"Supernatural" and Naturalism

[Meow Mix]

I've found myself posting this in response to a few things lately, so I thought I would type out a post that I could then later refer to (and discuss the topic here without going off-topic in other threads).

People will ask me if atheists are "naturalists," if I'm a "naturalist," and so on, and I'm never quite sure how I want to answer the question. This is because I'm not sure that the term is useful or even meaningful.

Why? Because the context of the term is in direct opposition to the term "supernatural." But what is the "supernatural?"

Consulting a dictionary tells us something like this:
"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

But what does this really mean, and how do we distinguish it? There are a lot of things that are "beyond scientific understanding" at any given time. For instance, if I were to go back in time with basically any piece of technology, it might appear supernatural to the inhabitants of that time: but we wouldn't say it's supernatural since we understand it.

What about "the laws of nature?" I'm not sure it's really fair to say that unknown things "break the laws of nature." It seems more fair to just say that if something seems to, then we didn't fully understand the laws of nature.

I am reminded by Feynman's description of how we sometimes learn about new physics. He likens it to a couple of people playing chess in the park while a third person (that does not know the rules of chess) observes.

Over time, the observer begins to pick up what they might call "The Laws of Chess": they learn that bishops move diagonally, rooks move laterally, and so on.

But every now and then, something strange might happen: someone might move two pieces at once, where the king moves more than one space, and two pieces pass through each other (castling)! 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.

 

[Valjean]

Supernatural is a fancy term for magic.

 

[Meow Mix]

Add

Supernatural is a fancy term for magic.

And as Arthur C Clarke noticed, this is why it's not a very good term: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (paraphrased from memory, didn't feel like googling).

 

[King Phenomenon]

I consider 2, possibly 3 things as supernatural.

1. Infinite space
2. The destruction/creation of infinite space.
3. Possibly a catalyst that would set #2 in motion.

Regarding naturalism or humility, however you want to look at it would be the fact that I always return to a natural state after reflecting on infinity, as it’s unfathomable really and almost demands you return to a natural state.

 

[SigurdReginson]

To me, naturalism and supernaturalism are stances where people can ground themselves when they make assumptions for the things they encounter in life.

From the naturalist standpoint, when they are confronted with the unknown, they generally assume that there must be underlying reasons based on their observations of "natural phenomena" that have yet to be known. From the supernaturalist standpoint, when they are confronted with the unknown, they generally assume that there must be underlying reasons based on their observations of "supernatural phenomena" that have yet to be known. They both can make guesses based on their past experiences and knowledge.

Folks can take both stances at any given time, though I tend to stick with naturalist interpretations for the things that I am unsure of. That seems to serve me well.

Naturalism also has the advantage that if something unknown or "supernatural" is shown to exhibit explainable properties via scientific study, it becomes "natural" by default. All things seem to head that way as we continue to understand the nature of reality better as a species.

That's my take, at least!

 

[firedragon]

I've found myself posting this in response to a few things lately, so I thought I would type out a post that I could then later refer to (and discuss the topic here without going off-topic in other threads).

People will ask me if atheists are "naturalists," if I'm a "naturalist," and so on, and I'm never quite sure how I want to answer the question. This is because I'm not sure that the term is useful or even meaningful.

Why? Because the context of the term is in direct opposition to the term "supernatural." But what is the "supernatural?"

Consulting a dictionary tells us something like this:
"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

But what does this really mean, and how do we distinguish it? There are a lot of things that are "beyond scientific understanding" at any given time. For instance, if I were to go back in time with basically any piece of technology, it might appear supernatural to the inhabitants of that time: but we wouldn't say it's supernatural since we understand it.

What about "the laws of nature?" I'm not sure it's really fair to say that unknown things "break the laws of nature." It seems more fair to just say that if something seems to, then we didn't fully understand the laws of nature.

I am reminded by Feynman's description of how we sometimes learn about new physics. He likens it to a couple of people playing chess in the park while a third person (that does not know the rules of chess) observes.

Over time, the observer begins to pick up what they might call "The Laws of Chess": they learn that bishops move diagonally, rooks move laterally, and so on.

But every now and then, something strange might happen: someone might move two pieces at once, where the king moves more than one space, and two pieces pass through each other (castling)! 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.

From a dictionary definition point of view this word naturalist seems like an arbitrary use or accusation of some sort as in an accusative case. (Accuse maybe misunderstood based on a dictionary definition). You are right that this is a word that is used as an opposite to supernaturalism, which are both ontological terms in this particular case. But, in philosophy you definitely know what its referring to so I dont think explaining that does any justice to you.

