"Supernatural" and Naturalism

[Meow Mix]

I don't see additional rigor being useful even for ontomalogical
purposes in the Philosopher's Union. We'll never establish
"The Truth". But we did explore potential difficulties with the terms.

(Shamelessly taking advantage of your sans keyboard status.)

We might not agree here. Rigor is pretty important for something like an ontological position.

It's not like all such terms face similar difficulty, either: "naturalism" is the odd one out. For instance, "empiricism," "physicalism," and "materialism" all have readily available definitions that don't experience the same problems.

 

[Meow Mix]

Reading through the posts in this thread gives me the sense that defense for the term "supernatural" as having any sort of cogency or even utility boils down to one trying to jump through every hoop imaginable in order to avoid saying that it is the descriptor for things that have no current or evidenced presentation in our reality. Because that could potentially lead to the perception that "supernatural" things are (*gasp!*) not real. And what a "travesty" that would be.

However, I feel compelled to add: if the term itself is devoid of meaning, it can't even be "not real" because the "it" we refer to is cognitively empty.

Do slithey toves gyre and gimble in wabes? The answer isn't "no," the answer is "the question itself is wrong until there are cognizable referents to assess."

 

[Revoltingest]

We might not agree here. Rigor is pretty important for something like an ontological position.

In matters where nothing appears to be
really knowable, rigor seems rather feckless.

It's not like all such terms face similar difficulty, either: "naturalism" is the odd one out. For instance, "empiricism," "physicalism," and "materialism" all have readily available definitions that don't experience the same problems.

OK.

 

[Meow Mix]

In philosophy, dictionary meanings of words dont mean much. it is the idea or/and understanding of what it represents that means anything. This is the fundamental problem with most of us in our understanding.

Anyway, what you have shown is that there is no exact definition of the term naturalism. As in a set of words or a set of sentences that defines what it means precisely. Naturalism spans legal, ethics, scientific, scriptural, textual, hermeneutics, and even criticism by theologians in theology. It has a particular understanding in all of these fields. This is an idea. An understanding. A methodology. An approach. Even if you change the word, abandon it, the concept and its usage will remain. If you make the word vanish from vocabulary, it will have another word in its place or a phrase.

It is possible to think one has an understanding of something, yet not to actually have an understanding. (This re: people in the field using the term).

For instance, consider Russell's Paradox about a "set of all sets that do not contain themselves," in response to Frege. Every word in the utterance seems to carry meaning, but combined together, Russell shows that it's cognitively empty: the utterer thinks they're communicating something, but they're actually not.

This is what I'm saying about the word "naturalism." A theologian may use the word and think they're communicating, but on careful inspection, it appears as though they may not be -- that is, unless they can define it well.

As discussed in a different response to someone else, it is an "odd man out" among various ontologies skeptics might hold: "empiricism" doesn't face the same definitional crisis, nor does "materialism" or "physicalism."

The person using "naturalism" as a term would need to give a good definition, and that probably includes defining what they mean by "natural" that doesn't fall into the problems laid out in this thread.

 

[Meow Mix]

In matters where nothing appears to be
really knowable, rigor seems rather feckless.

I don't understand this hot take, though. Why would we use murky terms when we can strive to use clear ones? Just as colloquial terms have their place, so do exhaustive philosophical terms that give clear meaning. But, if that's just where we're at on that, then OK (just back to disagreeing).

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't understand this hot take, though. Why would we use murky terms when we can strive to use clear ones? Just as colloquial terms have their place, so do exhaustive philosophical terms that give clear meaning. But, if that's just where we're at on that, then OK (just back to disagreeing).

You're in luck.
I've nothing to add.

Is that cheering I hear?

 

[Meow Mix]

You're in luck.
I've nothing to add.

Is that cheering I hear?

No! The point is for someone to be wrong on the internet so I can talk at them incessantly!

