Is anything actually unnatural?

Metaphysics & Epistemology
181

More correctly would we say that we currently have no natural explanation. Under what circumstances can we say call it and say there is no natural explanation?

I wonder if this might be a bit too strong.

Setting any Dawkins-style approach aside, might a better way of putting this be that, up until this point, nothing has been reliably established as supernatural? (let’s use this vexed word as a placeholder, we all understand what it means)

Sure, we could say that the existence of something supernatural may be inferred from a particular argument or set of inferences. We might even have some reasoning that requires us to revise our assumptions about naturalism’s current explanatory power, but does this prove the supernatural, or simply require us to rethink what naturalism might mean?

You talk about moving the goalposts, but isn’t this a pejorative framing? Isn’t the job of science to move goalposts - to provide tentative theories that best explain reality, which may be superseded when new information comes along? Wouldn’t we expect views of naturalism or physicalism to evolve over time? The example of illness being caused by demons before we understood bacteria is a salient one. We tend to have moved from ignorance and often dangerous practices to knowledge and successful interventions.

In all this I’m not saying that physicalism makes perfect sense or is unassailable, or that there is some fixed thing called reality that can be known independently of the human conceptual frameworks through which we make sense of the world.

I do wonder how useful the endless metaphysical speculation about the nature of reality and the search for the really real actually is. What does it bring us, and what difference does it make to our lives?

182

What it ought bring us is understanding of what we are and why we are experiencing being human. An individual subjective correct identity and purpose at the very least.

183

I read an interesting story in the NY Times about ten years back (almost to the day!) about a haemotologist named Jacalyn Duffin who was called as an expert witness in an ecclesiastical tribunal to determine whether a miraculous cure really was due to the patient’s prayers to a nun who was being considered for beatification. The patient had had acute myeloid leukemia which would have been expected to be terminal but was not. Her interest piqued, Duffyn researched the archival accounts of such testimonies.

As you probably know, this is where the expression ‘devil’s advocate’ originated. In these matters the devil’s advocate’s role was to cast every possible doubt on there having been a miraculous cure, by way of putting the cases as far beyond reasonable doubt as possible. Duffin learned that there are more than 1,400 such cases, going back centuries, adjuticated by these ecclesiastical tribunals, with expert witnesses called. She noted:

If a sick person recovers through prayer and without medicine, that’s nice, but not a miracle. She had to be sick or dying despite receiving the best of care. The church finds no incompatibility between scientific medicine and religious faith; for believers, medicine is just one more manifestation of God’s work on earth.

Perversely then, this ancient religious process, intended to celebrate exemplary lives, is hostage to the relativistic wisdom and temporal opinions of modern science. Physicians, as nonpartisan witnesses and unaligned third parties, are necessary to corroborate the claims of hopeful postulants. For that reason alone, illness stories top miracle claims. I never expected such reverse skepticism and emphasis on science within the church.

So— those instances where there were found by expert witnesses to be cures that could not be explained medicaly might be considered ‘cases which defy natural explanation’. The full story can be found here. (I myself haven’t read her book on the subject nor delved into the historical records, but as you asked… And I note from the article, that she professes atheism.)

I’m not entirely sure that’s true. Of course, supernatural phenomena are notoriously difficult to subject to controlled observations and experiments. But there is abundant anecdotal evidence. I’m not convinced that the entire history of paranormal psychology is a bust, as sceptics always insist, although most of the arguments end up turning on statistical analysis and what amounts to a statistically significant finding. I am quite persuaded by Ian Stevenson’s research on children who remember their past lives, although none of these are cases I would press as arguments about them arouse strong feelings.

The distinction between natural and supernatural is mainly cultural, and considering the secular nature of the prevailing culture it’s fair to say that the ‘supernatural’ as a category is presumed to be empty of content. I myself don’t accept that. But again, not a case I’m going to press, as distinct from discuss.

What is ‘our life’? Does it really end at death? Again, secular culture presumes that it must, but again, I share no such presumption.

1 Like
184

What interests me is - again - purposeful use of words. In this case the question is "what is the difference between “magic” and “miracle” that the word “miracle” is chosen, rather than “magical”?

185

Example? What has it brought, precisely?

186

Magic is what the bad guys do miracles is what the good guys do. :wink:

But let’s face it there are multiple uses of both words depending on context. Were the endless miracles of Sai Baba magic tricks? Perhaps his greatest trick was avoiding prosecution for sexual abuse?

187

It’s not a question that has ever captured my imagination. Perhaps I lack the fear some have. And I think there’s no way to know. I would think that perhaps the task is to be as beneficial as possible in life. Death will take care of itself.

I appreciate your thoughtful answer.

188

without looking it up, I thought that miracles were attributed to God, and magic to magicians. The Church generally prohibited magic which was deemed to be more associated with Satan.

189

I agree, there’s no way to really answer it. It does bring up another thought though. What about people who yearn more for exploration and new places than what they call home? Do you think for some people, what feels “right” could be something alien rather than the familiar?

190

I do not think it results in demonizing, or seeing us as parasites. I think there is value in distinguishing between things that humans have made that would not exist if humans had not made them, and everything else. If we’re scuba diving, or exploring a new planet, we might happen upon things we know did not come about “naturally”, and we would begin looking for the intelligence that created them.

I find it amusing that Little House on the Prarie is what sprang to mind. Charles was a wanderer. They went to the Prarie because he couldn’t sit still in the Big Woods. It’s difficult to say whether or not the unknown felt “right” to him, since he built a permanent home. Maybe it was more that he just wanted fewer people around.

191

It’s possible that many explorers of frontiers are looking for less crowded places. I can also imagine wanting to be on the edge of discovery, but that might just be a method of making one’s life meaningful. And that is probably another topic altogether. I did laugh when you said Little House, as my mind was imagining people traveling to far off worlds out in space, but it is an apt example.

192

A great example of supernaturalist silliness.

193

I can only speak for myself - my own life experience about that, which - in relation to the thread subject, has helped me to understand that there is really no thing which is unnatural. Unusual, yes. Unnatural, no.

194

But don’t you understand that humans are a natural part of it all so why distinguish between what the Earth makes and what humans make from Earth’s material? THat is what the thread topic and OP is asking.

By your argument, both scuba and space exploration requires inventions through humans which do not exist otherwise.
What you are talking about are artifacts, but what you haven’t explained is why these have to be called unnatural when artifacts should suffice.

195

It’s a gray area that humans love to be in. I think natural and unnatural is our way of expressing our concerns about danger and safety.

196

There’s definitely something in this. I remember going out with a woman who maintained that natural is always good and unnatural is always bad. I reminded her that hemlock, arsenic, sharks, earthquakes and people were all entirely natural and potentially lethal.

1 Like
197

Indeed, yet both states are natural.

198

I know we might be going around in circles here, but it may help to get things in perspective. Artificial is another way of describing an artefact. The idea being that it was created artificially, or through artifice.

I also consider that the world we find ourselves in is entirely artificial, by comparison to the true transcendent state.

199

They don’t. Artifacts suffices. I’m just there is value in distinguishing between things that humans have made that would not exist if humans had not made them, and everything else.

201

My questions - along with the Opening Post - are to do with how is it that folk want to make such distinction? What is the point? What does it achieve? Are we more enlightened in doing so, or less?

Again with the distinction. What is you process (of consideration) which compels you to see things that way? An entire universe which is “unnatural” be comparing states?

I ask because I find it really interesting. Do you look at your human experience as artificial and if so, how does that integrate said experience re your sense of self if such is artificial?