Supernatural and Atheism

[Angrboda]

What is the supernatural?

Nice to see you again! I expect you've had some eventful times recently. I hope that you and yours are all doing well.

Not supernaturally well -- just, you know, as well as can be expected. 

I think I've been through this before, but let me type it out here now in a simple way, on the off chance that it might tighten up definitions.

Everything has a nature. The nature of the thing is what it's made of, how it's put together, what its potentials are, what it can do, what's likely to happen to it. All natural stuff. 

So there's a badger in my garden. It has the nature of a badger. It does badger stuff. Digs, eats, makes little badgers. It goes crazy for cat food. A zoologist could tell us more -- badgers differ from raccoons in this and that quality, etc. etc. Science tells us what the badger nature is like. 

Everything with a nature has things it can't do. The badger can't fly. It can't eat molten lead. It can't write lengthy treatises on early Latin literature. If it did any of these things, those things would be above and beyond its nature. In a word: supernatural. 

So "supernatural" means: when a thing does something beyond what its nature is capable of doing. 

We are all good scientists who severely doubt that a badger could ever do something supernatural. Therefore we doubt that the supernatural is possible. If we did hear a report of a badger typing out a treatise on early Latin literature on its little laptop, we would almost certainly reject this. It must be a lie, a drug hallucination, etc. Because our way of understanding the world rejects the idea that anything can act in a way over and above its nature, and our beliefs about the nature of things come from accumulations of centuries of scientific observations.

I am not arguing that the supernatural is possible. I am saying that this is the ancient definition of the word, and is still the only one I know which makes sense.

I'm not sure this helps as in both instances the badger is "doing," only in the case of the supernatural you assert that it's not capable of "doing" what it obviously is capable of "doing." You're just hiding the impossibility part under some word play. The ultimate question is how do you determine what the badger is capable of doing, and that doesn't happen at the level of doing. Since this is an analogy, it basically refers to the supernatural being things in the material world doing things that they aren't/shouldn't be capable of. But how do you determine what that nature is except by observing what does or doesn't happen (i.e. the "doing") ?

[Belacqua]

The ultimate question is how do you determine what the badger is capable of doing

Science.

[Foxaèr]

Clearly, the badger isn't doing anything supernatural. So can we move on from this nonsense?

[Gwaithmir]

Common sense is nothing more than confirmation bias──a collection of prejudices. You've made a claim for which you can provide no evidence which will pass rational scrutiny.

Trusting that everything should be perfectly rational no matter what is stupid in itself.

No, it isn't.

The burden of proof lies on he who alleges. Religious people should know that I’m perfectly willing to believe in god(s), ghosts, mediums, demons, angels, spirits, channeling, miracles, horoscopes, astrology, psychics, Ouija boards, the supernatural, and anything else for that matter as long as they adhere to one proviso: Prove it! Don’t give me speculation, guesses, hopes, dreams, wishes, desires, beliefs, faith (or appeals to faith), or indoctrinations. Don’t give me one-time-only, non-repeatable, non-testable events. Don’t give me internal alterations in one’s psychology or physiology that can’t be tested observed, or demonstrated, only felt or believed. And don’t give me effects that can’t be clearly related to the supposed cause.

I have no objection to believing in a god as long as proof based upon a rational standard of knowledge is forthcoming. Is that too much to ask? But surely theists can’t expect me to adopt their beliefs on the basis of what has been presented thus far. Every “proof” I’ve heard and every piece of evidence I’ve seen for the existence of god(s) is easily countered by rational evidence and arguments to the contrary. No convincing evidence for the existence of any deity has ever emerged. But I’m more than willing to listen to theistic arguments or view theistic evidence as long as cross-examination is permitted. As conditions now stand, theology rests far more on superstition and faith than upon facts and reason.

[The Grand Nudger]

  But how do you determine what that nature is except by observing what does or doesn't happen (i.e. the "doing") ?

