Against the supernatural as a profound idea--Part 11

An excellent article. It puts my own doubts about the word "supernatural" better than I ever could. I particularly agreed with your analysis that words must create meaningful, describable boundaries.

One thing I'd like to add is that it is not only theists who use the word "supernatural". Your article makes no mention of this, and rather suggests that the word is only used by people trying to defend belief in it. I've seen plenty of atheists saying things like "God/Ghosts/Miracles can't exist because they're supernatural." I presume that you'd have to agree that arguments like this, like any arguments that depend on the empty notion of the "supernatural", don't work because they rely on a buzzword.

In other words, the meaninglessness of the word "Supernatural" is a problem for anyone who uses it, not any particular group. It can neither be used to attack or defend a claim. Unfortunately, you don't have to look far to find examples of it being relied on even on this very website. Plenty of atheists continue to declare their scepticism about the "supernatural".

I know this comment is coming around a little late, but my interpretation of the difference between natural and supernatural is an epistemic one. It is based on what human beings can comprehend. By definition, supernatural is:

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

If our laws of nature can sufficiently explain something, then it is natural. However, if (IN PRINCIPLE) there is something that cannot be understood with science (i.e. there is no underlying mathematics that can describe it), then it is supernatural.

If something cannot currently be understood with science, then the naturalist ought to believe that we just haven't discovered the laws of nature required to understand it YET. However, the supernaturalist may believe that it cannot be understood with science IN PRINCIPLE (and is therefore supernatural).

If the supernatural exists, then it can not interact with the natural realm and still remain supernatural. In effect, the natural realm can never know the supernatural realm because they are seperate sets. As soon as a supernatural entity does anything, such as lifts a sharp object off of the table or creates a hurricane or starts somebody's house on fire there is automatically a transfer of measureable energy, momentum, and angular momentum that has being imparted on the physical realm, in fact a transfer of energy as in Maxwell's Demon.

Okay though, perhaps Maxwell's Demon exists, perhaps in the form of a perpetually talking flame bush or as an eternally burning hellfire, if that perpetual motion does exist then there ought to be a way to control it using perfectly natural means such as putting a Burning Hallucination Moses Bush under the hood of my car.

Hi quantum_flux:

First off, supernatural events (miracles) are often believed to involve a suspension or override of the existing laws of nature. This could include the law of conservation of energy, as well as any other law.

However, if we decide that we would like to preserve the amount of energy in the closed system known as the universe, there is no reason why a supernatural event could not subtract an amount of energy somewhere at the same time it adds an equal amount somewhere else.

Andy

That's just plain stupid Andy. Where's the perpetual burning bushes and the eternal hellfires like religion promises?

Instead of just saying it is stupid, perhaps you could explain why. Pardon me for asking for a more intellectual response with a bit less ridicule.

EDIT: In case you didn't follow my previous post, I would rephrase your argument as this: Things which do not conform to the laws of nature (supernatural things) cannot exist because they do not conform to the laws of nature (thermodynamics). It is a circular argument.

That would make so much sense were there any "laws" of nature in the sense that there are "rules" that matter has to obey. These laws that you speak of are singularly human contrivances; convenient descriptions, nothing more. There are no "laws" and, more importantly, no law givers. What you call laws are simply mathematical descriptions invented by humans to explain and make sense of the observations of the world around them.

Were the planets following Newton's laws? Certainly not and as our ability to observe and measure the motions got better, we saw that Newton's description (you call it a law) was in error. The fact that subsequent observation showed the flaws in Newton's description of planetary motion should put to bed the idea that there are transcendent laws of motion and show these "laws" for what they are; human descriptions cast in the language of mathematics subject to revisions to increase accuracy. No laws and, most importantly, no law giver by definition.

Rich

Hi Rich:

For the most part I agree! That is why I said the distinction between natural and supernatural is an epistemic one and not an ontological one. It has to do with our ability to comprehend and understand nature. You are correct in that when we say "laws of nature" we are referring to our comprehension and understanding of them. Things which IN PRINCIPLE cannot be comprehended scientifically and/or mathematically are supernatural. The distinction is based on the limits of human comprehension.

I should mention that philosophical naturalism (the denial of supernature) assumes that there is an ontological basis for our laws of nature. Although our laws of physics may not be perfect (e.g. your example of the insufficiency of Newton's laws), the essence of naturalism is that they are IN PRINCIPLE perfectible, and work in every corner of the universe.

Andy

As far as I can tell, gravitational force goes as an inverse square of the distance, as does electrical forces. An interpretation of this is that the force per surface area of a sphere integrated over a radial distance will yeild the potential energy value of moving from one radial point to another radial point. Electrical calculations are similar. These laws might be malleable in a String Theory sense, but I have my doubts about such a proposition as it has never been observed before, such as an inverse cubed law for gravitational forces, etc, I believe due to spatial geometry that the masses reside within. Nuclear forces obey a different set of equations, similar to a spring coefficient that changes with radial distances. On the larger scale, the universe obeys some kind of Hubble's Law whereby it has been shown to expand at an accelerating rate with radial distances. Then it has been proved that light in a vaccuum will never exceed C....unless someday these will be revised by the scientific method to reflect even more accuracy of what nature does.

