen other people use them a different way:

- natural: things where the person thinks their opinion is supported by evidence.

- supernatural: things where the person realizes their opinion isn't supported by evidence, but he or she wants to believe it anyway.

Question 2. In what ways do they bring enlightenment to the discussions?

They don't.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There probably is no perfect definition of 'supernatural'.

I think 'supernatural' ultimately means phenomena not explainable by current materialistic science and suggesting materialism gives us a dramatically incomplete view of reality. (i.e. ghosts)

So as the scope of "current materialistic science" changes, the definition of "supernatural" changes, too?

For instance, before Faraday and Coulomb, was electricity supernatural?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The atheist argument, in short:

• Anything which exists is natural.
• Anything which is not natural is supernatural.
• Thus, the supernatural does not exist.
  
• God is supernatural.
• Thus, God does not exist.

Would you say that's accurate?

Not at all.

BTW: there is no single "atheist argument".

 

[George-ananda]

So as the scope of "current materialistic science" changes, the definition of "supernatural" changes, too?

For instance, before Faraday and Coulomb, was electricity supernatural?

No, I wouldn't call electricity supernatural. Supernatural (which I said has no perfect definition) implies things beyond the physical realm.