A good post from Skeptic Rant:
"The term "supernatural" is a misnomer. It has no meaning. For if ghosts, goblins, gods, or little green men exist, then they are all of this world. There is no "other". Even if other dimensions, baby universes, higher planes, or whatever, exist, they are all part of the same all encompassing reality. Therefore, "supernatural", or "above nature" is a meaningless statement. However, a practical usage of the term would be to say that there is natural, and there is "supernatural", wherein "supernatural" refers to any belief that is beyond belief or proof, and therefore not part of this, or any other, reality."
Skeptodox:
What do we mean when we say that something is "supernatural"? I lean toward a naturalist approach. Naturalism does not distinguish the supernatural from nature. It does not necessarily claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural do not exist or are wrong, but insists that all phenomena and hypotheses can be studied by the same methods and therefore anything considered supernatural is either nonexistent, unknowable, or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses. (Definition thanks to Wikipedia.)
What exactly do you refer to when you use the word "supernatural"?
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Is the supernatural really supernatural?
Posted by Ethicist Watch at 12:15 AM
Labels: knowledge, naturalism, nature, reality, supernatural, unknown
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
|