"Supernatural" and Naturalism

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
"Does the philosophy remain intact?"

Absolutely. Rather than going for examples from science, can you precisely tell me how the usage changes? Not examples, but the actual usage.

Ah, I see. Certainly the sentiment is there. So what exactly are you saying? If the mere gist or sentiment of an idea carries through with successive revisions of a definition, all definitions are equivalent? In an academic setting, is it a sufficient standard to merely convey the sentiment of an idea, however vague or ambiguous that conveyance may be?

 

[firedragon]

Ah, I see. Certainly the sentiment is there. So what exactly are you saying? If the mere gist or sentiment of an idea carries through with successive revisions of a definition, all definitions are equivalent? In an academic setting, is it a sufficient standard to merely convey the sentiment of an idea, however vague or ambiguous that conveyance may be?

Be specific. Yount speak so general and so vague. I hope you understand.

Tell me specifically. As I asked you, rather than going for examples from science, can you precisely tell me how the usage changes? Not examples, but the actual usage. (Referring to naturalism, even if you change it to any other word as you suggested)

 

[MikeF]

Be specific. Yount speak so general and so vague. I hope you understand.

Tell me specifically. As I asked you, rather than going for examples from science, can you precisely tell me how the usage changes? Not examples, but the actual usage. (Referring to naturalism, even if you change it to any other word as you suggested)

With the same sentiment being expressed in each definition, then the usage is the same.

I hope you will elaborate as to why this is an important point.

I also hope you will elaborate on why you imposed an injunction not to use "examples from science".

 

[firedragon]

With the same sentiment being expressed in each definition, then the usage is the same.

I hope you will elaborate as to why this is an important point.

I also hope you will elaborate on why you imposed an injunction not to use "examples from science".

I dont say this is important. It is your idea to change the term used. Of course you have not yet responded to that question.

Anyway, examples from science is not going to answer the question. Respond to it directly, live.

 

[MikeF]

I dont say this is important. It is your idea to change the term used. Of course you have not yet responded to that question.

Anyway, examples from science is not going to answer the question. Respond to it directly, live.

Hmmm. Forgive my obtuseness. I have no idea what it means to "respond to it directly, live."

Here was you original question:
"Rather than going for examples from science, can you precisely tell me how the usage changes? Not examples, but the actual usage."

My response is that the usage does not change. Hopefully that is direct enough for you.

The different definitions of the same sentiment (Naturalism, Materialism, Physicalism) will be used the same way, there is just a difference in how well the sentiment is expressed.

 

[firedragon]

Here was you original question:
"Rather than going for examples from science, can you precisely tell me how the usage changes? Not examples, but the actual usage."

My response is that the usage does not change. Hopefully that is direct enough for you.

The different definitions of the same sentiment (Naturalism, Materialism, Physicalism) will be used the same way, there is just a difference in how well the sentiment is expressed.

Okay. I think I missed this post. Nevertheless, the "sentiment" as you phrased it does not change.

Thats true. The "sentiment" or the "Philosophy" does not change. You just used "sentiment" instead.

 

[MikeF]

Okay. I think I missed this post. Nevertheless, the "sentiment" as you phrased it does not change.

Thats true. The "sentiment" or the "Philosophy" does not change. You just used "sentiment" instead.

Well, that's settled then.

 

[leroy]

What makes a law "natural?"

For instance, consider ghosts, or @firedragon's favorite (just teasing you here firedragon), leprechauns. They reportedly are capable of doing some things and not capable of doing other things. This is what we'd colloquially call "following laws."

Do they follow "natural" laws? If not, what qualitatively defines the difference between a "natural" law and a "supernatural" one?

If I walk through a solid wall, you would call it “supernatural” because there are well known and well established laws that say that I can’t walk though solid walls.

At the end of the day that’s just semantics, the relevant question is whether if there was Ghost in your house or not weather if you what to label it as supernatural or not is just semantics.

Few if any words have clear definitions, the OP thread could have said “computer vs. no computer” and we could have danced on what exactly do we mean by computer, and no matter what definition you use, I could always find a flaw in such definition.

 

[leroy]

Why would I have to provide definition for things that YOU are positing to exist?

.

So you are not willing to provide a definition, and you are not willing to work with my definition, …. Once again giving promoting the negative stereotype that internet atheist have….good job

 

[MikeF]

If I walk through a solid wall, you would call it “supernatural” because there are well known and well established laws that say that I can’t walk though solid walls.

At the end of the day that’s just semantics, the relevant question is whether if there was Ghost in your house or not weather if you what to label it as supernatural or not is just semantics.

Few if any words have clear definitions, the OP thread could have said “computer vs. no computer” and we could have danced on what exactly do we mean by computer, and no matter what definition you use, I could always find a flaw in such definition.

I don't think anyone is disputing the literary use of the term 'supernatural'. Imaginatively, we can describe all manner of things that are not part of reality. And like an imaginative idea, we reference it with a label, a word.

What is at question here is, when trying to communicate about what is real, about reality, is whether this word 'supernatural' has a function. The answer is no.

 

[leroy]

What is at question here is, when trying to communicate about what is real, about reality, is whether this word 'supernatural' has a function. The answer is no.

