Supernatural isn't a useful concept

[robvalue]

I agree. It's normally an attempt to draw a line under what is possible, then say other things can break those rules. That's just an arbitrary and poor use of language to try and sneak in bullshit. I made a video on this where I discuss what a pointless term it is. It's either not well defined, or if it is, it's a loaded term for a more simple concept such as "unexplained".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5u5-Bg2ENQ

[Rhizomorph13]

It is said that a natural law is a codification of an effect which deviates from the random in a consistent, non-random way.  The law of gravity exists because objects depart from the traditional "an object in motion tends to remain in motion" and "an object at rest tends to remain at rest" in consistent and predictable ways.  The paths of moving objects are changed in non-random ways.

If this is the hallmark of natural law, then perhaps the supernatural is that which deviates from randomness or natural law in inconsistent but non-random ways.  So a phenomena which deviated from the consistency of natural law only under certain, repeatable circumstances, might be considered supernatural.  For example, a person [allegedly] making a sphere levitate.  It would be inconsistent with the way natural law ordinarily affects the sphere.  The sticky wicket in all this is attributing cause.  How do we verify that the person is actually causing the sphere to levitate as opposed to some other unknown cause.  If the effect is inconsistent with natural law, differentiating between the supernatural and the unexplained seems impossible in principle.  The inconsistency of the effect supercedes our ability to find a natural law to cover the phenomena.

Hmm, your second paragraph makes me think about the Casimir effect and the fact that virtual particles spring in and out of being within a vacuum. This is an observable phenomenon related to a process that is random and inconsistent. I would call it natural; as natural as throwing dice which is also random (mostly). I was hoping someone would argue for the value of the term. Your post at least elucidates a probable use case that is free from woo.

Supernatural seems like a waste of time

 
I’m in agreement if supernatural is used to explain away what we do not understand; thus, shutting off intellectual curiosity/pursuit and turning on a dim bulb of blind acceptance to social dogmas/beliefs.  However, if supernatural is being used as a descriptor for things that don’t conform to humanity’s most current thought patterns of what constitutes natural laws, then IMO, supernatural may indeed be a very important topic worthy of serious consideration, as it can help knock us off of our pedestal of self-importance: perhaps mankind’s greatest achievements are someone else’s ‘funny section’ in a morning newspaper.  Hence, understanding that which is alien to our sense-making processes may be the key that enables us to grow beyond our preconceptions of normalcy and come that much closer toward understanding reality as it really is.

Realizing that we are not omnipotent is valuable. Making sure that we are truly skeptical and avoid dismissing ideas just because they seem stupid at the outset is valuable. Defining things as "supernatural" isn't necessary for either of those things.

I agree. It's normally an attempt to draw a line under what is possible, then say other things can break those rules. That's just an arbitrary and poor use of language to try and sneak in bullshit. I made a video on this where I discuss what a pointless term it is. It's either not well defined, or if it is, it's a loaded term for a more simple concept such as "unexplained".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5u5-Bg2ENQ

I read your post in Pool's post; supernatural is a very arbitrary word. Why would we want to put a limit on nature? It seems like great hubris to think, ,"Well, this is nature, of which we fully understand. What's this?! A thing that works differently than what we understand! Fucking Supernatural! Let's worship it or something."

When I was a spiritual person I KNEW that reality was composed of matter, energy, and volition and still didn't believe in a supernatural. I hated that idea especially when applied to God. It was probably for that reason that I was able to find my way out of religious/spiritual thought. I'm a devout monist now with no need for extra layers to keep me happy.

[Edwardo Piet]

Very interesting thoughts.

Is it really worthy of the label "supernatural" though? Maybe "transnatural" as in transcending or going beyond the way nature usually is?

I mean... because supposedly "supernatural" applies to that which is not part of nature...

...and I personally think that what you described is nature behaving extraordinarily idiosyncratically.

Moreover do we have at our disposal any natural means to determine whether any action whose cause isn't fully understood has an unknown and currently mysterious natural cause?  Unless we can make that determination, it doesn't seem possible to establish the existence of anything supernatural.  This assumes that those who use the term are thinking anywhere near as carefully about it as you and not just working to confirm pre-existing biases without even realizing it.  Seems like a huge shot in the dark to expend much time or concern over.

True. But I think Jor was speaking purely in principle rather than in practice.

I just think perhaps it would be nature behaving extra-ordinary or idiosyncratically rather than supernaturally.

It would be natural, and it would be super, but it wouldn't be supernatural. That's the way I see it.

Because supposedly supernaturalness isn't just naturalness that is super... it's supposedly entirely beyond the natural.

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree. It's normally an attempt to draw a line under what is possible, then say other things can break those rules. That's just an arbitrary and poor use of language to try and sneak in bullshit. I made a video on this where I discuss what a pointless term it is. It's either not well defined, or if it is, it's a loaded term for a more simple concept such as "unexplained".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5u5-Bg2ENQ

Very well said.

[Whateverist]

It is said that a natural law is a codification of an effect which deviates from the random in a consistent, non-random way.  The law of gravity exists because objects depart from the traditional "an object in motion tends to remain in motion" and "an object at rest tends to remain at rest" in consistent and predictable ways.  The paths of moving objects are changed in non-random ways.

