Supernatural and Atheism

[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".