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

[Jared Jammer]

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?

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

Thank you.

 

[Sapiens]

The supernatural (Medieval Latin: supernātūrālis: supra "above" + naturalis "nature", first used: 1520–30 AD) is that which is not subject to the laws of physics or, more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.

The supernatural is a feature of the philosophical traditions of Neoplatonism and Scholasticism. Most religions include the supernatural, and it is also a feature of the paranormal and occultism. (wiki)

In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.

"Naturalism can intuitively be separated into an ontological and a methodological component." "Ontological" refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Some philosophers equate naturalism with materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.

In contrast, assuming naturalism in working methods, without necessarily considering naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailments, is called methodological naturalism. The subject matter here is a philosophy of acquiring knowledge.

With the exception of pantheists—who believe that Nature and God are one and the same thing—theists challenge the idea that nature contains all of reality. According to some theists, natural laws may be viewed as so-called secondary causes of god(s).

In the 20th century, Willard Van Orman Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers argued that the success of naturalism in science meant that scientific methods should also be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy are said to form a continuum, according to this view. (also Wiki)

Supernaturalism brings no enlightenment to anything. It's primary useful function (at least as I observe it) is it's use in impressing impressionable and vacuous new-age coeds.

Naturalism, on the other hand, leads to models that make consistent and accurate predictions about the universe and it is need for everything from landing people on the Moon to fighting Ebola on the Earth.

 

[shawn001]

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?

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

Thank you.

Really?

supernatural

" unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc."

Supernatural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

natural

" existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature"

Natural - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do super natural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

No proof of anything supernatural has ever been confirmed. Many things thought to be supernatural were later discovered to have natural explanations.

 

[shawn001]

"
Compatibility of Science and Religion
Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion — including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans — evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858.

Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

 

[Sunstone]

If god were natural, god would be open to investigation by scientific means.

 

[Jared Jammer]

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

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

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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?

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

Thank you.

Natural, as used in terms of "natural processes" which drive evolution, is a term used to describe what apparently seems inherent without intervention in our world. Gravity for example seems inherent. If I drop a book I don't have to throw it to the ground. Now thanks to the TOR we don't have to assume any sort of unseen force that we could never understand produces it.

Supernatural is simply a word that people use to describe things they do not know the cause of. It is more or less a meaningless word in these debates. We can use a useful term such as UN-natural as it denotes at least some form of meaning that we can use. In the case of unnatural events or structures it is simply something that we have created by altering the existing natural resources.

A claim of a god or unknown filler to produce explanations is something I might call an appeal to supernatural. However there is no evidence of the supernatural in this sense as it is contradictory to the nature of what "supernatural" is. If there were evidence and it could be understood (as almost all supernatural claims are given enough scientific advancement) it suddenly becomes natural.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For the sake argument, let's say God exists.
Would God then be labeled as natural? Why or why not?

If God was a visible part of the natural world like birds, fish and weather, then yes. But God isn't a visible part of the natural world so you'd probably have to label it as supernatural. Same as with ghosts, spirits and things that go bump in the night.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

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

Thank you.

Supernatural is describing what cant be defined by humans using scientific methods and five senses.

Natural is anything not man made.
-
I see no difference in the two. Supernatural is part of the natural world. Spirits are not made by man and exists on their own accord.

What discussions in particular?

 

[Lyndon]

Everything is natural, including God, the supernatural is just the stuff science hasn't got around to proving yet.

 

[Revoltingest]

For the sake argument, let's say God exists.
Would God then be labeled as natural? Why or why not?

If this god is not amenable to testing in the material (natural) world, then it would be supernatural.
My reason: It's the definition of "supernatural".
Ref:
Supernatural | Define Supernatural at Dictionary.com

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Everything is natural, including God, the supernatural is just the stuff science hasn't got around to proving yet.

I understand what you're saying, but if it's supernatural, science will never get around to proving it.

To me, one of the best things about a naturalist position is that observations can be shared independently.