 

[blü 2]

Our observer might think, "the Laws of Chess have been broken!" But that's not the case: they just didn't fully understand the "laws" in the first place.

So, consider something like a ghost, if such a thing would exist. Ghosts still obey "laws:" they are ostensibly capable of doing some things but not others. Really, if such things exist (I doubt it, but if), then it only means that we had not previously fully understood "the laws of nature."

Whence, then, is there any room for something to be "supernatural?" It must mean something more than the definition provided above to have any use or meaning. And until it does, it will be a meaningless term, and "naturalism" will be too.

The principal use of the supernatural around here is in relation to religion, of course.

And the principal use in religion is to claim that beings not found in reality exist in reality ─ gods, angels, demons, souls &c ─ and to attribute magical powers and imaginary attributes to them, particularly to God.

Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality ('laws of nature', 'principles of physics' &c). It fits your definition of 'supernatural' quite well.

The most striking thing, at least to my mind, about these claims is that they're made despite there never having been an authenticated example of the supernatural. It's never been found in nature, in reality, in the world external to the self. It's only found in stories, in imagination, in dreams, in abstract concepts with no real counterpart.

There isn't even a testable hypothesis as to how magic and the supernatural might exist, might work. (One of the great puzzles to me is why, if the churches believe in miracles, they don't have teams of experts financed by research grants, seeking to describe and define miracles and how they're done ─ the knowledge, were it real, would be hugely useful ─ like Harry Potter, you'll never have to change a tire, replace a broken window, walk anywhere, again.)

Of course, I'd be delighted to be shown to be wrong about the supernatural ─ but I suspect the first person to demonstrate real magic will get a Nobel prize or two.

 

[Revoltingest]

No! The point is for someone to be wrong on the internet so I can talk at them incessantly!

Others will rise to the challenge.

 

[Meow Mix]

The principal use of the supernatural around here is in relation to religion, of course.

And the principal use in religion is to claim that beings not found in reality exist in reality ─ gods, angels, demons, souls &c ─ and to attribute magical powers and imaginary attributes to them, particularly to God.

Magic is the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality ('laws of nature', 'principles of physics' &c). It fits your definition of 'supernatural' quite well.

The most striking thing, at least to my mind, about these claims is that they're made despite there never having been an authenticated example of the supernatural. It's never been found in nature, in reality, in the world external to the self. It's only found in stories, in imagination, in dreams, in abstract concepts with no real counterpart.

There isn't even a testable hypothesis as to how magic and the supernatural might exist, might work. (One of the great puzzles to me is why, if the churches believe in miracles, they don't have teams of experts financed by research grants, seeking to describe and define miracles and how they're done ─ the knowledge, were it real, would be hugely useful ─ like Harry Potter, you'll never have to change a tire, replace a broken window, walk anywhere, again.)

Of course, I'd be delighted to be shown to be wrong about the supernatural ─ but I suspect the first person to demonstrate real magic will get a Nobel prize or two.

The problem is how would "real magic" be distinguishable, though, from what was simply unknown before the demonstration? That seems to be the context of what people mean when they say magic and supernatural: that there is a je ne sais quoi about it that distinguishes it from whatever is "natural" (whatever that is, too).

 

[JoshuaTree]

The problem is how would "real magic" be distinguishable, though, from what was simply unknown before the demonstration? That seems to be the context of what people mean when they say magic and supernatural: that there is a je ne sais quoi about it that distinguishes it from whatever is "natural" (whatever that is, too).

The Deep Magic

The Deep Magic can be seen as an allegory for "Natural Law", a philosophical concept that claims there are innate rules of right and wrong understood by all human beings. The source of this law is said to be above and outside of humans (i.e. God) and is a concept central to all civilizations.

...are you a fan?

 

[firedragon]

We are talking about the academic use of word labels and their corresponding definition used by consensus of the members of an academic discipline. And it seems from the small amount of research that I provided, naturalism is no longer considered a useful term in Philosophy.

