Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's my opinion that the early religions didn't make a distinction between outer space and the supernatural. They simply didn't have the information to take that into consideration - things were either of this earth or not, according to them.
Thus I suspect they only believed gods were not bound to this earth, but I doubt there was a notion of the supernatural that was separate from a multiverse or even a different planet.
I do agree that most today would make that distinction, though I think that is just a function of redefining the supernatural to natural as it is found to be real.
It's my opinion that the early religions didn't make a distinction between outer space and the supernatural. They simply didn't have the information to take that into consideration - things were either of this earth or not, according to them.
Thus I suspect they only believed gods were not bound to this earth, but I doubt there was a notion of the supernatural that was separate from a multiverse or even a different planet.
I do agree that most today would make that distinction, though I think that is just a function of redefining the supernatural to natural as it is found to be real.
It isn't that anyone redefined "what is real" but "what is known about what is real". The universe apart from the earth's surface was NEVER supernatural or unreal, it was simply unknown or not understood parts of reality. That people viewed the heavens and other inaccessible places such as the bowels of the earth or the ocean deeps as places of mystery and therefore projected supernatural ideation on them, was simply a perception and a category error. The "redefinition" that you are talking about is really a "reclassification" of subtype "correction". It was the correction of error.
This may seem like nit-picking but I don't want anyone getting the idea that science moves the goalposts. Science merely advances understanding. What's real is real, whether or not folks understand that it is real. Whatever the nature of a thing is, is its nature, whether or not it's (mis)understood.
It isn't that anyone redefined "what is real" but "what is known about what is real". The universe apart from the earth's surface was NEVER supernatural or unreal, it was simply unknown or not understood parts of reality. That people viewed the heavens and other inaccessible places such as the bowels of the earth or the ocean deeps as places of mystery and therefore projected supernatural ideation on them, was simply a perception and a category error. The "redefinition" that you are talking about is really a "reclassification" of subtype "correction". It was the correction of error.
This may seem like nit-picking but I don't want anyone getting the idea that science moves the goalposts. Science merely advances understanding. What's real is real, whether or not folks understand that it is real. Whatever the nature of a thing is, is its nature, whether or not it's (mis)understood.
I think the goal posts historically get moved as necessary to incorporate any discovery into what is natural.
Otherwise I don't see the distinction you are making.
I think the goal posts historically get moved as necessary to incorporate any discovery into what is natural.
Otherwise I don't see the distinction you are making.
The distinction is that this is a reclassification based on new information, not an arbitrary changing of mind, as many literalists would like to portray it. They would style science as a fickle woman who can't make up her mind, or as a senile uncle whose memory is faulty. Or at least they do so with respect to the shrinkage of god-gaps.
The unknown is unknown until it becomes known. The thing that was unknown before doesn't change, only our awareness of it. Therefore the changing of labels doesn't convey some new quality on it, it only conveys a new understanding of what already was.
I think the goal posts historically get moved as necessary to incorporate any discovery into what is natural.
Otherwise I don't see the distinction you are making.
This rather tricky business of defining 'supernatural' is perhaps not so much about what Is, or even what science is, but about human modes of thought.
Suppose I suggest that the supernatural in a meaningful sense (1) is definable as entities or occurrences which are considered to be empirically verified by sightings, remains, experiences or indeed statistical probability (2) but which cannot be explained or accounted for by science. This of course inclused gods as wel as ghosts, Ufo's as well as Ley-lines and Alternative medicine and alternative history tend to come under the umbra of the Supernatural, very much as aliens in flying saucers do.
As soon as science gets a grip on it, it tends to drift into the 'natural umbra. Yeti and Ball -lightning are in this area, Ball-lightning because the existence is accepted and Yeti because the hair has been DNA tested.
Much remains to be explained but they are drifting into the 'natural' from the 'supernatural' camp, simply because compelling science -results have been produced OR science has accepted the reality of the phenomenon, even if it has no hard data.
This is just a suggestion as i can see a lot of grey areas, but it may help at least to get a working definition of supernatural and Websters can wait to see what we decide.
(1) supernatural terrors, such as shadowy threatening figures in the dark, that could merely be a human with a bread-knife is not 'supernatural' withing the meaning of the term as we think of it
(2) Dark Matter would come into this category, wereit not that science has provided some compelling evidence for its existence. The 'supernatural' remains so because science has not provided any such evidence- rather the evidence casts doubt.
I tend to agree Arequipa, but when one says they wouldn't consider a natural god to be a god, they are only saying they wouldn't consider a god proven to be true to be a god.
How can we make "a god is a thing that doesn't exist" part of the assumption in a debate where the existence of god is the very thing at issue?