An individual, halfway around the world, with a different culture and language, can still use mathematics to describe the world in the same way. If they did an experiment about the natural world, they would reach the same conclusions (assuming rigor, design of experiment, etc).

The supernatural position is dependent upon personal experience and cultural interpretation, which is fine for you, but there is no way to truly share the breadth of your experience with anyone else.

Even those who share your worldview, your culture, or your church, have their own unique interpretation. It's fine, as I said. But you cannot truly share it.

The supernatural position, for me, would be an intensely lonely one.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

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

My opinion would be that anything which exists is natural by definition and that would include any gods if they existed.

I think the issue is that we (naturally ) have a very human centric view of things and so consider anything outside our ability to view or investigate somehow special or different. The concept of something being able to be investigated via scientific process doesn't require human beings to be physically capable of doing so.

If a god exists, they could investigate themselves using scientific method (though they might struggle for peer review ).

 

[Sapiens]

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

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

That's a stupid hypothetical on the order of, "if my grandma had two wheels would she be a bicycle?"

 

[lovemuffin]

That's a stupid hypothetical on the order of, "if my grandma had two wheels would she be a bicycle?"

The other problem is that this leads to a number of unfortunate riding analogies.

 

[Unification]

I understand what you're saying, but if it's supernatural, science will never get around to proving it.

To me, one of the best things about a naturalist position is that observations can be shared independently.

An individual, halfway around the world, with a different culture and language, can still use mathematics to describe the world in the same way. If they did an experiment about the natural world, they would reach the same conclusions (assuming rigor, design of experiment, etc).

The supernatural position is dependent upon personal experience and cultural interpretation, which is fine for you, but there is no way to truly share the breadth of your experience with anyone else.

Even those who share your worldview, your culture, or your church, have their own unique interpretation. It's fine, as I said. But you cannot truly share it.

The supernatural position, for me, would be an intensely lonely one.

Would you say that we all have an objective mind (all things in common) and then a subjective mind(culture/experience/religion/church/worldview) ?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Would you say that we all have an objective mind (all things in common) and then a subjective mind(culture/experience/religion/church/worldview) ?

Depends on how you frame it:

We could have an id (impulse/libido) ego (identity), and superego (morality).

We could have a physical mind (brain), a sensory mind (images and perceptions), a literal mind (language), a social mind (communication), and a creative mind (imagination).

We could have a fire mind (source of passion), water mind (source of emotion), a earthen mind (source of stability/tradition), and an air mind (source of logic and reason).

We could have a reptilian mind (hindbrain), a mammalian mind (limbic) and a floral mind ( neocortex).

We could have a mind that belongs to me, one that belongs to us, and one that belongs to life.

Please tell me your framing device (objective and subjective mind) and maybe we can talk about it respectfully.

 

[George-ananda]

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)

 

[Unification]

Depends on how you frame it:

We could have an id (impulse/libido) ego (identity), and superego (morality).

We could have a physical mind (brain), a sensory mind (images and perceptions), a literal mind (language), a social mind (communication), and a creative mind (imagination).

We could have a fire mind (source of passion), water mind (source of emotion), a earthen mind (source of stability/tradition), and an air mind (source of logic and reason).

We could have a reptilian mind (hindbrain), a mammalian mind (limbic) and a floral mind ( neocortex).

We could have a mind that belongs to me, one that belongs to us, and one that belongs to life.

Please tell me your framing device (objective and subjective mind) and maybe we can talk about it respectfully.

Always respectfully, friend. Loved your response.

We share all of the same framing devices within our heads, making that objective in itself. . And a collective conscious.

12 cranial nerves, east and west hemispheres of brain.

Conscious: neocortex
Subconscious/unconscious: Limbic
Animal mind: Reptillian brain.

Or in the religious texts I read:

Adam
Eve
Serpent

 

[Unification]

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)

Would you say that consciousness and the mind fit that criteria of supernatural?