As for miracles, I find that unbelievable. It's much more sensical to believe that nature does what it does without breaking any of the simple rules that it has been shown to obey or that an observed phenomina of nature acting other than expected should indeed be repeatable or explainable by some new processes. I believe that no designer is required for nature to obey these mathematical relationships, in fact there is no existential proof of a designer (where's the galaxy cranes and giant space tractors?). I believe that nature simply is, that there is no real reason why it is, and there is no purpose behind the fact that, say, jupiter having moons with hydrocarbons on them or Mars having a thin atmosphere.

However, perhaps if you think there is a purpose for Mars having a thin atmosphere or Jupiter's moons having hydrocarbons on them, then can you tell me why the designer decided to make them that way? (my assumption here is that a purpose necessitates a designer, but I believe there is no purpose).

Hi quantum_flux:

Thank you for such a thoughtful reply. I am not sure what you mean by "malleable" laws. Certainly that just means our current laws are insufficient for explaining all related phenomenon and the goal would be to ratify the laws so that they completely describe observed events. In other words, we shouldn't believe that physical laws are malleable in the sense that they change indeterminately or randomly, but rather the various observed events vary in a determinable way that we should be able to develop immutable physical laws to adequately describe.

You said "It's much more sensical to believe that nature does what it does without breaking any of the simple rules that it has been shown to obey or that an observed phenomina of nature acting other than expected should indeed be repeatable or explainable by some new processes."

Are you saying that just because we can comprehend some things, we ought to be able to comprehend anything? All animals have limits to understandings. You cannot teach quantum physics to a horse. But for some reason, you believe that humans have evolved past that limitation, that our reasoning is not limited?

My personal opinion is that the universe becomes somewhat absurd when we start regarding it as just 'data'. To me, it is some relief that the universe is a far more extravagant than something that we could completely capture in a massive spreadsheet. It is interesting how you look at the universe and see no need for a designer, and when I look at the universe, it seems obvious there is a designer? You look at the world and see indifferent and unthinking processes underneath everything and I look at the world and I see purpose and meaning behind everything?

You said, "I believe that nature simply is, that there is no real reason why it is..." If you say there is no reason for why it is, is that the same as saying that it is unreasonable or irrational? You have a belief of a universe that is this perfectly logically structure, yet it rests on an illogical pedestal. The problem is that that naturalism offers no possibility for something being 'created'. It only offers the possibility for a cause-and-effect chain, where things can be caused, but there is not a explanation for anything being genuinely created. Until naturalism provides a coherent possibility for this, it will always have problems.

You said, "perhaps if you think there is a purpose for Mars having a thin atmosphere or Jupiter's moons having hydrocarbons on them." I believe there is a reason for everything, but I will not pretend to be able to know the reason for everything, including the examples you have given.

Planetary formation results from natural physical processes such as electrical and gravitational forces. Depending on how a designer is defined, be it intelligent or non-intelligent. A non-intelligent designer might is synonymous with pure algorythms, such as one expects from a materialistic nature, however an intelligent designer requires seemingly intelligent desicion making. It might be said that, by increasing the number of functioning brain cells the mind gains more resolution and can make more intelligent decisions. This is why a horse mind is inferior to a human mind, at least when put under a FMRI machine, I'll bet.

But then, functional hardwiring also matters too. Efficient minds do the most intelligent things with the least amount of brain cells, whereas inefficient minds do the least intelligent things with the most amount of brain cells. Perhaps nature takes a longer time to, say, create a human genome than it takes for humans to create a robotic system of intelligence which takes longer than for robots to create something even more intelligent, etc....still this is all natural too, and dependent on processing power, function, and process efficiency as to which ones are more or less fit.

I've read about definitions, semantics and religions avidly since I was around 14 years old. I've also noticed that throughout history religion has receded where science has advanced. The only reason words like "supernatural" exist, is the "grasping at straws" those religious folks require to maintain their incoherent belief systems. Lightning, fire, algal blooms and the movement of the planets and stars were once attributed to the supernatural realm. As the theory of continental drift morphed into plate tectonics even within my lifetime, and Darwin's theory of evolution was substantiated and confirmed beyond doubt from genetic inheritance and dozens of newer scientific disciplines that Darwin had no concept of, the "domain" of the supernatural has shrunken even further. Let's concede that the word is as meaningless as most of its synonyms would imply. Here's a short list of some of the most pertinent ones: supernormal, abnormal, divine, almighty, astral, omnipotent, godly, celestial, transcendent, otherworldly, unearthly, metaphysical, spectral, ethereal and finally and strangely, wraithlike! The $64,000 question would be to define ANY of those with clarity and uniformity! Indeed unfathomable was another synonym, and that sums up my view of religions as the entities purposely perpetuating such unfathomable vagueness and obfuscation to continue their grip on society.

RELIGION FAILS, SCIENCE PREVAILS!

Darwin was a keen observer and theorist and his theory is PROVEN beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only reason it is still called a theory is because it can't be proven in the same way a mathematical theorem can. That is a problem with semantics, NOT the science!