Nature and Supernature

Original Posting

In the blog before last I wrote:

If God is supernatural, then he is by supernature outside of our grasp. Our minds are natural, our minds deal with natural phenomena, we are natural. If God is supernatural, he would be so utterly unlike anything we've encountered that it would be impossible to conceive of him. Science, reason, and logic all work with natural material, but why suppose that they can also work with supernatural material? Why suppose that the supernatural even operates according to logic? Why suppose that natural minds are equipped to deal with supernatural matters? Most importantly, why suppose that a supernatural entity would leave natural evidence of its existence?

I'm not sure how well I explained myself, but it occurred to me that I should write a blog about the concept of “supernatural.”

Supernatural is one of those words that don't really give a positive description of something (although it might look like it does), what it provides is a negative description. Saying X is supernatural is to say that X lacks the property of being natural. Because of this, we can only understand “supernatural” by understanding “natural.”

So, what is natural? It is the universe. It is our realm. Basically the totality of our existence. All the forces of the universe are natural forces.

What, then, is supernatural? Everything that isn't natural. Specifically, I suppose, it would have to be beyond our natural world to avoid being subnatural, but I'll leave that alone for now. What's important is that “supernatural” refers to anything that is not a part of our realm of existence.

This means that if ghosts actually exist as part of our realm, existing due to hitherto undiscovered forces, they are actually natural, not supernatural. If God does not exist outside of our realm, but is himself part of our universe, then he is not supernatural. Only things that exist apart from our universe are supernatural.

This, as I mentioned before, is a key aspect of my view of God. Anything supernatural we should approach with agnosticism*, because it would be impossible for natural creatures to discover evidence one way or the other about something outside of our realm. All things supernatural would instantly check in at 50%/50% on the probability scale from our natural perspective.

*Although, you could ask if it's even possible for supernatural things to exist. After all, “existence” is a natural property, wouldn't that make it impossible for a supernatural entity to exist or non-exist? Existence would just be the natural property most similar that we would use to try to understand it.

My Agnosticism

Original Posting

After many religious changes, I have settled (for the time being) in agnostic theism. What I mean by this is that I consider knowledge of God's existence to be impossible, and therefore I cannot be said to believe or disbelieve in the existence of God. However, because all I have is a question mark, I choose whether or not I will live my life as though there is a God, and I have chosen to live as though there is*.

Now, my reasoning for being agnostic lies in my understanding of God: I have always defined God as supernatural. I know that there are some who conceive of God as something natural, something that's a part of the natural order, however I would not call such a being 'God' any more than I would call extremely powerful extraterrestrial life 'God.' Whenever I talk of God, I am talking about a supernatural entity.

That is why I judge that agnosticism is the most reasonable position.

If God is supernatural, then he is by supernature outside of our grasp. Our minds are natural, our minds deal with natural phenomena, we are natural**. If God is supernatural, he would be so utterly unlike anything we've encountered that it would be impossible to conceive of him. Science, reason, and logic all work with natural material, but why suppose that they can also work with supernatural material? Why suppose that the supernatural even operates according to logic? Why suppose that natural minds are equipped to deal with supernatural matters? Most importantly, why suppose that a supernatural entity would leave natural evidence of its existence?

That is why I have thrown in my lot with agnosticism, because I do not see any reason to suppose that knowledge on the topic is even possible.



*In principle. Really I live more like a heathen who prays before meals and sleep.
**Unless it's true that we possess spirits that are supernatural.

Our Prejudice; a Freethought Thought Experiment

Original Posting

Freethought is a term generally used to indicate the philosophical position that beliefs should not be based upon tradition, dogma, or fear of consequences, rather that they should be based upon evidence and reason. One of the key ideas that the freethinkers cling to is the idea that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence” (W. K. Clifford). What sort of free thought is that? It starts out by saying what kind of thinking is off-limits! They reject tradition and dogma, they take away the freedom to embrace irrational means of coming to beliefs!

I'm not, however, too concerned with the misuse of language when developing names for viewpoints. My main goal here is to call attention to the ways that “freethought,” traditionally understood, is not really free, so that I can then highlight what actual freethought would be. It's not really an attack on the freethinking worldview, it's a launching pad for a discussion of my conception of what genuine freethought would be, which is itself a launching pad for a moment of introspection.

To conceive of freethought proper, think of the kinds of thought used in everyday life. Now strip away every prejudice, every bit of non-freedom. What do you have left? Nothing, really. Without prejudice you cannot even say that truth is better than non-truth, you have no criteria for what is 'good' thinking and what is 'bad' thinking, there's nothing but a jumbled up mess of thoughts firing off. Without those little prejudices, there is no framework for our ideas, and everything falls into mental anarchy.

However, ask yourself if your prejudices are justified. How many beliefs comprise the framework of your mind that are based on little more than assumption and prejudice? How many things do you hold to be self-evident?

Our beliefs are one of the main aspects of our selves that we use to define ourselves. However, wouldn't a belief that's based on other faulty beliefs be itself faulty? Any faultiness in our foundations and frameworks could result in us defining ourselves by little more that prejudice. Is there really any other way to do things, though? Doesn't all thinking ultimately come back to those beliefs that we hold to be self-evident?

Is it possible that we just use the term 'self-evident' to escape the more plausible concept that we simply choose certain beliefs as being obvious enough? Is it possible that it all comes down to an act of the will, which states what kind of beliefs we think are obvious enough?

And if it all comes down to the will, what hope for truth do we have?