God(s) =/= Supernatural

[Quintessence]

There are many assumptions folks carry about god(s) based on where they grew up. In English-speaking cultures, the prevailing understanding of god(s) comes to us from various Abrahamic religions, particularly the many varieties of Christianity. In those traditions, god is typically understood to be a singular, supernatural entity. As such, when the word "god" is mentioned, we tend to assume that god is (or even must be) supernatural.

From time to time, you'll see me challenge this assumption around the forums. That's because it's wrong. It's not really my style to be so "this is how it is, the end" about things, but given how easy it is to demonstrate that the equivocation between "god" and "supernatural" is wrong, I feel like making an exception for the sake of this thread. I used to equate "god" with "supernatural" too, but as I learned more about the different varieties of theism, that perspective became untenable. In particular, I became familiar with these forms of theism:

• Autotheism. Some theistic traditions elevate a human person to the status of a god. It could be elevating yourself, or elevating some other human (e.g., ancestor worship). I don't think many of us would suggest that humans are supernatural entities.
• Pantheism. These theistic traditions remove the typical divide English-speaking cultures place between "god" and "nature." Nature is god. Nature is, by definition, not supernatural.
• Polytheism. In many cases, polytheistic gods are mythic personifications of various natural forces or aspects. For example, Nyx is the night; Helius is the sun. Raise your hand if believe that the sun or nighttime are supernatural. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Prove me wrong, or check your assumptions at the door next time before you go thinking gods must be supernatural.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I have never thought of god as supernatural.

 

[George-ananda]

I would say to be technical about it, the word 'supernatural' doesn't make a lot of sense. I think we can agree that 'if it exists, it is part of the natural'.

However I think 'supernatural' does have a useful colloquial meaning as 'beyond our normal three-dimensional physical realm'.

Prove me wrong, or check your assumptions at the door next time before you go thinking gods must be supernatural.

So I think gods must be supernatural (using the common colloquial usage of the term 'supernatural'.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I imagine that if you took even the most brilliant people from the year 1818 and plopped them down in today's society, almost everything we do using technology would be, to them, "supernatural," as they would lack the understanding of what and how we take advantage of the natural.

 

[Nakosis]

Prove me wrong, or check your assumptions at the door next time before you go thinking gods must be supernatural.

What about Abraxas? One of Helius' horses that pulls him across the sky.

While you can you can point to actual physical objects that have been worshiped/respected as gods, generally doesn't the mythology, lore surrounding this gods usually include supernatural elements?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There are many assumptions folks carry about god(s) based on where they grew up. In English-speaking cultures, the prevailing understanding of god(s) comes to us from various Abrahamic religions, particularly the many varieties of Christianity. In those traditions, god is typically understood to be a singular, supernatural entity. As such, when the word "god" is mentioned, we tend to assume that god is (or even must be) supernatural.

From time to time, you'll see me challenge this assumption around the forums. That's because it's wrong. It's not really my style to be so "this is how it is, the end" about things, but given how easy it is to demonstrate that the equivocation between "god" and "supernatural" is wrong, I feel like making an exception for the sake of this thread. I used to equate "god" with "supernatural" too, but as I learned more about the different varieties of theism, that perspective became untenable. In particular, I became familiar with these forms of theism:

• Autotheism. Some theistic traditions elevate a human person to the status of a god. It could be elevating yourself, or elevating some other human (e.g., ancestor worship). I don't think many of us would suggest that humans are supernatural entities.
• Pantheism. These theistic traditions remove the typical divide English-speaking cultures place between "god" and "nature." Nature is god. Nature is, by definition, not supernatural.
• Polytheism. In many cases, polytheistic gods are mythic personifications of various natural forces or aspects. For example, Nyx is the night; Helius is the sun. Raise your hand if believe that the sun or nighttime are supernatural. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Prove me wrong, or check your assumptions at the door next time before you go thinking gods must be supernatural.

I guess if you (people) want to be technical, god means something of worship without regards to person or thing. Im the western world, God (caps) is a proper pronoun refers to the abrahamic god. Deities refers to beings (what you are describing with polytheism and some forms of eastern religions. Buddhism has deities. As well as other monotheist religions.)

