Understanding the Nature of the Supernatural (Ironically)

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I'm of a branch that considers the laws of cause and effect (along with other laws found in nature) to be of a supernatural status -- not origin, but status. In other words, their existence is not material, but of a supernatural force. Sound far fetched? Doesn't most of life? ;-)

What is a supernatural force? Define it without using the word "natural". A supernatural force is an immaterial force, or law, that dictates events of the material. This is the only definition of it that I can discover.

Ironically, that includes scientific laws. You believe in the supernatural, because you believe in certain forces in the universe dictating that you don't have to hold on to your seat because gravity is just pulling you into the seat. You presuppose cause and effect throughout the entire day. These are forces of reality that you believe in.

At its root, atheism appeals to logic, because there is order in reality. Things just act in certain ways. They act in certain ways because they are supposed to -- it's a law.* There are invisible and immaterial principles found in reality that do not occupy space, that do not take time, that are not caused. These principles are supernatural, and are inherent with reality itself.

So appeal to the natural all you want. You are also appealing to the supernatural. The cosmological argument is that there is a force in reality that causes reality to exist. Not that it "just" exists, but that there is a reason found within reality itself that gives birth to reality.

My belief is that God is the collections of the principles of nature. God is the invisible force of the Universe. This is a loose understanding of God (though I believe other things about him as well, but talking about those things will derail us), but it is still an explanation.

Dumping a theory because "ah, yes, well, that's not natural" is invalid, given that the natural world itself hangs in existence by extra/supernatural forces. The root of our process of forming a theory is what my end point really is. If we disregard a theory because it is not "natural", then we are ignoring the fact that the natural is guided by laws beyond it.

So our question in theory-making doesn't require the criterion of "natural explanations only", because that flies in the face the nature of reality itself.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,384 • Replies: 9

No top replies

@Shaun Connell,

Shaun, thank you for the interesting post. My concern is that you've redefined "supernatural" so that nothing supernatural exists. "Supernatural", from the latin, is above nature. Generally supernatural applies to things not explainable by the laws of the natural world. "Scientific laws", laws discovered and tested by science, do not seem to be "supernatural" because they are supported by evidence from the natural world. You mention gravity as such an example, but what of gravity is beyond natural explaination? The mass of badies causes attraction between the bodies.

Belief in cause and effect aside, I'm not sure redefining "supernatural" is enough to support the notion that the natural is beyond the natural.

0 Replies

@Shaun Connell,

Hi Shaun, welcome to the forum.

I agree with Didymos Thomas. Rather than placing causality in the supernatural, you have sort of obliterated the distinction between the natural and the supernatural.

I'm not sure you're being fair to by lumping atheists with rational empiricists. Science, empiricism, and atheism are all very heterogeneous in themselves, and they don't always completely overlap.

What I object to is your metaphysical description of both causality and of scientific laws. Neither one really has scientific validity. Scientific laws are not metaphysical and not supernatural -- they're human descriptions of natural processes. And the chain of cause and effect, which has been given metaphysical status since Aristotle, is also simply a human projection. All causes and all effects are physical processes -- there is transfer of energy over time in all cases, without any exception (at least none that has ever been observed).

What lies at the root of this? Well, there is a scientific explanation for causality that requires neither metaphysics nor God. Is it correct? Maybe, maybe not, but at least it's an explanation that doesn't require a supernatural force. After all, one of our "scientific laws" is that matter cannot enter or leave the universe, it's always constant -- and therefore divine causality would actually violate that.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Thanks for the response. This is a theory that I'm currently thinking over, and of course isn't set in stone. Think of it as a thought experiment.

I only have a minute, so I'll be responding to the other issues brought up when I return, but for now, just a quick comment will have to suffice.

Quote:

Shaun, thank you for the interesting post. My concern is that you've redefined "supernatural" so that nothing supernatural exists.

On the contrary, my argument is that there is much that is supernatural and natural. I'm simply arguing that the concepts described by both words overlap, and that we can't simply suppose mutual exclusivity.

Also, definitionally, I can't really think of any alternative definition that explains a religious understanding of supernatural. If one is presented, I will, of course, be open to it, if it adequately explain the concept referred to in common discussion.

1 Reply

@Shaun Connell,

Shaun Connell;8182 wrote:

(edited)
... my argument is that there is much that is supernatural and natural. I'm simply arguing that the concepts described by both words overlap, and that we can't simply suppose mutual exclusivity.

Also, definitionally, I can't really think of any alternative definition that explains a religious understanding of supernatural. If one is presented, I will, of course, be open to it, if it adequately explain the concept referred to in common discussion.

There is 'mutual exclusivity' (Re: Natural/Supernatural) beyond the boundaries of any 'place' of overlap.
Perhaps the difference can be flushed out more by considering that,
'Natural is to Supernatural as Physics is to Metaphysics'.

'Supernatural' is a term (adjective, as used here) describing an event that cannot otherwise be explained by mundane physics (cause-effect).

