Natural vs. Supernatural

selfinflikted · #1 4th May 2012, 11:15 AM

Many times in this forum the argument is made that science cannot make a determination on the existence of god(s) because such entities are a part of the supernatural realm. Some believe that science can only study the natural, not the supernatural, realm and by extension must remain neutral to the possible existence of a god(s).

Would someone be willing to explain to me the practical differences between the "natural" and "supernatural?" It seems to me, that for all intents and purposes, if the supernatural can be detected in any way by human beings, then science should be able to study it. After all, if something "supernatural" occurs and we can see it, taste it, feel it, hear it, smell it, or feel it; doesn't that by definition make it a part of the natural realm?

Notedstrangeperson · #2 4th May 2012, 11:32 AM

I would guess that the difference between the natural and the supernatural is that the "natural world" has laws.

Many of us seem think that if the supernatural world does exist, then it should be tangible and observable. And anything that can be physcially experienced must be part of the physical world - nature. That's probably why a lot of people think there is no such think as the supernatural, just the unknown natural. We're basically saying "Even if we cannot explain how it works, if it physically exists then it must be a part of the natural world."

I think this an excessively simple way of looking at it though. If Moses genuinely did part the Red Sea, then it would have been an observable event. Water, sand, and his staff are all natural objects. But the idea that simply putting his staff in the water would cause the sea to suddenly separate with "walls of water"m on either side, is a supernatural one.

selfinflikted · #3 4th May 2012, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson

I would guess that the difference between the natural and the supernatural is that the "natural world" has laws.

And the supernatural world does not?

Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson

Many of us seem think that if the supernatural world does exist, then it should be tangible and observable. And anything that can be physcially experienced must be part of the physical world - nature. That's probably why a lot of people think there is no such think as the supernatural, just the unknown natural. We're basically saying "Even if we cannot explain how it works, if it physically exists then it must be a part of the natural world."

The "unknown natural" seems like a much more valid approach, to me.

Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson

I think this an excessively simple way of looking at it though. If Moses genuinely did part the Red Sea, then it would have been an observable event. Water, sand, and his staff are all natural objects. But the idea that simply putting his staff in the water would cause the sea to suddenly separate with "walls of water"m on either side, is a supernatural one.

Well, you generally don't see people going around parting seas with their staves. The most probably explanation is, that it just didn't happen. But, even if it did happen, it's, like you said, observable. If it's observable, wouldn't you agree that science could study it? Science can't, however, study fantasies.

Notedstrangeperson · #4 4th May 2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Selfinflikted

And the supernatural world does not?

Apparently not. One of the definitions of supernatural is "Of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena" (link).

Originally Posted by Selfinflikted

But, even if it did happen, it's, like you said, observable. If it's observable, wouldn't you agree that science could study it? Science can't, however, study fantasies.

Even if it did happen are we were able to study it, we would have to assume a) it left any evidence behind and b) it conforms to the laws of nature. If it genuinely was a supernatural event, then "b" would be no help.

Interestingly up in Origins Theology, one user pointed out that while supernatural events may not leave any evidence, we would not expect to have any evidence which contradictsthis event (link). We should not have any evidence suggesting a miracle did not occur.

Wiccan_Child · #5 4th May 2012, 02:15 PM

"Science can only look at what's natural". That, to me, is a definition of what's natural, not what's science. If we can work out what falls within the purview of science, then that necessarily must be natural, and all else can be labelled supernatural.

So, what's science? Science is the pursuit of truth by gathering evidence, formulating a reasonable explanation or hypothesis, logically testing that hypothesis (rinse and repeat). In other words, science is only 'restricted' to things that are empirical, or which can be tested or falsified. Looking at it from the other point of view, something falls within the purview of science if it can, potentially, directly or indirectly, interfere with we humans.

