I am so frigging tired of the word 'supernatural' that I am challenging anyone who has used the word in a disparaging way to define it.
What specifically is it that you do not believe in? Anyone who uses a word should be able to say what he or she means, particularly anyone who aspires to reason, intellect, and objectivity.
In Reason and Reverence, William R. Murry lazily uses the term 'supernatural' as an epithet to dismiss things he does not believe in. For example, he writes “Peak experiences are natural, not supernatural, experiences.” Without a definition, that sentence carries no more meaning than “Peak experiences happen.”
If I try to do his definitional work for him, I can infer he might mean things that cannot be confirmed with the five senses or with reasoning based on information obtained through the five senses.
With that definition, consider his statement “We are entirely natural beings, rather than part natural and part supernatural.” With the definition I inferred, that is a brazen assertion: Human beings manifest no component, no aspect, and no dynamic that cannot be identified and understood through five-senses scientific methods and empirical reason.
No one can truly value science and make that statement. Science does not understand even what causes a pregnant woman to go into labor, never mind what ‘life’ is or how to put it back into a body from which it has departed.
Consider the work that Murry would have to do to create a scientifically valid statement out of “Human consciousness and the human mind…are simply the highest functions of ... matter-energy.” That is a statement of pure, unscientific belief—even if one can manage to ignore the bizarre use of the word ‘simply.’ Similarly, “Human beings have no conscious survival after death” is a not a statement that can be supported by any thing we would recognize as science.
The truly scientific mind is humble and is aware that it is limited. It is quite probable, as Huston Smith pointed out, that the human brain in its current evolutionary state is to the nature of reality as dogs' brains are to mathematics.
Pseudo-rationality is worse than just irritating. Contrary to Murry's Unitarian principles, which value a free and responsible search for meaning and truth, this sort of intellectual arrogance inhibits or even shuts down inquiry and reasoned exploration.
In 1990, images of transient luminous events (TLEs, also known as jets, sprites, and elves) were first recorded. When news of this ‘new’ upper atmosphere phenomenon got out, high-altitude pilots admitted that they had been noticing the phenomena for years but refraining from reporting it for fear of being grounded for having hallucinations.
In The Grail Bird, Jim Gallagher described an event from shortly after the ivory-billed woodpecker was determined to be extinct. When interviewed by a field ornithologist, a local Arkansas resident insisted that the bird was still around. The ornithologist, in turn, insisted he was mistaken. So the local decided to help out by producing the evidence the researcher seemed to need: He shot one and brought its carcass to the field office.
Those are only two examples of how dogmatic belief about the non-existence of things others have experienced has delayed truly scientific work and damaged our world.
So, back to my question: If you are among those who agree with the statement, "I do not believe in the supernatural," I challenge you to offer a clear, reasoned, and useful definition of the term.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
MeatMonkey
BOKO
Annie Keeghan
John Melton
inthisdeepcalm
Rick Lucke
Salon.com
Comments
So, for example, if we discover that human consciousness persists beyond an individual's death, that would be interesting. I don't happen to believe this, for lack of evidence. If it could be demonstrated that this happens, though, I'd be happy to change my thinking. I'd also expect it would be possible to explain it.
However, those who believe in the existence of a supreme being with a human-like intelligence who can control the material world with his will (I am not among them) say that they can explain miracles as God’s doing. Those who believe that extraterrestrial beings routinely kidnap and study humans believe that will someday be accounted for.
But at least I know what you’re talking about.
You know that million-dollar reward for anyone who can demonstrate ‘paranormal’ activity under controlled conditions? (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html) A year or two ago, I carefully studied their website and could not find any definition of what it was that they did not believe in (the ‘paranormal’) and so I contacted them to ask.
I got a reply saying that they leave it to the applicants to claim that something is ‘paranormal,’ which in my opinion is intellectual laziness. You can see, of course, why their money is safe. Without committing upfront to an operational definition of ‘paranormal,’ if anyone does ever demonstrate whatever-it-is under their controlled conditions, they’ll be able to say “You just proved it’s not paranormal.”
I think it’s useful to talk only about ‘things we do understand’ and ‘things we do not yet understand.’ (Okay, maybe we can add a third category: "Things someone else says he’s seen, but I believe he imagined it.")
You mentioned “stuff we used to think was impossible but that now we accept, because we've had the chance to learn more.” That’s important. Medieval folk believed that some diseases were caused by invisible living spirits who inhabited sick people and traveled through the air to enter other bodies and make them sick.
Today, we know how silly they were. We know that some diseases are caused by invisible living germs that inhabit sick people and travel though the air to enter the other bodies and make them sick.
I can just hear the medieval healer: “Duh. Like I said.”
The discussion reminded me of the importance of the words, “I believe...” and “I don’t believe…”
I have no problem with statements of belief. Humans cannot function without accepting certain things as true without sufficient empirical proof--life would just be too much work if we did not take some shortcuts.
I realize now that William Murry’s statements irritated me not because he categorically dismissed all things 'supernatural,’ but because he stated as fact things that cannot possibly be anything other than belief. Contrast Murry’s “Human beings have no conscious survival after death,” with Rob’s “I also don't believe in this sort of supernatural (human consciousness continuing after death). Now, I could be wrong about this. We might find evidence for survival of consciousness after death, in which case I'd have to adjust my beliefs.” Same belief, but I respect Ron's statement and reject Murry's.
But back to the meaning of the word ‘supernatural:’ Personally, I have little use for an abstract concept so broad that might include ghosts; God; ESP; extraterrestrials; astrology; the causes of personality, unexpected events, and eureka moments; and innumerable other things we don’t yet understand. But other people use the word, so I feel a need to figure it out.
If ‘supernatural’ is “anything that has effects on the material world, although itself is of a non-material character that we cannot perceive with our five senses or describe with reason and logic,” or “anything that affects the known or unknown components of our physical existence, without having any physical interaction with them,” I have to give believers the edge. Beyond the basic problem of proving non-existence, there’s the problem of evolution. As I mentioned in an earlier post, no scientifically humble thinker can conclude that human powers of reason and perception have already evolved to constitute Ultimate Intelligence, a state where we are capable of perceiving or reasoning everything that can possibly exist. From a dog’s point of view, does mathematics exist? From the Flatlanders’ point of view, does Spaceland exist? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland) How can any human be confident that we are not dogs or Flatlanders, in relation to some reality that we cannot describe because our minds are not yet that evolved? If forced to bet, I’d put my money on us being Flatlanders rather than possessing Ultimate Intelligence. (By the way, does anyone know of a better book about the evolution of consciousness than The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind?)
If ‘supernatural’ means “natural things that we do not yet understand,” I’m willing to declare the believers winners, simply because no one would agree with the statement “There exists no natural thing that we do not yet understand.” The advantage of that definition is that it kicks the debate down to where it belongs--specific ‘supernatural’ things. Is (specific phenomenon) something natural that we do not yet understand, or is there no such thing as (specific phenomenon)?
A question like that might lead someplace useful—but we need to be willing to ask it, rather than dismissing it with a dogmatic declaration that "the supernatural does not exist."