Deities are seen to be supernatural. I read somewhere deities also can be a placeholder that describes a god. I will find it later. Not your typical definition; and, makes sense.

Pagan, refering to indigenous religions rather you call their deitied by name. Its dead give away to call someone else's god as god or deity rather than by name, say Yemaya ir Vishnu.

The only people I know that uses god as a general term are christians. Back when, we refer to Roman gods, as well, roman gods. Christianity has some of that. Except roman gods have names. The jews dont have a proper name for god. The rest is all christian views.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My think is not the word supernatural. It just refer things that cant be explained naturally with our senses. Unless you can explain everything you believe, I see it as fancy word for that that exists that cant be described our senses and environment.

Not everyone has a mystical component to their faith; but, I find it illogical to say you know everything because you (people) dont want to relate what you dont know to a word that by definition means mystery in relation to the known natural environment.

 

[HonestJoe]

Prove me wrong, or check your assumptions at the door next time before you go thinking gods must be supernatural.

Maybe you need to check your assumptions that the examples you describe are actually gods.

Autotheism suggests someone either treating themselves like a god (but not actually a god) or believing they are gods, including "supernatural" elements.

Pantheism covers a vast range of often contradictory conflicts but it doesn't automatically involve literal individual gods and doesn't automatically exclude the "supernatural".

Polytheism generally attributes natural phenomena to the conscious actions or natures of gods, which would be called "supernatural". The sun as a ball of burning gasses in space is natural. The sun as the chariot driven across the sky by some all powerful being is "supernatural".

Of course, I see a fundamental issue with the concept of supernatural in general (hence all the quotes). If something actually exists, even if it's an all powerful being which created the universe, it would be natural by definition. Nothing can break the laws of nature. If something turns up that does, it just means that we were wrong (if only a little bit) about the laws in the first place.

The word god it probably a bit fuzzy in this context too, especially when we're considering concepts originally expressed in different languages.

 

[Jumi]

Maybe you need to check your assumptions that the examples you describe are actually gods.

There are traditions where they are. Of course there have been people who've wanted them categorized as false gods or non-gods. Atheists who argue the case are just following their lead.

 

[Ostronomos]

There are many assumptions folks carry about god(s) based on where they grew up. In English-speaking cultures, the prevailing understanding of god(s) comes to us from various Abrahamic religions, particularly the many varieties of Christianity. In those traditions, god is typically understood to be a singular, supernatural entity. As such, when the word "god" is mentioned, we tend to assume that god is (or even must be) supernatural.

From time to time, you'll see me challenge this assumption around the forums. That's because it's wrong. It's not really my style to be so "this is how it is, the end" about things, but given how easy it is to demonstrate that the equivocation between "god" and "supernatural" is wrong, I feel like making an exception for the sake of this thread. I used to equate "god" with "supernatural" too, but as I learned more about the different varieties of theism, that perspective became untenable. In particular, I became familiar with these forms of theism:

• Autotheism. Some theistic traditions elevate a human person to the status of a god. It could be elevating yourself, or elevating some other human (e.g., ancestor worship). I don't think many of us would suggest that humans are supernatural entities.
• Pantheism. These theistic traditions remove the typical divide English-speaking cultures place between "god" and "nature." Nature is god. Nature is, by definition, not supernatural.
• Polytheism. In many cases, polytheistic gods are mythic personifications of various natural forces or aspects. For example, Nyx is the night; Helius is the sun. Raise your hand if believe that the sun or nighttime are supernatural. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Prove me wrong, or check your assumptions at the door next time before you go thinking gods must be supernatural.

I think the whole supernatural misconception has its origins in dualism, dark and light duality. It could be that for some time, sun worship was prevalent among humans and we attribute our inner symbolic objects/ subjects to the external world. This resulted in a personalized God as opposed to the mathematical understanding of a self-generating self-reflecting syntactical machine or SCSPL (Self-configuring self-processing language). A wholly instrinsic feature of such an objectification results in mythological characterizations. These fictitious beings existing within the psychology of people who do so are vastly different from realistic analysis and promote passionate irrational behaviors throughout the many.