People communicate with the word supernatural all the time, and people tend to understand what is meant (people understand such conversations) this proves that the word itself has a function (otherwise why would people use it)

 

[MikeF]

People communicate with the word supernatural all the time, and people tend to understand what is meant (people understand such conversations) this proves that the word itself has a function (otherwise why would people use it)

You are absolutely correct, people use the word all the time and have an idea of what they mean by using it. However, it can be used incorrectly, or in the wrong context, just as with any word.

If what is meant by its usage is that 'supernatural' is a real property of real and existent things, then it is being used incorrectly. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[leroy]

You are absolutely correct, people use the word all the time and have an idea of what they mean by using it. However, it can be used incorrectly, or in the wrong context, just as with any word.

If what is meant by its usage is that 'supernatural' is a real property of real and existent things, then it is being used incorrectly. Wouldn't you agree?

I don’t think supernatural and existing are mutually exclusive. (if that is what you mean)

 

[MikeF]

I don’t think supernatural and existing are mutually exclusive. (if that is what you mean)

And there is the rub. We can think whatever the heck we want. It all comes down to what we actually know.

And what we actually know is that they are mutually exclusive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you are not willing to provide a definition

I can only repeat myself: Why would I have to provide a definition for things that YOU are positing to exist?

, and you are not willing to work with my definition

Because it's full of obvious holes and not a proper definition at all.
Instead of defining the thing you are trying to define, you are instead saying what it is NOT, as @Meow Mix has been pointing out all throughout the thread to just everybody who's been trying to define it.

She expressed it far better then I ever could.

…. Once again giving promoting the negative stereotype that internet atheist have….good job

You mean, the negative stereotype that exists in your head of everyone that doesn't agree with you.
Don't blame the shortcomings of your own nonsense on the rest of us, just because we're calling you out on it.

I get it, it's not pleasant to have people constantly point out the many ways in which one is wrong.
But hey, you can either deal with it and learn from it, or you can act like a butthurt crybaby.

Your choice.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I walk through a solid wall, you would call it “supernatural”

I wouldn't. I would at best just say that I don't understand how you did it.

Also, this is the very basis for claiming things are "supernatural" by nothing more then an argument from ignorance.

"i don't know / understand how this works or how this is possible, therefor it's supernatural".

Textbook argument from ignorance.

This is how people of ancient times attributed lightning and thunder to Thor smashing his hammer or Jupiter throwing lightning bolts.

Few if any words have clear definitions, the OP thread could have said “computer vs. no computer” and we could have danced on what exactly do we mean by computer, and no matter what definition you use, I could always find a flaw in such definition.

No.

Here's the difference: when defining what a computer is, we can actually just actually define what a computer is by listing its properties and characteristics. We would not have to say something silly like "that which is not not a computer, is a computer".

 

[leroy]

I wouldn't. I would at best just say that I don't understand how you did it.

Also, this is the very basis for claiming things are "supernatural" by nothing more then an argument from ignorance.

"i don't know / understand how this works or how this is possible, therefor it's supernatural".

No, its more like, "we know and understand the relevant natural laws" based on this knowledge we know that we cant walk though walls.

therefore walkign though a wall is a supernatrual event.

But again this is just semantics, this is just my personal suggestion on how can the supernatural be identified.

In any case the relevant question should be weather if I walked through a wall or not, label it as “supernatural” or not seems irrelevant to me.

This is how people of ancient times attributed lightning and thunder to Thor smashing his hammer or Jupiter throwing lightning bolts.

With the explanation above, I hope you can see why this is not analogous to what I am proposing.

 

[Meow Mix]

If I walk through a solid wall, you would call it “supernatural” because there are well known and well established laws that say that I can’t walk though solid walls.

At the end of the day that’s just semantics, the relevant question is whether if there was Ghost in your house or not weather if you what to label it as supernatural or not is just semantics.

Few if any words have clear definitions, the OP thread could have said “computer vs. no computer” and we could have danced on what exactly do we mean by computer, and no matter what definition you use, I could always find a flaw in such definition.

I don't agree. I think physicalism has a pretty clear definition, so does materialism, so does empiricism. Naturalism seems to be the odd one out. The OP is pretty much a response to the notion that we'd call walking through a wall supernatural "because there are well known and well established laws."

The only reason "supernatural" works as a colloquialism (such as if we're talking about a fiction genre) is because we use a piecemeal process to decide what is supernatural rather than deciding from first principles. By this I mean we say ghosts are supernatural because our culture has decided to call them such.

But if we encounter a new phenomenon, how do we decide if it's supernatural or not?

 

[leroy]

I
But if we encounter a new phenomenon, how do we decide if it's supernatural or not?

my suggestion is:
if the phenomenon contradicts a well known and stablished law.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A supernatural event is just an event that can´t happen according to natural laws.

"Natural laws" are descriptive, not prescriptive. They're defined by what does and doesn't happen and inferred by observation.

IOW, an event "that can't happen according to natural laws" is an event that can't happen, period.

OTOH, if our understanding of natural laws suggests that an event is impossible but the event happened anyway, then we would immediately recognize that the event can in fact happen by natural laws (since natural laws are inferred from our observations of what does and doesn't happen).