Ah, but not so - recall, Bel has also decided that it's in a gods nature to fuck with the weather, therefore that's not supernatural.

[Deesse23]

Nice to see you again! I expect you've had some eventful times recently. I hope that you and yours are all doing well.

Not supernaturally well -- just, you know, as well as can be expected. 

I think I've been through this before, but let me type it out here now in a simple way, on the off chance that it might tighten up definitions.

Everything has a nature. The nature of the thing is what it's made of, how it's put together, what its potentials are, what it can do, what's likely to happen to it. All natural stuff. 

So there's a badger in my garden. It has the nature of a badger. It does badger stuff. Digs, eats, makes little badgers. It goes crazy for cat food. A zoologist could tell us more -- badgers differ from raccoons in this and that quality, etc. etc. Science tells us what the badger nature is like. 

Everything with a nature has things it can't do. The badger can't fly. It can't eat molten lead. It can't write lengthy treatises on early Latin literature. If it did any of these things, those things would be above and beyond its nature. In a word: supernatural. 

So "supernatural" means: when a thing does something beyond what its nature is capable of doing. 

We are all good scientists who severely doubt that a badger could ever do something supernatural. Therefore we doubt that the supernatural is possible. If we did hear a report of a badger typing out a treatise on early Latin literature on its little laptop, we would almost certainly reject this. It must be a lie, a drug hallucination, etc. Because our way of understanding the world rejects the idea that anything can act in a way over and above its nature, and our beliefs about the nature of things come from accumulations of centuries of scientific observations.

I am not arguing that the supernatural is possible. I am saying that this is the ancient definition of the word, and is still the only one I know which makes sense.

I'm not sure this helps as in both instances the badger is "doing," only in the case of the supernatural you assert that it's not capable of "doing" what it obviously is capable of "doing."  You're just hiding the impossibility part under some word play.  The ultimate question is how do you determine what the badger is capable of doing, and that doesn't happen at the level of doing.  Since this is an analogy, it basically refers to the supernatural being things in the material world doing things that they aren't/shouldn't be capable of.  But how do you determine what that nature is except by observing what does or doesn't happen (i.e. the "doing") ?

Bels "supernatural" is the classic stop gap for "i dont know....yet".

[Mister Agenda]

The supernatural seems to boil down to 'real magic'. A being defined as supernatural, such as a faery, ghost or god, accomplishes uncanny things by virtue of their magical powers. A sorcerer accomplishes uncanny things by their manipulation of magical forces. A psychic has magical perceptions (however much they may insist they're not magical). A god controlling the weather is accomplishing a magical feat because of how the god controls the weather. It's not seeding the clouds with silver oxide, it's imposing it's will on the weather through its vast magical power.

If anyone could prove that any such magical powers are real, they would have made more progress towards proving magical beings are possible than anyone else in history.

[Ahriman]

The supernatural seems to boil down to 'real magic'. A being defined as supernatural, such as a faery, ghost or god, accomplishes uncanny things by virtue of their magical powers. A sorcerer accomplishes uncanny things by their manipulation of magical forces. A psychic has magical perceptions (however much they may insist they're not magical). A god controlling the weather is accomplishing a magical feat because of how the god controls the weather. It's not seeding the clouds with silver oxide, it's imposing it's will on the weather through its vast magical power.

If anyone could prove that any such magical powers are real, they would have made more progress towards proving magical beings are possible than anyone else in history.

You're right. I'm a psychic and I wouldn't consider my perceptions magical, just natural. But it hardly matters. Being a psychic is shit anyways. It's exhausting, painful, and offers no worldly rewards of any kind. It's a burden. But still, as much as it sucks, it is wholly mine. It's my life, I'm the only one who could be living it. And it's kept me out of harm's way many times. Call it God, call it luck, or whatever else. The gift of enhanced perception is something I must learn to master.

[The Grand Nudger]

[Ahriman]

Don't act like you're better than me. You're crazy too.