Anyway, I understand what you say about not knowing what is "other than natural laws". See being a naturalist and not knowing the laws does not mean he ceases being a naturalist. As an foundation a naturalist would believe that even though something remains unexplained, he would assume that it will have a naturalistic explanation. Thats his ontology. Which is why an Atheist by definition is a naturalist. Even if a phenomena is a mystery, absolutely unknown, scientifically unexplained, he assumes a naturalistic position.

Not all of those people who communicates he or she is an atheist does not always take the naturalistic position. I understand that. PEW research in the US shows that 18% of atheists believe in some kind of higher power. By definition s/he cannot be an atheist, but by identity they are. That does not mean anyone can take the fallacy of composition and generalise it to all atheists. Neither can it be done vice versa. This is by definition, not by practice.

Thus naturalism has a meaning in philosophy and that's whats used here.

Cheers.

 

[Meow Mix]

To me, naturalism and supernaturalism are stances where people can ground themselves when they make assumptions for the things they encounter in life.

From the naturalist standpoint, when they are confronted with the unknown, they generally assume that there must be underlying reasons based on their observations of "natural phenomena" that have yet to be known. From the supernaturalist standpoint, when they are confronted with the unknown, they generally assume that there must be underlying reasons based on their observations of "supernatural phenomena" that have yet to be known. They both can make guesses based on their past experiences and knowledge.

Folks can take both stances at any given time, though I tend to stick with naturalist interpretations for the things that I am unsure of. That seems to serve me well.

Naturalism also has the advantage that if something unknown or "supernatural" is shown to exhibit explainable properties via scientific study, it becomes "natural" by default. All things seem to head that way as we continue to understand the nature of reality better as a species.

That's my take, at least!

What is the difference between "unknown" and "supernatural," without just using a synonym for supernatural? This is my point. I don't think people mean anything else than "unknown."

 

[Meow Mix]

From a dictionary definition point of view this word naturalist seems like an arbitrary use or accusation of some sort as in an accusative case. (Accuse maybe misunderstood based on a dictionary definition). You are right that this is a word that is used as an opposite to supernaturalism, which are both ontological terms in this particular case. But, in philosophy you definitely know what its referring to so I dont think explaining that does any justice to you.

Anyway, I understand what you say about not knowing what is "other than natural laws". See being a naturalist and not knowing the laws does not mean he ceases being a naturalist. As an foundation a naturalist would believe that even though something remains unexplained, he would assume that it will have a naturalistic explanation. Thats his ontology. Which is why an Atheist by definition is a naturalist. Even if a phenomena is a mystery, absolutely unknown, scientifically unexplained, he assumes a naturalistic position.

Not all of those people who communicates he or she is an atheist does not always take the naturalistic position. I understand that. PEW research in the US shows that 18% of atheists believe in some kind of higher power. By definition s/he cannot be an atheist, but by identity they are. That does not mean anyone can take the fallacy of composition and generalise it to all atheists. Neither can it be done vice versa. This is by definition, not by practice.

Thus naturalism has a meaning in philosophy and that's whats used here.

Cheers.

So for instance when you say "will have a naturalistic explanation" in the second paragraph, what does that mean? As opposed to what?

What would a "supernatural explanation" be, and how is it qualitatively different from simply an unknown?

 

[Valjean]

What is the difference between "unknown" and "supernatural," without just using a synonym for supernatural? This is my point. I don't think people mean anything else than "unknown."

'Unknown' doesn't imply unknowable. 'Magic' and 'supernatural' do.

 

[Meow Mix]

'Unknown' doesn't imply unknowable. 'Magic' and 'supernatural' do.

Therein lies a problem: even if that is a thing, how is an epistemically limited being (say, a human) to distinguish unknowable from unknown in order to make the distinction between "supernatural" and simply "yet unknown?"

 

[MikeF]

Thus naturalism has a meaning in philosophy and that's whats used here.

Cheers.

Certainly, in the year 2021, we can re-evaluate the terms 'Naturalism' and 'Supernatural' and decide, based on our increased understanding of reality, whether these terms and their accompanying definitions continue to be useful, or whether they should be set aside and considered no longer relevant.

To my mind they are no longer relevant.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

In some contexts, there is a dichotomy between nature and man-made things.
When seen from that perspective, everything we make through artificial means could be considered supernatural(or subnatural/perverse when it is considered a bad thing).

I myself am a monotheist who worships his God.
As a token of my worship, it is important to me to distinguish God from the rest.
Because of this, I consider nature to be part of Creation, which inherently makes my God supernatural.
But there are spiritual views where there is no difference between God and Creation, making the concept of God part of nature, which I think is not necessarily wrong, but is just a different approach to make sense of existence.

 

[rational experiences]

Natural is not an ism. A distinctive practice.

