The "Cultural Context" Excuse

[Whateverist]

---

I don't think that is really parallel.  I don't believe in abiogenesis because I trust science will one day show how that transition occurred.  There just isn't any natural alternative and logically I reject 'the supernatural', and that has nothing to do with science.



Definitely not.  For me it isn't a question of authority.  It is just a question of making sense, and to me 'the supernatural' just doesn't.



For the record I find plenty of mystery in the world, and mystery doesn't trouble me.  But for me, mystery doesn't have a 'Twilight Zone' connotation.  I assume that that which is mysterious is also natural.  Doesn't mean it'll make sense to me, but of course it would be natural.  What else could it be .. for me.  I realize of course that you have another alternative you keep open and that is your prerogative.  We just have to disagree over that stuff.  (Doesn't mean I won't eat your smoked salmon .. I mean, if you had any extra.)

---

When you state that you "reject the supernatural" you essentially are saying that you reject anything that is undetectable with your 5 senses.  Aren't the  senses a product of the natural? If the senses are a product of the natural, then all they can perceive is the natural.

You see the natural, you touch the natural, you hear the natural, you taste the natural, and you smell the natural.

So anything that is undetectable to any of those natural senses don't exist?

It isn't quite that simple.  There are many things undetectable to my five senses which I do not reject, including: my feelings for my loved ones; their feelings for me; the dictates of my own conscience; the value of my own artistic efforts.  There are many things I accept which cannot be vouchsafed empirically.  But I count all of that as natural.

You guys ask for proof of "supernatural" (I'll refer to it as the "spiritual" from now on), but how exactly am I to do that when you are not willing to use your spiritual sense?

I don't actually ask for proof for anything outside of mathematics.  But this doesn't really fit here.  I wouldn't call it as you do where I bolded, but I do have a felt sense of what is significant, important, moral, beautiful and more.  I can accept plenty of things without empirical evidence.  But I consider it a natural byproduct of my being, a capacity which transcends the bounds of reason.  But why should I expect that what I am is only my capacity for reason?  I don't.  When you say it is from God, I just think you're projecting what is happening inside the totality of yourself to something 'out there'.  I don't think you are factually correct to do so, but I don't see a lot of harm in it either.

One thing I will pointedly disagree with you on is your attribution of your "spiritual sense" to something "supernatural".  How do you know so clearly what are the limits of the natural world?  How can any of us be sure that anything is not natural.  Frankly I don't think you 'elevate' God by such a categorical assignment.  This is what we disagree on.

How would you explain that natural world exists to a person that was devoid of the natural senses? How would you prove the color blue exists to someone that couldn't see?

The only way one has of detecting the spiritual realm is his spirit, and faith is the "spiritual sense", and to the christian it's the "true" sense, the sense that takes preeminence over all the others, hence we "walk by faith not by sight".

So where you reject everything that doesn't agree with the natural, a christian rejects everything that doesn't agree with the spiritual.

Our disagreement doesn't regard what is detectable by the senses or verifiable empirically.  It is instead over the limits of the natural and the source of what is beyond reason.