I really like the gospel of Thomas - If memory serves me correctly it doesn't make any unreasonable claims but seems to encourage confidence in a sort of inner peace and harmony which imo is very practical and psychologically beneficial.
Supernaturalism and reason.
by Narkissos 36 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Rapunzel
I think that the poster "quietly leaving" makes a good point. In the same vein, there were once scientists who assuredly proclaimed that an atomc bomb could never be made, as it violated all the laws of physics. Unfortunately, they were wrong.
I also think that that the word supernatural does not denote something which is fixed or static; the boundary between the "supernatural," and the "natural" is in constant flux. What was once viewed as "supernatural" could possibly come to be considered later on as "natural." Conversely, the natural realm can "expand" so as to include what was previously considered as "supernatural."
I am thinking specifically of the constant advances made by scientists, especially physicists. If I am not mistaken, our words "physics" is directly derived from the Greek physis, which basically means nature [natura in Latin]. Moreover, if I am not mistaken again, what we presently call "physics" was once called the "natural sciences," understood in its etymological sense, as the "knowledge of nature." As I understand it, the term supernatural denotes what is above [or beyond] nature - nature as we presently can conceive it.
Just consider the concept of how many dimensions there are. Classically, there were three. And then Einstein proposed a fourth - Time. Now, I read that physicists are now conjecturing as many as ten dimensions. I understand the point that Narkissos is trying to make; and to a large extent, I agree with it. But I also wish to say that during my long life, there have been instances in which I saw things that I cannot easily explain. To paraphrase I verse from Shakespeare, there are more things in heaven and earth than I have dreamed of in my philosophy. Speaking personally, the things that I have seen distress me somewhat precisely because I cannot fit them into my rationalist world view. I wish that I had not seen them, or at least, I wish that I had a rational, logical explanation for them. Perhaps later advances in physics will provide an answer.
What is certain is that scientific knowledge is advancing, and doing so at an incredible rate. To use a rather hoary cliche, science fiction often does become science fact. I am willing to suspend [or bracket] my disbelief and concede that future advances in physics may one day be able to explain what we cannot explain today. Perhaps physics will one day offer an explanation for "supernatural" phenomena such as angels, ghosts, and "spirit entities."
-
Narkissos
Good points.
Please notice I never claimed that "reason" would automatically or infallibly yield "correct results". It depends (1) on the available data it works on and (2) on its ultimate adequacy with "reality," which remains no more than a postulate, no matter how many confirmations it may receive from experiential and applied science.
My point was only that reason cannot work at all as soon as such an extraordinary parameter as "the supernatural" is seriously taken into account (and, for this very... reason, it is never seriously, consistently or systematically taken into account, including by those who think they can resort to it for the sake of apologetical special pleading).
And again, as I explicitly admitted, this consideration by no means proves that there is no such thing as the supernatural -- which is, of itself, quite a vertiginous thought, though this is is just another way of saying that the correspondence of "reason" and "reality" is only a necessary, but unprovable, postulate of reason (see # 2 above).
Btw, in a sense "reason" itself might be described as "supernatural" or "antinatural" in the etymological sense, inasmuch as, though it emanates from and belongs to nature, it structurally stands above or against it to represent it (just as the Wisdom or Logos of the Ancients stood above or against the world, as a mirror or specular image). It corresponds with reality antagonistically -- as its opposite. But ironically appeal to a higher supernatural ("God") can be made either to back up reason (from Plato to Descartes) or to fool it...
-
hmike
Along the lines of Repunzel above...
What would the supernatural be, really? Maybe it's all part of one big universe, but within that universe are dimensions which we cannot perceive with laws and forces we do not understand. In other words, maybe use of the term "supernatural" isn't appropriate at all—it's all just natural.
Walking on water, calming a storm or causing a fig tree to wither by a command, raising a dead person to life—those may simply involve the use of principles involving control of matter, forces, and cellular regeneration that are totally outside our experience or understanding.
-
SPAZnik
I think supernaturalism, not unlike magic, is a stylish and efficient way of saying 'that which I don't understand, essentially, the unknown.'
No matter how much I, or we, come to understand, about the "natural" or the "known", there is ever more to learn and discover.
So I don't mind "supernaturalism" existing as a tool, a crutch, to bridge any interim gaps to the extent that it supports life
and allows me to live in spite of not understanding everything about everything.
I just wish that we could all be a bit more reasonable about our supernaturalism.
And perhaps, too, a bit less supernatural about our reason.
Like, say, the Stephen Hawking's of the world.
SPAZ
-
Jeffro
hmike
Walking on water, calming a storm or causing a fig tree to wither by a command, raising a dead person to life—those may simply involve the use of principles involving control of matter, forces, and cellular regeneration that are totally outside our experience or understanding.
Maybe those things can possibly be achieved using the alleged 'principles of involving matter, forces, and cellular regeneration', but even if those things can be achieved by those means, it doesn't mean they happened. It is exceedingly more likely that the stories were either fabricated or exaggerated, just as many other similar stories before and after those found in the bible.
-
Reefton Jack
After working in Papua New Guinea off and on for nearly 17 years, I have witnessed events that could not be explained by science.
This always posed a proper conundrum for me, being someone who:
- works in a scientific discipline.
- is never comfortable without solid facts to work with.
- And who,in particular, quickly becomes unsettled if he has to try and figure things out by guesswork!
I remain open to suggestion, but I have seen certain things happen that do tend to suggest the supernatural.
Jack. -
SPAZnik
It is exceedingly more likely that the stories were either fabricated or exaggerated
... or allegorical.
-
Jeffro
Spaznik
It is exceedingly more likely that the stories were either fabricated or exaggerated
... or allegorical.allegorical = fabricated
-
Rapunzel
Reafton Jack: I have no wish whatsoever to "hijack" this thread, but I am curious regarding the events that you witnessed in P.N.G. that cannot be explained by science. I was wondering if you could briefly list them and describe them. Just a brief account, please.