"Natural" and "Supernatural"

I think some of you…cough…Mr. Rule…cough… haven’t been studying the history of philosophy like you should. If you did, then you’d be aware of a long and influencial history of the debate between nominalism and realism. In fact, the first big “throw-down” between these ideas came between Aristotle and his teacher Plato.

“Aristotle makes it obvious that, when a number of individuals share a predicate, this cannot be because of relation to something of the same kind as themselves, but more ideal. This much may be taken as proved, but Aristotle’s own doctrine is far from clear. It was this lack of clarity that made possible the medieval controversy between nominalists and realists.”
- Bertrand Russell’s “History of Philosophy” pg 162.

Russel goes on to describe in detail what a “universal” is to Aristotle, then he critiques Aristotle’s position. To understand Russell’s critique, we have to look at an analogy he makes.

He says…suppose I say, “There is the game of football.” Most people he says would grant this as a truism…but, then, if he says…“football can exist without the players…” the statement becomes foolish. Or, another example he gives is, there is such a thing as “parenthood” only because there is such a thing as parents…and there is only sweetness, because there is such a thing as candy. There is “redness” he says, because there are “red” things…and we can add to this list…“there must be numerical concepts, because there are a numerous amount of things.”

Such is the nominalism of an Aristotle. But you see, Russell goes on to critique this position. He says that the real distinction is not a metaphysical distinction between universals and particulars (parenthood and actual parents) but rather, it is a linguistic distinction derived from syntax. He claims that we need a new philosophical language that will do away with such syntax errors and thus make the problem of the “one and the many” disappear.

But, does this work? Christian philosopher Greg Bahnsen points out that saying this is a “syntax” problem is simply pushing the problem back to the realm of language. We still have universal concepts being applied to particular objects despite how we choose to discuss them.

Therefore, for some of you…cough…Mr. Rule…cough…to arbitrarily assert a form of nominalism as “granted” is to ignore the history of the discussion and arbitrarily assert a well refuted position.

Lets my post run too long…I’ll quickly reply to Mr. Auf…

Again, I applaud your level headed response, but, I think you have a misunderstanding of angels… you see, they ARE necessary for science. In fact…if God ordains something to happen in the physical realm, he carries it out via the actions of his angels. (I’m being silly here, though I do hold to a form of angelic causation, I’m exaggerating the issue in order to demonstrate why the “non-physical” angels are just as necessary to science as your non-physical numbers. We could disagree over their necessity of course, but the point is, you cannot exclude them from the “natural” realm since they, and God as well, would meet the criteria you’ve established for “numbers.” Thus, if you include numbers, you have to include God and angels in the natural world as well.)

Thank you shotgun! I appreciate your constructive criticisms; if it weren’t for their clarity I woulnd’t really be able to provide a clear response :slight_smile:

Hmm… I suspect that you are here confusing sufficient and necessary conditions. I think the existence of numbers is necessary for science; but it angels are not. As you describe it, it sounds like you’re saying God’s existence (and his sending out angels to carry out actions) is a sufficient condition for our descriptions of physical events; but it is not necessary; whereas, in science, the mathematical ontology IS necessary.

I hope that that’s clear. It’s 5:30 in the morning after all haha!

Shotgun, this isn’t about nominalism. Its about “supernaturalism”.

Try restating everything you say about “non-physical”, but this time, use the word “non-real” instead. Then it makes a lot more sense.

What do you think of this analogy?
0 - The Big Bang relating to God
1 - The laws of nature in science relating to angles in religion

Student hits a homerun! Thanks for that comparison.

Auf, there are many “sufficient” explanations of the “physical” world in question…and each of these explanations require certain necessary particulars.

I proposed an alternative “explanation” in discussing Angels.

That’s not the only possible one though. In fact, consider the monist, like a Hindu. To them, “numbers” are not necessary to science at all, since there is no distinction in reality. In that case, “numbers” are only sufficient, but not necessary.

The point I’m making is, given your criteria for distinction between “physical” and “non-physical,” you will end up having to class EVERYTHING as “physical” even things that none of us want to call “physical.”

This has always worked for me:

Supernatural:

  1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
  2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
  3. Of or relating to a deity.
  4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
  5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

The concept is limited to what we expect in a given daily life.

For instance, we expect that things roll downhill, and that things going uphill need some form of self-energy to push or move them up the hill.

