So, please indulge me in some semantics. I agree with @John_Harshman here, but notice: George wrote “the supernatural” and that’s what I wrote when explaining why I don’t think we should claim that “the supernatural” can’t be detected by “science.” Consider:
There are events in the bible that describe the alleged outcomes of supernatural action. This includes resurrections, healings, indeed most of the miracles. Science can say, “yep that dude is alive” or “hmmm that guy is walking now” but those are just the effects of the supernatural. Call them anomalies or interventions, whatever.
But there are other events in the bible that were (allegedly) public. The most important one IMO is the ascension but there are others, such as legions of singing angels. Perhaps one might write off the ascension as “mere” levitation of a body, but I would call that supernatural. Maybe even more dramatically, angels are quintessential supernatural beings.* Science has not (AFAIK) detected angels, in a public and reasonable way, but I can’t think of any reason to claim that it couldn’t detect them and thereby establish their existence (and some of their activities).
I think that by focusing on angels (or other “supernatural” things) we can address the distinction I was trying to make, between “the supernatural” (entities etc) and phenomena attributed the supernatural (miracles, anomalies, card tricks). Angels are supernatural, and are apparently detectable according to religious writings. So far, we seem to only know how to detect them when they vocalize and/or make themselves emit photons in the visible spectrum. But this suggests that they are in principle detectable, and science could set about designing instruments and procedures for that purpose.
*Someone who denies this is simply not speaking the same language as I am. I’m not judging, but that would end the conversation.
It doesn’t matter what the roots of a word might be. What matters is how it is used.
The term “Meta-Physics” is frequently described as originating from Aristotle’s work on Physics, and then came the topics AFTER his discussion of Physics – which were the more woo-woo discussions about consciousness, free will, or what-have-you.
Though this may not actually be true, it certainly shows how terminology evolves. Now Metaphysics is accepted as undoubtedly about things like ethics, choice, consciousness, free will (ad nauseum).
The term “super-natural” can easily be analyzed as covering topics that are “supra” (above) the natural realm of the universe. This dichotomy becomes functional if we first agree that “natural” is something that can be subjected to the scientific method.
And thus, something ABOVE NATURE can be associated with the Divine for those focusing on deity … as well as matters of the mind and heart that are not subject to natural orderliness and lawfulness.
If God only employs operations that are naturally lawful … then we are left with a pretty thin portfolio of what would be supernatural. But in the realm of Christianity, we almost never have a soup that thin… there is almost always some part of God’s creation that is reserved not only to His and ONLY His understanding and command … but that this reserved realm trumps all natural order with God’s ability to invoke the SUPER- (or SUPRA-) natural.
I find this word salad to be beside the point that I am interested in discussing. Moreover, for me and others in this conversation, defining the supernatural in terms of “the scientific method” is unhelpful, uninteresting, and anachronistic. I think you’ll have to be content with your personal linguistic preferences and leave others to theirs.
Is it your intention to say that virtually all of the “miraculous” aspects of the Bible follow natural lawfulness?
Because if it is your intention … it’s perfectly logical for you to do so … but there is no way you can compel millions of Christians to agree with you - - on that point or on related points.
The whole point of my discussion of “natural” vs. “super-natural” is to develop a narrative that RESPECTS the religious views of many Christians which says: God does things that are not “lawful”, and that these actions (as well as beings such as angels) do not necessarilyl conform to any natural law we humans will ever know, nor any lawfulness in the mind of god.
So then we need to distinguish between the adjective and the noun with “the supernatural” being the noun, or to mean “supernatural beings, entities or events”…correct?
But isn’t that the same conversation as the one we had about problems that have solutions are no longer problems?..the supernatural (noun) is not supernatural if it can be detected, the method of detection is just currently unknown, and the supernatural entity would in fact be considered natural once detected, and always was natural because it always was detectable.
The bible says we have power beyond what we know…maybe the ascension, transfiguration, resurrection, walking on water, healing power, seeing and interacting with angels and demons, etc. are really all very natural events that we just don’t know how to do yet.
No, I’m not granting most of those assertions, and I posted earlier today about what I think is a clear example of “the supernatural” being detected/detectable (if they’re real, that is).
As is common, you are having a different conversation than I am. You are talking about “god” and his “mind” and “lawfulness” and none of those things is relevant to my posts. I wonder if you are projecting?
I am anticipating the comments of Christians who have a more mystic view of the Universe than you do.
You have said interesting things like:
An angel is divine … but if we see him (or her or it) then science can engage the angel.
If there is an angel who makes it rain … then we can see the effect of this divine being.
But these examples are trivial.
I am trying to discuss the difference between a cause that is naturally lawful … vs. a cause that is ABOVE natural lawfulness… it is BEYOND natural lawfullness… it is a mystery. Some might call it magical. Millions of Christians would call it MIRACULOUS.
If you don’t know or care whether these incidents are motivated by MN, you have no business using them as support for abandoning MN.
And if new long period comets really are being created by leprechauns, that’s slowing us down too.
No, they aren’t. But if the answer to the first is such that the second is flawed, then the first question is likely to be unanswerable anyway (Which leprechaun did it, and how?), and you’re just changing levels Virgilesquely, not escaping the inferno.
What I think we are really talking about is two different worldviews or approaches. I can’t measure beauty with a ruler, but that doesn’t mean I reject the existence of beauty simply because I use a ruler to measure length. Trying to relate definitions of supernatural to the scientific method or empiricism just doesn’t make sense. The supernatural is defined by belief, not by measuring things.
Perhaps the worst definition we can use for the supernatural is something beyond scientific understanding. The whole purpose of science is to understand what we currently don’t understand, so that seems like a no-go. Even worse, it creates a situation where the supernatural is synonymous with ignorance.
Perhaps we need something like Gould’s Non-overlapping Magisteria, a recognition that we are dealing with two separate entities that can clash at their borders but are necessarily different pursuits.
Agreed! But I.D. supporters will never be eager to intentionally remove their sphere of interest from the sweet fragrance of science.
That’s the whole point of their effort - - to have a form of Creationism recognized as a real science… which can be taught in public schools.
In view of the above, I have no other thought in my mind other than I.D. rhetoric will never go away … it is the very reason for having Intelligent Design discussions!
There are times where I picture ID as the scorned lover cast aside by Science. ID casts aspersions at its former lover out of bitterness, all the while pining for the possibility that they can get back together.