Syllogism time:
When we are arguing about the existence of god, we make the following premises our unspoken foundation assumptions:
1. Natural things are things proven to exist.
2. To be a god, it must not be a natural thing.
3. Therefore, to be a god it must not have been proven to exist.
How can we engage a theist with those terms of debate? How can we expect them to prove something to be true, when we define "not proven to be true" as an essential defining characteristic of that thing?
That is why I abandon the criteria of "super-naturalism" for gods. If something otherwise has the characteristics of a god, it is a god even if it is explainable and natural. Thus, alien-god.
1. Natural things are things proven to exist.
2. To be a god, it must not be a natural thing.
3. Therefore, to be a god it must not have been proven to exist.
How can we engage a theist with those terms of debate? How can we expect them to prove something to be true, when we define "not proven to be true" as an essential defining characteristic of that thing?
Except that we DON'T expect them to prove it. All we expect is for them to recognize that gods are an unfalsifiable claim, therefore not a valid hypothesis. We actually acknowledge that gods are neither provable nor disprovable; it is theists who claim they are provable. Or more often that only their special personal god is provable, or even proven. Then, often, they claim that things in the real world that HAVE been proven cannot possibly be real because they fly in the face of their dogmas or undermine the subjective plausibility of their god-claims.
The interesting thing about where you are going with this, is that if you posit that gods that exist must by definition be part of the natural world, then they BECOME provable, at least in concept. If nothing else, when actually encountering such a god, you are encountering an observable natural phenomenon and in all likelihood your experience of that encounter would be shared with and verified by any other humans who happened to be present with you.
I submit that the reason theists generally insist that their gods are supernatural is that they intuit that if they did not place that restriction upon them, they would lose control of their god. In other words a natural god would just be whatever it is. It could not fit any random preconceived and unfalsifiable property that they fancy. It would not have made just any old contract with them that they had already decided appealed to them (e.g., to love, nurture, protect and comfort them). Finally, from the viewpoint of religious organizations, their raison d'etre would largely be no more. What do you need an organization to promote and support belief for, if god is just part of the natural world? We don't have organizations to describe mountains or French toast or sunshine, and guard against unbelief in them; everyone can see that they exist and that they have certain characteristics. Also, people are free to dislike, or even loathe and detest, natural objects -- to have preferences about them. There is no dogma about them to subscribe to or fall away from. They just are.
As illogical as it is, I think theists need the supernatural and generally need their gods to live there. Intuitively, you don't worship natural things, at least not unless you regress to animism. Even Buddhists have an implicit supernatural realm where karma operates and bodhisattvas, including the venerated Buddha, reside unseen. The unseen and unseeable is essential to protect the religion's ultimately baseless assertions and to provide a cosmology independent of any other authority, such as science. It also provides what I would call an "aura of mystery" that bolsters their particular god-claims.
A Christian, for example, is only saying that a god like the one claimed in the bible does exist. We foist supernaturalism on their claim in way they don't intend. They don't intend "unreal" to be part of their claim, in fact, they intend just the opposite.
In terms of this debate, the distinction between natural and supernatural isn't helpful even if it is employed by both sides. By insisting that supernaturalism is a useful distinction between gods and nongods, we only make matters more confusing and avoid addressing their central claim - that a god such as one described in the bible does exist.
I submit that the reason theists generally insist that their gods are supernatural is that they intuit that if they did not place that restriction upon them, they would lose control of their god. In other words a natural god would just be whatever it is. It could not fit any random preconceived and unfalsifiable property that they fancy. It would not have made just any old contract with them that they had already decided appealed to them (e.g., to love, nurture, protect and comfort them). ...
A Christian, for example, is only saying that a god like the one claimed in the bible does exist. We foist supernaturalism on their claim in way they don't intend. They don't intend "unreal" to be part of their claim, in fact, they intend just the opposite.
In terms of this debate, the distinction between natural and supernatural isn't helpful even if it is employed by both sides. By insisting that supernaturalism is a useful distinction between gods and nongods, we only make matters more confusing and avoid addressing their central claim - that a god such as one described in the bible does exist.
But if the definition implies unreality, what are we to do? How do you square an omni-max eternal deity who is outside of everything including time with reality? Anything we can theoretically observe, he is defined as being outside and separate from that, having created it from nothing. At some point the definition itself pushes it into unreality.
If a god can be measured, understood, constrained, or manipulated what makes it a god? This is not a conclusion I came to as an unbeliever, it was what I was taught as a Christian. Anything that was subject to any sort of naturalistic reality was not a real god, and not worthy of worship. It is a contradiction, because the premise is that God is "real" but that he exists beyond reality. If he was merely real, then he would just be a powerful thing.
There may be some religions that don't make these distinctions but at least the fundamentalist brands of Christianity explicitly demand supernaturalism as a condition of God, becasue they argue that the god described in the Bible is transcendent, supernatural, beyond reality even though he is "real".
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
