Natural, non-natural, supernatural = Confusion

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I'm getting increasingly confused by the use of these four words: natural, non-natural, and supernatural.

What does it mean for something to be "naturally-occurring"?

To me, it seems that something is not naturally occurring if it was made with intelligence. So for example, a watch is not a naturally-occurring thing. A watch would be non-natural, but it would not be supernatural. But why the distinction? Isn't intelligence part of the natural universe? So isn't a watch still made by natural processes? Isn't a watch "naturally-occurring" in that it appears in our universe via natural processes?

How does the inclusion of "intelligence" in the process make something suddenly non-natural?


"Supernatural" is another beast which I don't fully understand either. Supernatural is like an intelligence that has no connection to the natural world, as in, it is not composed of energy or matter. So, how then does the supernatural interact with the natural?

 

[quatona]

Well, "natural" usually seems to be contrasted by another term (not merely the ex-negativo "non-natural") which points to the distinction that´s meant to be made.
E.g. natural flavours vs. artificial flavours (which isn´t meant to tell you that the components of artificial flavours don´t occur in nature, but that the composition is intended to simulate the taste of a certain food).
IOW, "natural" typically derives its meaning from the term it is contrasted with. Other examples: "natural vs. cultural" or "natural vs. immoral".
As for the ex-negative terms "non-natural" and "supernatural" I am on a complete loss, myself.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm getting increasingly confused by the use of these four words: natural, non-natural, and supernatural.

What does it mean for something to be "naturally-occurring"?

To me, it seems that something is not naturally occurring if it was made with intelligence. So for example, a watch is not a naturally-occurring thing. A watch would be non-natural, but it would not be supernatural. But why the distinction? Isn't intelligence part of the natural universe? So isn't a watch still made by natural processes? Isn't a watch "naturally-occurring" in that it appears in our universe via natural processes?

How does the inclusion of "intelligence" in the process make something suddenly non-natural?


"Supernatural" is another beast which I don't fully understand either. Supernatural is like an intelligence that has no connection to the natural world, as in, it is not composed of energy or matter. So, how then does the supernatural interact with the natural?

It all depends on the context. Like many concepts, the concept "natural" only has meaning when it's juxtaposed with contrary concepts. Depending on which other concepts we're using the meaning of natural can change.

For instance, we may be talking about natural vs. artificial. In this instance we recognize that some things are man made and other things are not man made. In this context, that's all that natural means - not man made.

"Is this waterfall natural or artificial?" is a perfectly coherent question. No one would be confused by it. You could even shorten it to: "is this waterfall natural?" and everyone would understand what you're asking.

We may be talking about natural vs. supernatural. This would be a theological distinction that I'm not sure is entirely useful. Maybe we're talking about the distinction between the Creator and the creature. In this case, God alone is supernatural and everything else is natural. But theologians can get confusing here too. Angels are somehow supernatural in some conversations. At this point I think that the distinction loses its usefulness. The natural/supernatural distinction is not a biblical distinction and so I think it could well be flawed.

 

[Chesterton]

The first couple of chapters of the C.S. Lewis book Miracles have good stuff to say on the distinctions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I understand the distinction like this:

- natural: that which occurs without any artificial help, like a mountain or an earthquake
- non-natural: that which does not occur without any artifical help, like a computer.
- super-natural: that which defies/suspends/violates the laws of nature, that which is impossible but happens anyway. Pretty much "hocus pocus magic".

 

[Eudaimonist]

The distinction that I personally draw between natural and supernatural is that:

Natural implies that some entity simply acts according to its nature (its metaphysical identity). A natural entity acts the way it does because that is the sort of entity that it is. E.g., a tree grows because it has the biological mechanisms that make growth possible.

Supernatural implies that there is some power that can either change the nature of entities or create entities out of nothing at all. It is a kind of magic that causes entities to act in a way that they would have no power to do on their own. E.g., a god turns water into wine even though water does not have that natural potential, or to create wine without any materials, such as grapes.

I don't place any particular meaning on "non-natural".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

I'm getting increasingly confused by the use of these four words: natural, non-natural, and supernatural.

What does it mean for something to be "naturally-occurring"?

To me, it seems that something is not naturally occurring if it was made with intelligence. So for example, a watch is not a naturally-occurring thing. A watch would be non-natural, but it would not be supernatural. But why the distinction? Isn't intelligence part of the natural universe? So isn't a watch still made by natural processes? Isn't a watch "naturally-occurring" in that it appears in our universe via natural processes?

How does the inclusion of "intelligence" in the process make something suddenly non-natural?


"Supernatural" is another beast which I don't fully understand either. Supernatural is like an intelligence that has no connection to the natural world, as in, it is not composed of energy or matter. So, how then does the supernatural interact with the natural?

* Supernatural refers to the activities of "spirit" that transcend Gods immutable laws. The mind of man itself could be said to be supernatural, consciousness is a transcendence of the material.

 

[Resha Caner]

It all depends on the context. Like many concepts, the concept "natural" only has meaning when it's juxtaposed with contrary concepts. Depending on which other concepts we're using the meaning of natural can change.

Bingo. And that causes a problem for philosophies like naturalism or physicalism ... any philosophy that tries to make a monist claim.

With that said, I don't like the term "supernatural". Given the word is typically linked to spiritual matters, and yet I don't seem to find supernatural concepts in the Bible, I prefer other terms.

 

[Tree of Life]

I understand the distinction like this:

- natural: that which occurs without any artificial help, like a mountain or an earthquake
- non-natural: that which does not occur without any artifical help, like a computer.
- super-natural: that which defies/suspends/violates the laws of nature, that which is impossible but happens anyway. Pretty much "hocus pocus magic".

What, according to this definition, could possibly be supernatural?