I’d like a second third and/or fourth opinion on a semantic issue.
Science deals with things that are observable, tangible, measurable, demonstrable, etc, and thus natural. Whereas things like astrology, religion, and theology deal with things that cannot be observed, or that are on “higher planes” or are “beyond the physical universe” and other such phrases, and thus are supernatural. For the moment please just assume what i just said is an accurate categorization; we can argue the categories and things in the categories later. I just want to focus on the words “natural” and “supernatural.”
Flowers are observable. You can touch them, see them, smell them, etc. The occur naturally. They are in the “natural” category. Same goes for dogs, cars, planets, stars, galaxies, carbon nano tubes, tornadoes, and on and on.
“God(s)”, however you want to define the word, are typically described as being “above” us. The are in the “supernatural” category. Same goes for the forces/effects of star signs, crystal healing, magic spells, voodoo, and on and on.
It seems to me that if the things in the “supernatural” category were actually present and/or actually effective that the word “natural” would be better suited for describing them. If your zodiac really did have an effect on your life (or whatever the proper terminology is) that such an effect would be naturally occurring, and thus it would be natural. Or if a spell cast by a witch actually really worked and effects could be seen or observed in some way, that the spell would be a natural thing. Or if perhaps there really was a god of some sort, then wouldn’t that god be natural because it occurs naturally?
If something is by definition “beyond” the realm of the observable (observable by ANY means), in other words “supernatural”, then how can one with any degree of certainty claim knowledge of the existence of something that is exactly that? This question crumbles if there is indeed something there that can be observed; like a god, or spell. It then becomes paradoxical to still call that thing “super”-natural. If you can observe it, then it’s natural.
[size=70]
[This sort of dilemma reminds me of the witch trials. People made claims that there were witches and that they cast spells and needed to be put to death. They were accused of doing the devil’s work, or of making people sick or ruining crops simply with spells and hexes and such. These sorts of claims have a few key implications: that the person has or can cast a spell, and that the spell the person cast can actually manifest itself into something that can be observed to happen (in other words, that the spell is actually real). For some reason people believed that the alleged spells were actually effective. Indeed if the spells were effective, the townspeople would have a stronger more rational argument for bestowing death to the caster. If they had simply not believed such things, or perhaps realized that even if a “spell had been cast” that nothing had actually happened after the spell, then there would have been no deaths. But i digress.][/size]
I can sum up my opinion about the issue with the difference between “natural” and “supernatural” in four statements:
I think it is critical to have an important concept at the forefront of your mind while thinking about this issue. Look at the difference between these two statements:
In the former statement Santa is an actual person who visits the homes of well behaved children. In the latter statement Santa is just a story. The man is supernatural, the idea of the man is natural. It’s like the placebo effect: the pill doesn’t actually do anything, its the thought of ingesting real medicine that does something.