 

[Quintessence]

I would say to be technical about it, the word 'supernatural' doesn't make a lot of sense. I think we can agree that 'if it exists, it is part of the natural'.

However I think 'supernatural' does have a useful colloquial meaning as 'beyond our normal three-dimensional physical realm'.

Fair enough. There are other words that convey that which I feel are better choices of words. Even in that case, though, there are gods that are not beyond the "normal three-dimensional physical realm." That is, they're not supernatural under the colloquial usage of the term or the more formal "above/beyond nature" usage.

While you can you can point to actual physical objects that have been worshiped/respected as gods, generally doesn't the mythology, lore surrounding this gods usually include supernatural elements?

This adds another layer of how one interprets the mythology. It's common knowledge that if you want to present tales about life's meaningfulness that telling the boring, dry facts of the matter is a great way to put the audience to sleep. So instead you dress things up with literary devices and spice it up a bit. That's mythology. Some people are of the opinion that literary allegory is not allegory and should be taken literally. Those folks would interpret this as meaning "yeah, the gods are literally supernatural entities" Others take the approach of embracing the allegories and poeticism for what it is and go "yeah, this is a way of expressing our relationships with things more engaging and exciting." It's a to-your-taste sort of thing, and it's important to recognize that someone's approach to mythos (and consequently, the gods) may not necessitate supernaturalism.

 

[Quintessence]

Maybe you need to check your assumptions that the examples you describe are actually gods.

Jumi kind of beat me to the punch on this one. It's not up to you to decide what is and isn't a god in someone else's religious tradition. If we take the time to respect the god-concepts of other traditions, the examples I listed are gods that are non-supernatural. To be fair to your point, it doesn't mean the gods aren't supernatural either. Pantheism houses both naturalistic pantheism and a more supernaturalistic variety. But the naturalistic variety is a thing, and the existence of more supernaturalistic interpretations of pantheism doesn't negate that.

Polytheism generally attributes natural phenomena to the conscious actions or natures of gods, which would be called "supernatural"

It's animistic, actually. Not quite the same thing. Polytheism is related to the notion of extending the term "person" to apply to things other than just humans. Put another way, polytheists understand that things other than human beings can have agency just like animists do. That is, they have distinct identities or personalities and that we can engage in them relationally like we can with another human person. If a person is non-human, that does not mean they are supernatural.

As I said above, this doesn't exclude the possibility of supernaturalism in some interpretations of polytheism. But it isn't a necessary component.

The sun as a ball of burning gasses in space is natural. The sun as the chariot driven across the sky by some all powerful being is "supernatural".

Or, it's a literary device used to make tales about the world around us more engaging. See - post #11.

 

[Quintessence]

I have never thought of god as supernatural.

I want to ask about this, because it intrigues me in its atypicality. You've always thought of god as natural? Or something else?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

I want to ask about this, because it intrigues me in its atypicality. You've always thought of god as natural? Or something else?

Natural, yes. I think god is present in the universe and inseparable in it.

 

[paarsurrey]

There are many assumptions folks carry about god(s) based on where they grew up. In English-speaking cultures, the prevailing understanding of god(s) comes to us from various Abrahamic religions, particularly the many varieties of Christianity. In those traditions, god is typically understood to be a singular, supernatural entity. As such, when the word "god" is mentioned, we tend to assume that god is (or even must be) supernatural.

From time to time, you'll see me challenge this assumption around the forums. That's because it's wrong. It's not really my style to be so "this is how it is, the end" about things, but given how easy it is to demonstrate that the equivocation between "god" and "supernatural" is wrong, I feel like making an exception for the sake of this thread. I used to equate "god" with "supernatural" too, but as I learned more about the different varieties of theism, that perspective became untenable. In particular, I became familiar with these forms of theism:

• Autotheism. Some theistic traditions elevate a human person to the status of a god. It could be elevating yourself, or elevating some other human (e.g., ancestor worship). I don't think many of us would suggest that humans are supernatural entities.
• Pantheism. These theistic traditions remove the typical divide English-speaking cultures place between "god" and "nature." Nature is god. Nature is, by definition, not supernatural.
• Polytheism. In many cases, polytheistic gods are mythic personifications of various natural forces or aspects. For example, Nyx is the night; Helius is the sun. Raise your hand if believe that the sun or nighttime are supernatural. Yeah, that's what I thought.

