# How should we define the supernatural?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Theology\
**Created:** [March 12, 2019, 4:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327 "2019-03-12T04:05:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jordan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/jordan/32/756_2.png) [@Jordan](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Jordan)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 3:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/21 "2019-03-12T15:59:16Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> The chief gray area in the separation of Natural from Super-natural is in the unpredictable nature of Quantum-level events. Some things seem beyond prediction - - and yet there is no real suspicion that God would take special interest in the movement of a (say) a muon … compared to more significant things like the moral choice of a human. So while many sub-atomic events **seem** unpredictable, lots of scientists are willing to categorize such activity as inevitably “predictable” (at least in theory).

I want to push back a little on this. We need to be careful to separate the difference between inaccessible knowledge (in the Copenhagen interpretation) or probabilistic knowledge, and unpredictability. Quantum mechanics is very predictable, it’s not just random “who knows what we’ll get?”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DaleCutler](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dalecutler/32/746_2.png) [@DaleCutler](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/DaleCutler)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 4:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/22 "2019-03-12T16:36:05Z")

</div>

“Hypernatural” is a useful term when speaking of God’s activities and frequent M.O. in interaction with the physical world. Many of the miracles recorded in scripture are of this type, even the crossing of the Red Sea. No physical laws are broken, and the degree or extent of events may be extreme (or not), but the timing is what is particularly extraordinary and beyond the reach of science.

I had a Christian friend whose office overlooked the shallow and muddy Schuylkill River in Philadelphia years ago, and one very windy day and with the particular topography (above and below water), wind speed and direction, he was excited to see the muddy bottom of the river in a trough made of water all the way across, with water on the left and on the right, upstream and downstream.

That, of course, reminded him of the Exodus and the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea. I suspect that the sea might have parted without Moses and the Israelites being there. But they were.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![PdotdQ](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/pdotdq/32/1248_2.png) [@PdotdQ](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/PdotdQ)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 6:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/23 "2019-03-12T18:01:45Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> Your discussions so far don’t seem to touch the “natural” vs. “super-natural” dichotomy at all.

Correct. We got sidetracked by discussions on MN instead of natural vs supernatural.

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> “Super-natural” does mean, and should mean, events that are not reproducible or even predictable by humans.
> 
> “Natural” does mean, and should mean, events and processes that are either reproducible by humans or predictable by humans.

I don’t agree with this, but it’s not like I have a better definition.

> [@BruceS](#):
>
> Better I think is to say that MN is what emerges from the practices of successful science. This is what I take Sean C to be driving at. The supernatural is just what is currently excluded from successful science.

Perhaps this is what he is trying to say, and given his relationship with religion, I wouldn’t be surprised if you were right. This turns natural/supernatural into something akin to god-of-the-gaps, as @nwrickert said,

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> It is as if the world started out coated with supernatural paint. As we learn more, we repaint it as natural. And the supernaturalists are finding themselves being painted into a corner. That corner gets smaller and smaller.

I believe that @dga471 disagrees with this. Is that right?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DaleCutler](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dalecutler/32/746_2.png) [@DaleCutler](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/DaleCutler)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 6:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/24 "2019-03-12T18:16:22Z")

</div>

> [@PdotdQ](#):
>
> ![](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/40/810_2.png) nwrickert:
> 
> > It is as if the world started out coated with supernatural paint. As we learn more, we repaint it as natural. And the supernaturalists are finding themselves being painted into a corner. That corner gets smaller and smaller.
> 
> I believe that @dga471 disagrees with this. Is that right?

I certainly do. Big bang cosmology is not a small corner.

And regarding God’s M.O., there is evidence that is consistent with the idea that the universe was designed to be discovered. From here.

In the summer of 2017, around the time of the total eclipse of the sun, I read where one secular astronomer called the fact that the disc of the moon in the sky matches the disc of the sun “magic”. Huge amounts of knowledge about how stars work has been discovered – and more is still being discovered – during total solar eclipses. And that is not to mention all of the other details about why so much of the cosmos is visable, unobstructed, from here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AllenWitmerMiller](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/allenwitmermiller/32/2519_2.png) [@AllenWitmerMiller](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AllenWitmerMiller)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/25 "2019-03-12T18:21:45Z")

</div>

> [@PdotdQ](#):
>
> Just to be clear, I do not hold that methodological naturalism is tautological, but was summarizing a position that I encountered before.
> 
> In my view, its tautological-ness in the end depends on the various definitions of natural/supernatural/science etc and the particular form of MN that one is considering.