Natural means stated to be with.

Pre existing conditions we said to be with are planetary only.

Planet affected by outside moving objects of force.

Such as sun...planets...asteroids...comets etc.

I see due to light and eyesight. Two natural conditions.

Gases burning void gases burning in vacuum.

At night clear I see out into space burning also.

If I see extra I then quantify it as a super state in and with natural.

So it had to have arrived from a state superior to gases.

In life in science superior to a human is forced unleashed to convert from the superior state into change. Qualified God stone all science products first.

Alchemy. Not superior or supernatural.

To qualify science superiority false status.

As superior is fixed and natural also.

Superior super is imposed by its thinker.

Rationally it is inferior as to extra burn natural seen gas light caused phenomena superior in natural as it was occult known to destroy natural.

Hence human egotism to explain by self imposed status egotism was involved.

Why egotism and science equated life's attack.

Superior
Inferior.
Super.
Infer.
Ior.
Prior.

God in natural status prior was a fixed state.

Heavens burning light fixed state prior.

No converting.
No super states.

Converting superior state removed form. Extra light burning. Reaction ends so does burning.

Light existed.
Water existed.

First image to look at is natural mass that disappears into a hole no image when inferior to its superior.

Supernatural conjured by science on earth.

 

[firedragon]

So for instance when you say "will have a naturalistic explanation" in the second paragraph, what does that mean? As opposed to what?

What would a "supernatural explanation" be, and how is it qualitatively different from simply an unknown?

I think you have already explained and I understand your argument. So if I explain this "naturalistic explanation" your question would be "whats the definition", then it would go to a dictionary, and it would come to your post again and the same question about not knowing the laws etc etc.

Thats why you should look at the part where I said "See being a naturalist and not knowing the laws does not mean he ceases being a naturalist. As an foundation a naturalist would believe that even though something remains unexplained, he would assume that it will have a naturalistic explanation. Thats his ontology."

 

[firedragon]

Certainly, in the year 2021, we can re-evaluate the terms 'Naturalism' and 'Supernatural' and decide, based on our increased understanding of reality, whether these terms and their accompanying definitions continue to be useful, or whether they should be set aside and considered no longer relevant.

To my mind they are no longer relevant.

Maybe. But its still in use so that's why this thread was born.

Reevaluations could be done. Of course. And I believe it always does occur.

 

[Meow Mix]

In some contexts, there is a dichotomy between nature and man-made things.
When seen from that perspective, everything we make through artificial means could be considered supernatural(or subnatural/perverse when it is considered a bad thing).

In this case, I feel like the distinction can be made. However, we could simply use the natural vs. artificial dichotomy rather than using the word "supernatural."

 

[MikeF]

Maybe. But its still in use so that's why this thread was born.

Reevaluations could be done. Of course. And I believe it always does occur.

I would advocate for abandoning a natural/supernatural distinction.
Would you agree with this proposal, or reject it? If you reject it, why?

 

[Meow Mix]

I think you have already explained and I understand your argument. So if I explain this "naturalistic explanation" your question would be "whats the definition", then it would go to a dictionary, and it would come to your post again and the same question about not knowing the laws etc etc.

Thats why you should look at the part where I said "See being a naturalist and not knowing the laws does not mean he ceases being a naturalist. As an foundation a naturalist would believe that even though something remains unexplained, he would assume that it will have a naturalistic explanation. Thats his ontology."

What a curious impasse: are you saying that "supernatural" can't even be defined? Usually definitions can be agreed upon between worldviews. I doubt that unicorns exist but I understand what one would be.

If "supernatural" can't even be defined, then I'm not sure there's even a position to be had on the matter; and "naturalism" would be a similarly useless term (except in the context of a natural vs. artificial dichotomy, as noted elsewhere).

Edit: also LOL at "I doubt unicorns exist" given the millennial connotation.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

In this case, I feel like the distinction can be made. However, we could simply use the natural vs. artificial dichotomy rather than using the word "supernatural."

When one doesn't want to make a hierarchy-based difference but keep it more neutral and/or egalitarian, I guess that is indeed a better way of putting it.

 

[firedragon]

What a curious impasse: are you saying that "supernatural" can't even be defined?

No I didnt say that.

Usually definitions can be agreed upon between worldviews. I doubt that unicorns exist but I understand what one would be.

Thats a whole different point altogether.

If "supernatural" can't even be defined, then I'm not sure there's even a position to be had on the matter; and "naturalism" would be a similarly useless term (except in the context of a natural vs. artificial dichotomy, as noted elsewhere).

Edit: also LOL at "I doubt unicorns exist" given the millennial connotation.

I didnt even address supernaturalism so I shall respectfully leave this comment as it is.