The 'term' that describes a 'religious understanding of supernatural' is 'God' or 'The Tao' or however one approaches the ineffable. The essence of any 'religious understanding' of supernatural is to simply name the originating cause... God, Tao, etc., etc. and be without concern regarding any intermediate chain of causality.

The supernatural is not exclusively a 'religious' item. It is a significant component of metaphysics.
For example (#1):
A child is walking down the street and finds a dollar bill.
Mundane physics (cause/effect) explains that event easily. Someone dropped or discarded a dollar bill and the child found it.

Example #2
A child imagines that he or she is holding a dollar bill in his or her hand.
Two days later the child finds a dollar bill in the park and, of course, picks it up.
The event mirrors the child's earlier visualization.
Mundane physics says that the event was coincidental.
Metaphysics says that there was a chain of events that produced that result and that the 'chain of events' is undiscernable in toto. The event, however, is not considered coincidental.
As such, Example #2, for the metaphysician, has 'supernatural' elements. Elements that are beyond the scope of mundane physics.

Religionists would say that "God answered the child's prayer".
Metaphysicians would say that the child's visualization was the causal event that put things into motion that produced the favorable result.

Summary:
"Supernatural" is the arena of causality that takes over and 'explains' conditions and/or events when mundane physics runs out of 'things' to explain.
Mundane physics runs out of gas at the 'last discovered' physical causal event.
Metaphysics does an end-run around intermediate causality and determines that the causal chain was set into motion by 'non-physical' phenomena which are beyond the scope of mundane physics.

.

1 Reply

@Play Dough,

Quote:

On the contrary, my argument is that there is much that is supernatural and natural. I'm simply arguing that the concepts described by both words overlap, and that we can't simply suppose mutual exclusivity.

The common definitions (of supernatural and natural) do not necessarily suppose mutual exclusivity - some people hold that the supernatural and the natural are both real. The common definitions only suppose that the natural and the supernatural are different. The problem with your argument is that you have redefined supernatural in a way that does not suit the way the word supernatural is used.

We can arbitrarily redefine words all we like, but doing so does not solve the problems related to the concepts the words represent. If you redefine supernatural as part of what is natural, as you have, then of course the difficulties of the supernatural disappear - you have taken out the "super" and limited the supernatual to the natural.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is in finding a definition of supernatural.

"of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal."

This definition seems to work just fine.

0 Replies

@Shaun Connell,

Shaun Connell
most interesting incite, I like it, stay on it.

But I would agree that the word "supernatural" may do more harm then good.

Though it might not fly in scientific minded circles, I would consider it as the Truth is the "law" or "force " you are trying to describe but that could fall under the accusation of "religious". Not an easy one indeed.

0 Replies

@Shaun Connell,

Shaun Connell
this is just a suggestion
you might back up and punt and consider the approach of make a case, why the case (reasons purpose), and the merits of the case (value) your case is almost if not made.

This is more religious then philosophical but it may or may not help

The Truth The Word of God is by which all it told to be. In the mist of void, without form, and darkness. So without the Truth there is nothing discernable, seeable. Nothing takes form without the Truth. It is the Word of God your trying to describe or show or prove that is, and is without the need of the existence of anything else in order to be that which it is. A force with purpose and reason and value to make form, eliminate darkness, and is present in all things that are.

But the wording you need to describe that I don't have.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes;8064 wrote:

What lies at the root of this? Well, there is a scientific explanation for causality that requires neither metaphysics nor God. Is it correct? Maybe, maybe not, but at least it's an explanation that doesn't require a supernatural force. After all, one of our "scientific laws" is that matter cannot enter or leave the universe, it's always constant -- and therefore divine causality would actually violate that.

It is interesting that most scientists in the field agree that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago with the Big Bang. How can scientific laws make a claim that matter CANNOT enter or leave the universe when matter itself came into existence with time and was, therefore, not "always constant?" It came into existence at the precise point when time began. Technically I guess it may be true that matter can't enter or leave the universe per se, but all matter did enter into "existence" at the moment in time that the universe did and therefore, I suppose, it can "go out of existence" when the universe does. What is constant about that?

Most scientists would have to agree that some "beginning of time" event (Big Bang) actually did violate the "constant" you speak of, so why couldn't the cause of that violation have been a transcendent super-universal, non-material, Divine causality beyond space and time? Do you have another compelling cause?

How can science say that matter cannot be created or destroyed, then turn around and say it all just "came into being" 13.7 billion years ago? The Big Bang doesn't "explain itself." Why did it happen? The universe, therefore, doesn't "explain itself." Don't we then need, by the principle of sufficient reason, some EXTERNAL explanation to why the universe and matter exist?

1 Reply

@Otavern,

Otavern, yes, I agree that this is the best argument in support of the existance of a "creator".

I as trying to add a link to an article in the New York Times about particle phisics that might be interesting, I'm not sure how to do it so I hope this works:).

http://http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/15cern.html?ex=1336881600&en=7c25f6782d7029e7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

0 Replies

Understanding the Nature of the Supernatural (Ironically)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know