Well stated. I too am hesitant to say that methodological naturalism is tautological. It depends on the definitions employed.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> But this view of the supernatural doesn’t necessarily entail viewing humans as supernatural. You could still say that humans are fundamentally mechanistic and fully material (such that their actions and decisions are fully reducible to a set of deterministic rules); but God is not.

Yes.

> [@dga471](#):
>
> How do angels and demons fit into this scheme? They are also part of creation.

Yes, God created them. Thus, they are part of _some_ creation. But there are various views among theologians as to whether they were created in the same creation as is described in Genesis 1:1.

Most will agree that multiple creations are mentioned in the Bible. The New Heaven and the New Earth in Revelation 21 and 22 is another creation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![T\_aquaticus](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/t_aquaticus/32/1249_2.png) [@T\_aquaticus](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/T_aquaticus)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 7:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/26 "2019-03-12T19:07:33Z")

</div>

> [@DaleCutler](#):
>
> “Hypernatural” is a useful term when speaking of God’s activities and frequent M.O. in interaction with the physical world. Many of the miracles recorded in scripture are of this type, even the crossing of the Red Sea. No physical laws are broken, and the degree or extent of events may be extreme (or not), but the timing is what is particularly extraordinary and beyond the reach of science.

Which physical laws allow someone to throw a stick on the ground and have it turn into a snake?

> [@](#):
>
> Exodus 4  
> 1 Moses answered, “What if they do not believe me or listen to me and say, ‘The Lord did not appear to you’?”
> 
> 2 Then the Lord said to him, “What is that in your hand?”
> 
> “A staff,” he replied.
> 
> 3 The Lord said, “Throw it on the ground.”
> 
> Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from it.
> 
> 4 Then the Lord said to him, “Reach out your hand and take it by the tail.” So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand. 5 “This,” said the Lord, “is so that they may believe that the Lord, the God of their fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has appeared to you.”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DaleCutler](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dalecutler/32/746_2.png) [@DaleCutler](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/DaleCutler)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 7:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/27 "2019-03-12T19:11:49Z")

</div>

> [@T\_aquaticus](#):
>
> Which physical laws…

You missed:

> [@DaleCutler](#):
>
> frequent M.O.

Frequent does not mean exclusive.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DaleCutler](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dalecutler/32/746_2.png) [@DaleCutler](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/DaleCutler)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 7:14pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/28 "2019-03-12T19:14:07Z")

</div>

Regarding small corners, try this on for size:

> **[A Small Big Universe](https://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/02/a-small-big-universe.html?m=1)**
>
> The universe is unfathomably large. Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is made of around 200,000,000,000 stars and there are about 200,000,000,000...

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nwrickert](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/nwrickert/32/810_2.png) [@nwrickert](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/nwrickert)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 7:28pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/29 "2019-03-12T19:28:06Z")

</div>

> [@PdotdQ](#):
>
> I believe that @dga471 disagrees with this. Is that right?

That’s my impression.

This discussion shows that there’s considerable disagreement about what we mean by “natural” and “supernatural”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 9:23pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/30 "2019-03-12T21:23:04Z")

</div>

> [@cdods](#):
>
> The working definition of the “natural” for me has been “That which we can perceive with our physical senses.” More specifically, science would then be anything where we can evaluate hypothesis using our physical senses.

@cdods

With a definition like that… there is no wonder you think Science can “test for God”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 9:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/31 "2019-03-12T21:24:07Z")

</div>

> [@Jordan](#):
>
> I want to push back a little on this. We need to be careful to separate the difference between inaccessible knowledge (in the Copenhagen interpretation) or probabilistic knowledge, and unpredictability. Quantum mechanics is very predictable, it’s not just random “who knows what we’ll get?”

@Jordan,

I believe I tried to accommodate that perspective. If anything, it makes Quantum reality part of the Natural realm, rather than the Super-Natural realm. And I’m certainly ok with that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 9:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/32 "2019-03-12T21:27:39Z")

</div>

> [@DaleCutler](#):
>
> “Hypernatural” is a useful term when speaking of God’s activities and frequent M.O. in interaction with the physical world. Many of the miracles recorded in scripture are of this type, even the crossing of the Red Sea. No physical laws are broken, and the degree or extent of events may be extreme (or not), but the timing is what is particularly extraordinary and beyond the reach of science.

@DaleCutler

How do you know that no natural laws were broken?

Are you making that assertion based on the idea that the wind simply separated the waters? If so, or if you have some other natural phenomenon in mind, then I would agree… and that would make it a “Natural” event - - not a hyper-natural one.