And that's it. A neutrino falls within the purview of science because, though it hardly ever interferes with normal matter, even though billions stream through our bodies every second, they occasionally interact a single proton in a huge vat of water, giving of light, which is multiplied up by complex machinery until appears as a beep on a machine. As indirect as that is, it still means that the neutrino falls within the purview of science, and is thus natural.

Conversely, if there's a particle out there, a real, physical particle no different from a standard piece of matter, except it doesn't interact with us. Not through gravity, light, decay, etc, does it even indirectly affect us, through no chain of cause-and-effect. Such a thing is outside science, and therefore can be safely pushed to one side as 'supernatural'.

So, what about ghosts? Well, ghosts are traditionally supernatural entities, but if they exist as per tradition, they have form and shop, they change the temperature, they give off light, etc. We can scientifically study ghosts, if they exist, which means one of two things: either ghosts are natural, or science can study the supernatural.

selfinflikted · #6 4th May 2012, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child

Conversely, if there's a particle out there, a real, physical particle no different from a standard piece of matter, except it doesn't interact with us. Not through gravity, light, decay, etc, does it even indirectly affect us, through no chain of cause-and-effect. Such a thing is outside science, and therefore can be safely pushed to one side as 'supernatural'.

How would we know such a thing even exists, though?

Originally Posted by Wiccan_Child

So, what about ghosts? Well, ghosts are traditionally supernatural entities, but if they exist as per tradition, they have form and shop, they change the temperature, they give off light, etc. We can scientifically study ghosts, if they exist, which means one of two things: either ghosts are natural, or science can study the supernatural.

Exactly my point.

So, one of you guys that believes science can't study the supernatural please explain to me why?

selfinflikted · #7 4th May 2012, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson

One of the definitions of supernatural is "Of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena" (link).

Indeed. What I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is, if "something" happens, and we can detect it (as many people claim), then why can we not study it scientifically?

Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson

Even if it did happen are we were able to study it, we would have to assume a) it left any evidence behind and b) it conforms to the laws of nature. If it genuinely was a supernatural event, then "b" would be no help.

Interestingly up in Origins Theology, one user pointed out that while supernatural events may not leave any evidence, we would not expect to have any evidence which contradictsthis event (link). We should not have any evidence suggesting a miracle did not occur.

But if a thing is affecting our natural world in ways that we can detect, I think it would necessarily leave evidence.

Jazer · #8 4th May 2012, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Notedstrangeperson

I would guess that the difference between the natural and the supernatural is that the "natural world" has laws.

The supernatural fixes the universe when it is broken to restore everything back to the natural laws.

Originally Posted by selfinflikted

But if a thing is affecting our natural world in ways that we can detect, I think it would necessarily leave evidence.

No evidence. Everything is just restored back to the way they should have been all along. In the natural there is evidence, scar tissue or whatever. The supernatural does not leave natural evidence behind.

selfinflikted · #9 4th May 2012, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Jazer

The supernatural fixes the universe when it is broken to restore everything back to the natural laws.

That is... odd.

How do you know when the universe is broken? How does it break? What does the supernatural do to restore it?

Jazer · #10 4th May 2012, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by selfinflikted

How do you know when the universe is broken? How does it break? What does the supernatural do to restore it?

Most of my experance is with God's Divine Healing. Even Human Faith has it's value. God's healing goes beyond what the body can do on it's own apart from God. For example the body does not heal itself from Aids. But in Africa we have testimony from people that were healed of Aids. We have testimony from a prisoner on death row that got saved and then God delivered him so that he was no longer sentanced to death. He became a preacher in the prison. Corrie Tan Boon received a miracle when she walked out of the Nazi Death Camp in Germany. She then traveled the world as a "Tramp for God" to tell people of His love and the work He can do in our lives. As Christians we hear lots and lots of stories and testimonys of the miracles that God has performed in peoples lives. We also see the other side when people do not believe in miracles or healing and they stay sick or even die. Because of a lack of faith in what God can do for them and in their lives.