Deification
Deification is an intensely subjective concept. Only the individual can determine if he/she deifies something. If that individual determines that he/she indeed deifies something, then no one can can logically disagree.
Theists almost never try to prove the existence of their god or even bother to describe the attributes of their god, and react with puzzlement when someone asks them to prove God's existence. What they try to prove (at least to themselves) is that their deification is real, a subjective process that makes the existence of the object of their deification irrelevant to those who do not share in their deification.
The supernatural is that is above nature; belonging to a higher realm or system than that of nature; transcending the powers or the ordinary course of nature.
This definition is still not helpful.
Take it up with the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary.
The OED is scarcely the last word on anything.
Consider for example the superpowers of spiderman. He is unique but still within nature. It is just that his nature is uniquely superior. And it makes no sense to say that anything that violates a natural law is supernatural, as laws of nature are made through induction. Thus, if I could flap my arms and fly, the law of gravity would then adjust to accomodate that exception. If something is "above nature", it is only because we peceive it is above nature, not unlike a caveman viewing a cell phone.
Anything that is proven to be above what we consider natural is supernatural.
What the heck is "above" what we consider natural? I cannot even begin to make sense out of that phrase.
We have therefore two choices: to believe that gravity is actually supernatural because we cannot fully explain it, or assume that it is natural and that some day we will fully understand it.
That's a false choice since "supernatural" has no meaning whatever. Your curious phrase "materialist naturalism" is also probably meaningless. I fail to see how that paradigm as you call it contradicts, say, ESP or reincarnation, as those, if they existed, must be natural phenomena based on some kind of materialism. It seems to me you are trying to set up an unproven dichotomy between what you call "material" and "natural" and what others call "spiritual" and "supernatural".
No, the dichotomy is there, a lot of us operate every single day in the modern world with that in mind, and most people will accept the dichotomy as a matter of fact, although they cannot express it. Pictures are not taken by small imps inside cameras, and cars are not moved by tireless magical hamsters. If your TV breaks, you do not take it to the priest to pray over it, and you don't buy DVDs from the local shaman. If you get sick, most people in the world nowadays will blame germs and not demons. Those who still blame spirits for illness are considered at best quaint, at worse mad. They belong to another paradigm where anything unexplained was attributed to supernatural forces. Within our paradigm, we will attribute anything unexplained to natural forces that we yet do not comprehend.
Not understanding does not equal supernatural abilities.
True, but the term still is <*}}}-{ (fishy). Seems that your definition of supernatural is a construct in which you draw an imaginery circle around all that is natural. Anything beyond that imaginery circle is supernatural. The correct Latin prefix is "ultra", meaning beyond. Even, to invoke another Latin, phrase, if something including God was ne plus ultra (not more beyond-- the absolute), it would still be within the confines of that circle, thus rendering the invention of "supernatural" unnecessary or impossible.
Theists almost never try to prove the existence of their god or even bother to describe the attributes of their god, and react with puzzlement when someone asks them to prove God's existence. What they try to prove (at least to themselves) is that their deification is real, a subjective process that makes the existence of the object of their deification irrelevant to those who do not share in their deification.
The supernatural is that is above nature; belonging to a higher realm or system than that of nature; transcending the powers or the ordinary course of nature.
This definition is still not helpful.
Take it up with the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary.
The OED is scarcely the last word on anything.
Consider for example the superpowers of spiderman. He is unique but still within nature. It is just that his nature is uniquely superior. And it makes no sense to say that anything that violates a natural law is supernatural, as laws of nature are made through induction. Thus, if I could flap my arms and fly, the law of gravity would then adjust to accomodate that exception. If something is "above nature", it is only because we peceive it is above nature, not unlike a caveman viewing a cell phone.
Anything that is proven to be above what we consider natural is supernatural.
What the heck is "above" what we consider natural? I cannot even begin to make sense out of that phrase.
We have therefore two choices: to believe that gravity is actually supernatural because we cannot fully explain it, or assume that it is natural and that some day we will fully understand it.
That's a false choice since "supernatural" has no meaning whatever. Your curious phrase "materialist naturalism" is also probably meaningless. I fail to see how that paradigm as you call it contradicts, say, ESP or reincarnation, as those, if they existed, must be natural phenomena based on some kind of materialism. It seems to me you are trying to set up an unproven dichotomy between what you call "material" and "natural" and what others call "spiritual" and "supernatural".
No, the dichotomy is there, a lot of us operate every single day in the modern world with that in mind, and most people will accept the dichotomy as a matter of fact, although they cannot express it. Pictures are not taken by small imps inside cameras, and cars are not moved by tireless magical hamsters. If your TV breaks, you do not take it to the priest to pray over it, and you don't buy DVDs from the local shaman. If you get sick, most people in the world nowadays will blame germs and not demons. Those who still blame spirits for illness are considered at best quaint, at worse mad. They belong to another paradigm where anything unexplained was attributed to supernatural forces. Within our paradigm, we will attribute anything unexplained to natural forces that we yet do not comprehend.
Not understanding does not equal supernatural abilities.
True, but the term still is <*}}}-{ (fishy). Seems that your definition of supernatural is a construct in which you draw an imaginery circle around all that is natural. Anything beyond that imaginery circle is supernatural. The correct Latin prefix is "ultra", meaning beyond. Even, to invoke another Latin, phrase, if something including God was ne plus ultra (not more beyond-- the absolute), it would still be within the confines of that circle, thus rendering the invention of "supernatural" unnecessary or impossible.
Labels: God
posted by My Mall and News at
5:04 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home