When the Pilgrims said there was a miracle… because there was a lot of fish caught in a day … that is what others on this list call a “sign” or a “providential miracle”. And that is certainly what the original meaning of the term “miracle” meant. But having lots of fish caught would be “Natural” as well … unless God literally did some “Poooooof” thing … and made the fish materialize!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DaleCutler](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dalecutler/32/746_2.png) [@DaleCutler](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/DaleCutler)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 10:06pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/33 "2019-03-12T22:06:45Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> How do you know that no natural laws were broken?

Okay then, no natural laws are _apparently_ broken, and no physical laws are _necessarily_ broken.

The major implication and feature of hypernatural miracles to me is the timing aspect of them, and not their physicality or ‘naturalness’, although those features can be spectacular, as well. I have had numerous instances in my own life, not necessarily anything particularly spectacular physically, but of occasions of providential timing – sometimes startling, fun or even funny, and some were life-path changing. It is not counterintuitive that the Creator of time and space should be sovereign over timing and spacing.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 10:26pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/34 "2019-03-12T22:26:10Z")

</div>

> [@DaleCutler](#):
>
> The major implication and feature of hypernatural miracles to me is the timing aspect of them, and not their physicality or ‘naturalness’, although those features can be spectacular, as well. I have had numerous instances in my own life, not necessarily anything particularly spectacular physically, but of occasions of providential timing

@DaleCutler

And that is my point. Since you are comfortable using the term “Providential”, why would you add a term to which most people would not be comfortable: “Hyper-Natural”?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DaleCutler](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dalecutler/32/746_2.png) [@DaleCutler](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/DaleCutler)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 10:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/35 "2019-03-12T22:30:19Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> most people would not be comfortable: “Hyper-Natural”?

Everyone that I have explained it to is quite comfortable with it, and it is descriptive. (I did not originate that use of the term.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 10:30pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/36 "2019-03-12T22:30:32Z")

</div>

> [@nwrickert](#):
>
> The natural/supernatural dichotomy does not make any sense.
> 
> Long ago, people used “supernatural” to describe what was unknown. But we have learned a lot since then. And we have used “natural” to describe the world as we have learned to understand it.
> 
> It is as if the world started out coated with supernatural paint. As we learn more, we repaint it as natural. And the supernaturalists are finding themselves being painted into a corner. That corner gets smaller and smaller.

@nwrickert

You can say it … but there has to be a a simple terminology to reflect the dichotomy of “Physics vs. Metaphysics” for those who are not Atheists or Agnostics.

If God can create “instantaneously”… and God can create by “evolution”… there needs to be a term that separates the two categories of events… at least for Christians treating metaphysical concepts like Acts of God.

Further, if there is no such thing as “super-natural” events, then how do you explain to ID supporters why Science can detect natural processes … but Science cannot detect the natural processes of God?

Are you really planning on explaining to ID supporters that the difference is: God doesn’t exist?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cdods](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/94ad74/32.png) [@cdods](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/cdods)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 10:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/37 "2019-03-12T22:35:22Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> With a definition like that… there is no wonder you think Science can “test for God”.

Not sure if you mis-typed that or if you’ve got me confused with someone else, but I don’t believe science can test for God.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gbrooks9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gbrooks9/32/7979_2.png) [@gbrooks9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/gbrooks9)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 10:35pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/38 "2019-03-12T22:35:51Z")

</div>

> [@DaleCutler](#):
>
> Everyone that I have explained it to are quite comfortable with it, and it is descriptive. (I did not originate that use of the term.)

@DaleCutler

Okay… now you can no longer say “everyone that I have explained it to” is comfortable. You have explained it to me and I think it is unnecessary and confusing.

That should simplify things for you. Who coined the phrase? Was it launched in a journal article?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DaleCutler](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dalecutler/32/746_2.png) [@DaleCutler](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/DaleCutler)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 10:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/39 "2019-03-12T22:36:48Z")

</div>

‘Providential miracles’ can be redundant, and ‘hypernatural’ makes a useful distinction.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DaleCutler](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dalecutler/32/746_2.png) [@DaleCutler](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/DaleCutler)\
**Post date:** [March 12, 2019, 10:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327/40 "2019-03-12T22:38:16Z")

</div>

> [@gbrooks9](#):
>
> Who coined the phrase? Was it launched in a journal article?

Why does it matter so much?

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-should-we-define-the-supernatural/5327.md?page=3)