I completely disagree on that. But I would like to see your data on that. Which consensus of philosophers say that it is no longer considered a useful term?

 

[firedragon]

This is what I'm saying about the word "naturalism." A theologian may use the word and think they're communicating, but on careful inspection, it appears as though they may not be -- that is, unless they can define it well.

Theologians dont use the term. The use it as a methodology. Not for communication but for analysis.

As discussed in a different response to someone else, it is an "odd man out" among various ontologies skeptics might hold: "empiricism" doesn't face the same definitional crisis, nor does "materialism" or "physicalism."

I dont know about a crisis. I have never heard of a crisis like that. But if you go into dictionary meanings of these words, all of these terms have the same issue.

The person using "naturalism" as a term would need to give a good definition, and that probably includes defining what they mean by "natural" that doesn't fall into the problems laid out in this thread.

Thats not how it works at all.

 

[Meow Mix]

Theologians dont use the term. The use it as a methodology. Not for communication but for analysis.

Granted I don't read as many theologians as I used to, but I know for a fact theologians use this term frequently at least up until the last decade. I used to debate Plantinga about his Bayesian argument against naturalism.

I dont know about a crisis. I have never heard of a crisis like that. But if you go into dictionary meanings of these words, all of these terms have the same issue.

"Crisis" was maybe not the right word, I should have said "problem." Also, I'm not sure why the dictionary meaning keeps coming up, it was said in the OP that dictionary definitions don't work. So I am not sure why you keep bringing them up, is there maybe miscommunication happening somewhere?

Thats not how it works at all.

I don't agree; terms have to be defined to impart some kind of meaning. I can't fathom how this would work if that wasn't the case; I don't understand this response. In what world are philosophers not concerned with carefully defining their terms?

 

[MikeF]

I completely disagree on that. But I would like to see your data on that. Which consensus of philosophers say that it is no longer considered a useful term?

Well, I tried to establish some common ground to build from. As you have ignored all my generic question on the use and evolution of language, I'll simply bow out.

Peace brother.

 

[firedragon]

Well, I tried to establish some common ground to build from. As you have ignored all my generic question on the use and evolution of language, I'll simply bow out.

Peace brother.

I read your post brother. But I have not yet come across any consensus within any kind of philosophy that any of these terms discussed are no longer useful. Today, right now, it is used extensively all over the world, from academia to practice of all of those fields I mentioned.

I hope you understand what I asked for.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Granted I don't read as many theologians as I used to, but I know for a fact theologians use this term frequently at least up until the last decade. I used to debate Plantinga about his Bayesian argument against naturalism.

They use it today. Right now. And its spreading wider and becoming more standard or fundamental. I dont think you understand the use.

"Crisis" was maybe not the right word, I should have said "problem." Also, I'm not sure why the dictionary meaning keeps coming up, it was said in the OP that dictionary definitions don't work. So I am not sure why you keep bringing them up, is there maybe miscommunication happening somewhere?

Of course dictionary meanings dont work. It keeps coming up because the questions on the words are going to dictionary meanings, not philosophical terms.

I don't agree; terms have to be defined to impart some kind of meaning. I can't fathom how this would work if that wasn't the case; I don't understand this response. In what world are philosophers not concerned with carefully defining their terms?

Thats not how it works. The terms were not adopted first and then the idea developed later, but vice versa. Sorry but that's in this world. I hope you understand.

 

[Meow Mix]

They use it today. Right now. And its spreading wider and becoming more standard or fundamental. I dont think you understand the use.

You said in your previous post that theologians don't use the word. I was pointing out that they do. Now you're making the point that they do, and I'm just not sure if we're communicating correctly. On many of these responses from you I have to go "what? did they not read what I said?" and I feel like you're thinking the same thing. I don't know how to help this other than to try to be very succinct and clear.