However, in many places in the world, this given is flipped on it’s head and appears supernatural.
(e.g. youtube.com/watch?v=jd0A4bnp … re=related)

It is a natural occurrence, but it is what we would call supernatural because it is not expected to occur in nature given our common experiences.

We are constantly redefining what the “natural universe” is, so therefore, we are constantly including possibilities that were previously thought impossible by natural occurrences in physics…like levitating frogs (youtube.com/watch?v=A1vyB-O5i6E).

I’ll throw in my two cents. Supernatural is a word brought down to us from a time when the map of the world was taken for the world itself, i.e. when men were confident that their beliefs were knowledge. They then confidently proclaimed that anything not befitting in the map was thought supernatural. Now, not many honest men have the gall to suppose that they know nature and what belongs to it, and what is above it. Men of the church still do, but no one takes the church seriously anymore. They’re like star wars nerds, obsessing about irrelevant things.

I’m sorry if I’m a little slow here, but I don’t understand the analogy.

No, I won’t, since I’m using science itself as the benchmark. If we only appeal to scientific testability, there is no need to appeal to angels, gods, etc. But there may be a need to countenance mathematical objects (as Quine argues). Angels, gods, etc. may still exist, but they are not required by scientific argument. That’s my point.

To be exact on what xzc is talking about, and what I was eluding to as an origin,

[EDIT]

(I didn’t see the second page of this thread. Sorry.)

How do you mean?

Yeah, i don’t get the analogy either.

Here’s my idea of an uneducated perspective on the definitions:

Natural = things that can be explained
Supernatural = things that have not yet been explained

WARNING If you accept those definitions, you’re brain may be smaller than it feels.

If X exists, it got there by some process that either can be explained or simply has not been explained yet but nevertheless can be.

side note…

A supernatural god, and an omniscient god are logically incompatible. If god knows everything, then he knows how he got there and thus can explain the process using the scientific method and therefore would be a “natural” explanation.

booya

Let’s examine:

Super- is a Latin prefix that shares similarities with the prefix praeter, or preter (preterite), and denotes the concept of “above” or “beyond”.

Natural pretty much simplifies to “from nature”, so nature is taken into consideration, which is rooted in it’s original Latin, “Natus”, which literally translates to “Birth”, but ultamately is Natura; which in this form refers to the concept of the “Essence of something”, especially as it is, “found”, or as it “arrives” (like “Birth”).

Natura was a concept that applied to observational logic.

It is to say, “As witnessed, before overt interference of the observer, to be part of the observed things essence seemingly before the observation even began.”

So to say something is Beyond this concept, is to say, “That which is observed in a things essence, but is not part of the observed things previously established observed essence, but rather appears to be added to the environment of which the observed thing’s essence is originally witnessed.”

In a way, it’s Pre-Hume Hume.

Saying Supernatural was nearly to state that if one witnessed something occurring X amount of times, and could state it as a given, that it did not necessarily hold down as a given that the thing would continue to occur just because it had previously been witnessed to do so.

The way of reporting something like this was to denote it as supernatural.

Well, let me try to explain:

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day.

Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as “the Big Bang”, and is considered the “birth” of our universe.

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#T … e_Big_Bang)

So, science has composed a model of the “birth” of the universe, and it can be said that the universe came into existence because of the Big Bang. The Big Bang can be seen as an essential and maybe sufficient (science does not know) cause of everything that is and everything that happens.

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)

In other words, God has created the universe, and the universe came into existence because of God. This way, God can be seen as an essential and maybe sufficient (meaning of God differs) cause of everything that is and everything that happens.
If you still have trouble with the first part of the analogy, let me know.

After the Big Bang, the universe has developed itself according to the laws of nature. The laws of nature are causes of everything that is and everything that happens. The laws of nature can be seen as the means by which our universe is managed.
God is often seen as overseer of the universe, and angels are often seen as instruments by which God manages the universe. So, while God is the overseer of the universe, the angels are the means by which our universe is managed.

I hope this helps in understanding my previous post.

You’re still using the word incorrectly I think.

God is supernatural because God doesn’t fall into the category of “universe” things.

Let me clear this up.

Human’s do not perform telekinesis as a “natural” condition; it is not a thing which is observed as part of the whole on a standard model of humanity to perform telekinesis. If a person performs feats of telekinesis, then it is Supernatural for the human race for that person to do so.