If this is the hallmark of natural law, then perhaps the supernatural is that which deviates from randomness or natural law in inconsistent but non-random ways.  So a phenomena which deviated from the consistency of natural law only under certain, repeatable circumstances, might be considered supernatural.  For example, a person [allegedly] making a sphere levitate.  It would be inconsistent with the way natural law ordinarily affects the sphere.  The sticky wicket in all this is attributing cause.  How do we verify that the person is actually causing the sphere to levitate as opposed to some other unknown cause.  If the effect is inconsistent with natural law, differentiating between the supernatural and the unexplained seems impossible in principle.  The inconsistency of the effect supercedes our ability to find a natural law to cover the phenomena.

Hmm, your second paragraph makes me think about the Casimir effect and the fact that virtual particles spring in and out of being within a vacuum. This is an observable phenomenon related to a process that is random and inconsistent. I would call it natural; as natural as throwing dice which is also random (mostly). I was hoping someone would argue for the value of the term. Your post at least elucidates a probable use case that is free from woo.

Couldn't agree more (my bold). At the very least the term is poorly defined. It seems to me that most theists we encounter here who are wed to the term simply lack a sufficiently robust grasp of the word "natural".

Even if there turned out to be some intelligent form of organizing energy -picture here something from an early episode of the original Star Trek

https://youtu.be/QEli-1xdOMo

-it would still be natural, it would still have to work within the natural world in ways which were consistent with everything we already know to be true. It would have limits and potentials. It's actions, assuming they reflected the exercise of its intelligence, would reflect its own understanding of the natural world. Its understanding of the natural world might simply be more complete than our own. But it wouldn't be something else altogether.

But it remains absurd to imagine any being for whom the natural world is its own invention, entirely optional and always subject to revision. That is just our own infantile sense of omnipotence finding an outlet in theology.

[downbeatplumb]

Supernatural seems to be another word for magic.

[theologian]

I saw pool's post but didn't want to necro.

The definition of supernatural I would use would be a thing that doesn't follow natural laws. By that definition it would have to not exist because to exist it would be natural and therefore whatever characteristics define it would be natural.

example: Water that heals you instantly when you pour it on a wound! We know that isn't a thing but if it was a thing then it would be natural and we could study it to figure out the mechanism by which it does the seemingly supernatural thing.

This is why I find the idea of "supernatural evidence" so weird and a basically useless marrying of two words. Evidence is just some thing that indicates that something exists or works a certain way.

The "supernatural" concept has been used to seperate things from science through concepts like NOMA and models of the universe that have places of privilege like "outside" the physical universe or parallel dimensions.

Supernatural seems like a waste of time.

Let's see whether all that exist are natural. I agree with you that to be the natural is to be the way things be, to have a definition and to have a definite form. Now, suppose all that exist are natural. Therefore, all things has its own manner of being or permanent way to be or way to exist, just as if we die, we don't turn into gold or paper, but always rot. Now, we know that every determined things must have a cause, just as the principle of sufficient reason tells us. If something happen like someone falling from the roof of our house, we all agree that that has a cause. That scenario is also determined and is defined. For, instead of floating, that someone falls. So with the way or the manner the things are. So, we can see that the way the things must have a cause, something or someone who give us that way. Now, either that something or someone has way of being too and therefore limited and therefore is caused; or it is not. If that something or someone has a manner of being too, then that something or someone must have a caused too. But, this cannot go on. There must be a sufficient reason. Otherwise, we must not exist. But, we do and the natural things around us exist. So, there must be a being Whom doesn't have a manner of being, a Pure Act of Being, so to explain the existence of natural things which is equivalent to answering the question why is there something instead of nothing. That Being understood by people to be God Whom is above-natural or in other words, Supernatural.

[Gemini]

Whether the concept of the supernatural is useful depends on how it's defined, and I think it's one of those words that people conceptualize in different ways. I think both "natural" and "supernatural" are inelegant family resemblance concepts that can't be distilled down to a set of necessary and sufficient sufficient conditions. Maybe "natural" could, if we had a final theory of physics, but for the time being it has to do our current understanding of fundamental physics, the expectation that entropy will continue to obtain in future theories, and that things like agent causation and retro-causality won't. 

I think the concept of the supernatural is useful, but only because humans seem to start out with tendencies for irrational patterns of thought, like promiscuous teleology. It's helpful to label ways of modeling the world that don't correspond to anything real.

[Sal]

Supernatural is natural phenomena that hasn't been explained yet, or lack evidence to be explained coherently.

"I saw a ghost!" Any number of natural explanations would render such a supernatural anecdote to banal & trivial phenomena; "it was the wind", or the personal "you're just mistaken wind and light artification." Which, for the supernaturally explanation inclined, are unsatisfactory explanations.

[Alex K]

I saw pool's post but didn't want to necro.

The definition of supernatural I would use would be a thing that doesn't follow natural laws. By that definition it would have to not exist because to exist it would be natural and therefore whatever characteristics define it would be natural.

example: Water that heals you instantly when you pour it on a wound! We know that isn't a thing but if it was a thing then it would be natural and we could study it to figure out the mechanism by which it does the seemingly supernatural thing.

This is why I find the idea of "supernatural evidence" so weird and a basically useless marrying of two words. Evidence is just some thing that indicates that something exists or works a certain way.

The "supernatural" concept has been used to seperate things from science through concepts like NOMA and models of the universe that have places of privilege like "outside" the physical universe or parallel dimensions.

Supernatural seems like a waste of time.

I agree completely. The best one could do is what Jörm mentions, to distinguish unpredictable "forces" from regular, to an extent predictable "forces" in nature.