So let me be very succinct and clear. I said, "A theologian may use the word and think they're communicating, but on careful inspection, it appears as though they may not be -- that is, unless they can define it well."

You said, "Theologians dont use the term. The use it as a methodology. Not for communication but for analysis."

Ok, can you tell me what it means to use a term "not for communication but for analysis?" Words are for communication, even when we are analyzing things. We must still have words with good working definitions to be able to do this.

Of course dictionary meanings dont work. It keeps coming up because the questions on the words are going to dictionary meanings, not philosophical terms.

Literally the only times the dictionary definitions have been brought up have been examples of how they do not work. Someone asking you to define a term is not the same thing as asking you to read a term from the dictionary. It means they are asking you what the term means as you're saying it. For instance if someone asks me to define what "material" is, I know the dictionary definition isn't great, so I give the definition that it is anything with spatiotemporal extension and mass-energy. See? That is defining a word for someone. It does not mean "let's consult the dictionary." The OP tried to put the dictionary term to rest, but you keep bringing it up, and I do not know why.

Thats not how it works. The terms were not adopted first and then the idea developed later, but vice versa. Sorry but that's in this world. I hope you understand.

What? Here is another example of just some kind of curious lapse in communication. What you've said here has nothing to do with what I said. Let me try saying it in a different way.

To use a term in philosophy, the term must have a definition: the philosopher must impart an idea with the term. Sometimes a term is defined by terms that also require definitions themselves in order for the term to be meaningful. For instance, if I were to define "materialism," I am probably also going to have to define "material" so that my language has meaning.

Do you understand this concept?

 

[Meow Mix]

Or perhaps we just fundamentally disagree, miscommunication or not, on whether terms should form some cognitive idea in order to be used meaningfully. I'm not sure.

I do know that if anyone asks me to define any of my terms, it is a sure sign that something is wrong if I can't (in my opinion). I should be able to define any of my philosophical positions in such a way that problems do not ensue. That's my thought on that. I will question the veracity of someone's position who can't, with good reason.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

You said in your previous post that theologians don't use the word. I was pointing out that they do.

Sis. You have not understood what I said.

You said, "Theologians dont use the term. The use it as a methodology. Not for communication but for analysis."

Ok, can you tell me what it means to use a term "not for communication but for analysis?" Words are for communication, even when we are analyzing things. We must still have words with good working definitions to be able to do this.

Sure. No problem. Lets say since the 19th century many theologians and Bible scholars have used naturalism as a methodology. For example in respect with NT criticism. One of the most prominent Christian theologian/scholars like Gunkel who was like a father of the synoptic problem engaged in it. Today it is taught as a methodology.

You are talking about debates I think that's why I said communication. I am talking about academia. Not debates.

Literally the only times the dictionary definitions have been brought up have been examples of how they do not work. Someone asking you to define a term is not the same thing as asking you to read a term from the dictionary. It means they are asking you what the term means as you're saying it. For instance if someone asks me to define what "material" is, I know the dictionary definition isn't great, so I give the definition that it is anything with spatiotemporal extension and mass-energy. See? That is defining a word for someone. It does not mean "let's consult the dictionary." The OP tried to put the dictionary term to rest, but you keep bringing it up, and I do not know why.

I have give you the definition of naturalism in terms of philosophy. Not some cut and paste but a synopsis. But your argument went into leprechauns so I won't engage with that. Hope you understand.

To use a term in philosophy, the term must have a definition:

Correct. Its not a must, it "does". And it is everywhere.

But you are going into dictionary definitions of words and root words to define philosophy. Thats regression. Thats not how it works. For example, they dont come up with a word like naturalism and then go defining it which is the approach you are taking. They have an understanding of so many things I have already said so far, then someone has come up with the term naturalism to define it with one word for ease of protocol. It was initially used by a writer called Emill Zola. It was his concept or methodology that he put into one word. So the philosophy is not defined by the word, the word is defined by the philosophy.