Another way of putting this (bypassing plausibility, which isn’t the point) is to say that Jesus was Supernatural for the human race, as what he did is outside of the natural scope of the model of humanity.

So, God isn’t exactly Supernatural because he creates the universe (this would be like suggesting that Mother’s are Supernatural to the human race for giving birth to human babies) as all gods create a reason of existence.

Instead, God is considered Supernatural because God is not part of the observed scientific category that we refer to as the, “Universe”, however if God should exist, then it would be beyond the expected model of the Universe to exist with the facility of God; just as with the condition of telekinesis in Humans.

So, God is Supernatural to the category of Universe things; scientific observations/human observations, but the observed Universe is not Supernatural to the category that God belongs to; gods.

That much of what you explained about the Big Bang and God’s being conceived as the creator (or cause) and sustainer of the universe makes sense. But all this misses my point. What I’m saying is that mathematics is not a sufficient tool for scientific language (and hence its theories); but mathematics is NECESSARY. Mathematics doesn’t “explain” anything science; rather it is an indispensable tool in scientific inference. God, however, is not, unless God’s existence is nessecary, which, so far as I can see, it isn’t. Mathematics is indispensable from science; God and angels are, on the other hand, entirely dispensable.

I never said that I argued with or against your point, I only gave an analogy with the hope of helping this discussion.

Very true, science is a combination of mathematics and other principles, like empirical study. Religion can be seen as a combination of God and other principles, like angels. Someone who believes in God would say that our world is a result of both God and the angels, because God manages our world through His angels. From this point of view, the angels are also necessary for the existence of our world.

You say it yourself, “so far as I can see”. It will take you some effort, but you could try the following. For the moment, assume that God has indeed created the universe. You do not have to believe in God for this, instead you can look at it as an exercise in logic and abstract reasoning. If you assume that God has created the universe, then what are the consequences? Thinking about this question might just shed some light on how the other side of this discussion thinks, especially if you consider angels as they have been described in this discussion.

For you mathematics is necessary and God is not; for others God is necessary but mathematics is not. In order to believe in mathematics you must accept certain axioms, and in order to believe in God you must accept certain principles. Believers in mathematics say that the axioms are logically true, and that there is no reason not to believe in them. Believers of God say that the existence of God is logically true (that abstract concept which created the universe, exists because the universe has been created), and that there is no good reason not to believe in Him.
Science and religion are the Yin and Yang of human explanations for our existence, and in order to understand what it is all about, you have to take both sides into account.

I am not arguing against your point; I think that you have some underlying assumptions from which your point logically follows. You believe that science can provide us with an acceptable description of our reality, you think that mathematics is necessary for science, and you do not think (an important assumption in your reasoning) that the existence of God and His angels are necessary. As far as I understand your point (mathematics is not sufficient but necessary, God and angels are not necessary), it follows directly from these assumptions. The question is whether or not your assumptions are correct, and whether you can improve your insights by clinging to or abandoning these assumptions.

If you are going to formulate the reasons for your assumptions (which could be good for this discussion), then please make sure that they do not contain circular arguments, otherwise it would be pointless to discuss them.

That’s wrong. From the fact that someone believes God to be responsible for creating the universe it doesn’t follow that they also believe it to be NECESSARY that God created the universe (or that God indispensable from our true descriptions of the world). My claim is that whilst mathematics (and so perhaps mathematical objects) is indispensable from our true (scientific) descriptions of the world, God’s actions or existence (and so supernatural objects) is NOT indispensable from our true (scientific) explanations of the world. All I’m saying is that one might say that mathematical objects are not supernatural (though non-natural in the sense that they are not physical objects) since (1) they are not sentient and (2) they are indispensable to our true (scientific) descriptions of the world.

This is a red herring. Distinguishing natural from supernatural objects is not an inquiry into what exists or does not. Mathematics is the language of science; we could any language to express science, but since they are consistent with mathematical expressions (and can be equivalently expressed in mathematics), we end up countenancing mathematical objects either way. Just as if we didn’t speak of “individual constants” or “objects” in our sentence “John is 6 ft. tall”, we’d still be committed to the existence of the physical object “John”, whether we speak logic or not.

This entire conversation is a red-herring at this point.

The subject matter was the concept of Natural and the concept of Supernatural, and now this is about the western Christian God.

Hurray.

Look…A talking strawberry is supernatural, as well as a tax-paying Elephant is supernatural.