Prove me wrong, or check your assumptions at the door next time before you go thinking gods must be supernatural.

Natural is what G-d has designed "to be", so what in this context will one understand from the word "super- natural".
Does anything in one's post relate to it, please?
Regards

 

[George-ananda]

Fair enough. There are other words that convey that which I feel are better choices of words. Even in that case, though, there are gods that are not beyond the "normal three-dimensional physical realm." That is, they're not supernatural under the colloquial usage of the term or the more formal "above/beyond nature" usage.

I differ in not thinking the word ‘god’ should be used for things within the three-dimensional physical realm. To me god implies a being ‘beyond’ the physical plane.

 

[paarsurrey]

I differ in not thinking the word ‘god’ should be used for things within the three-dimensional physical realm. To me god implies a being ‘beyond’ the physical plane.

I agree with it.
Regards

 

[Quintessence]

I differ in not thinking the word ‘god’ should be used for things within the three-dimensional physical realm. To me god implies a being ‘beyond’ the physical plane.

It seems much of how we view this depends on our ontological perspectives. That is, how we understand reality and its various dimensions (if any) strongly impacts how we approach the idea of god(s) and the assumptions we make about them. The belief that there's some sort of separation between "physical plane" and "not physical plane" fuels the idea that gods must reside in just one of these areas. If this dichotomy is rejected or muddied, the insistence that gods must be "not physical plane" (aka, "supernatural" in the colloquial sense) falls apart and is untenable.

 

[Nakosis]

This adds another layer of how one interprets the mythology. It's common knowledge that if you want to present tales about life's meaningfulness that telling the boring, dry facts of the matter is a great way to put the audience to sleep. So instead you dress things up with literary devices and spice it up a bit. That's mythology. Some people are of the opinion that literary allegory is not allegory and should be taken literally. Those folks would interpret this as meaning "yeah, the gods are literally supernatural entities" Others take the approach of embracing the allegories and poeticism for what it is and go "yeah, this is a way of expressing our relationships with things more engaging and exciting." It's a to-your-taste sort of thing, and it's important to recognize that someone's approach to mythos (and consequently, the gods) may not necessitate supernaturalism.

So it's a way of making the world seem/feel a little more colorful?

Ok, your beliefs are not guilty of supernaturalism. Just when you go about calling things gods it seems to me, meaning myself, not you, difficult to separate it from supernatural connotations.

 

[HonestJoe]

Jumi kind of beat me to the punch on this one. It's not up to you to decide what is and isn't a god in someone else's religious tradition.

It's not up to you either. I don't believe I did in my actual responses (rather than the opening joke) anyway.

If we take the time to respect the god-concepts of other traditions, the examples I listed are gods that are non-supernatural.

As I said, both key terms are fuzzy at best so I'm not sure this actually means anything other than word play. There are certainly issues with people presuming a particular world view (if only subconsciously) when discussing other beliefs and ideas but I think it's much more varied and complex than a simple "supernatural" or not.

To be fair to your point, it doesn't mean the gods aren't supernatural either. Pantheism houses both naturalistic pantheism and a more supernaturalistic variety. But the naturalistic variety is a thing, and the existence of more supernaturalistic interpretations of pantheism doesn't negate that.

That still raises the question of why we should still call such concepts "gods" then. Don't assume calling them something else is automatically declaring them lesser or not giving them enough credence (especially from someone who doesn't believe any gods exist)? Surely it'd be more beneficial for shared understanding to use different words and descriptions for truly different ideas? Could the problem not be others rejection of the word god for these concepts but your refusal to call them anything else?

As I said above, this doesn't exclude the possibility of supernaturalism in some interpretations of polytheism. But it isn't a necessary component.

True. Any individual claim or belief should be judged on it's own merits. "Supernatural" is defined by a claim that anything can act or occur in conflict with known laws of nature. It doesn't really matter whether than thing is call "god" or not by anyone.