# There is no supernatural. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2005, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587 "2005-04-22T13:04:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/1 "2005-04-22T13:04:35Z")
If a phenomenon is real, it is part of nature. Seems like commmon sense to me. Not everyone agrees. > [@Theologue](#): > > To be a Christian, to any extent that connects with the historic faith of the church, is to believe in the supernatural; that there is something beyond this system in which we are encased; the universe is not completely sealed. Theologue does not wish to debate this subject. I asked him twice. Fortunately for my edification, \*\*Liberal \*\* doesn’t mind humoring me. > [@Liberal](#): > > If the supernatural is natural, then A is Not A. No one is beholden to call everything that exists “natural”. Something is natural if it manifests in nature; i.e., the ultimate source of its existence is the material from the Big Bang. There is no reason why the universe, with its four (or eleven) dimensions, cannot be sealed and yet open to a being unconstrained by dimensionality. A closed circle, for example, would seal in two-dimensional inhabitants, but three-dimensional beings would be privvy to both its insides and its outsides. Likewise, a four-dimensional being would be privvy to both the insides and outsides of a closed sphere that would seal us. Stating that if the the supernatural is natural, then A is Not A amounts to no more than raising your voice and pounding on the table. (not necessarily an invalid technique) The analogy of supra-dimensional beings, is of course, only an analogy, and I’ll try not to push it too far. As far as it goes, though, it seems to argue my side. If a spherical being should happen to cross through the plane inside the closed circle of Flatland, it would appear to the Flatlanders as a point, expanding to a circle, contracting to a point, and disappearing. The Flatlanders would see it. They could whip out their 2-D Brownies and photograph it. Even if it never appeared, their geometers could theorise upon such objects, as we theorise about hyperspheres, and no one calls a hypercube supernatural. Please note that I am not here denying the existence of God, life after death, telepathy, precognition or any other phenomenon commonly called supernatural. I really can’t make sense of the distinction between the natural and supernatural. Anyone care to help me? [link to previous thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=312436&page=1&pp=50) ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/2 "2005-04-22T13:09:24Z")
I anticipate **lekatt** putting his 1 1/2 cents into this in 5…4…3…2… ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/3 "2005-04-22T13:14:51Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > I anticipate **lekatt** putting his 1 1/2 cents into this in 5…4…3…2… Omigosh! Worse yet, I think he’ll agree with me. ---
**Author:** ![Arwin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Arwin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arwin)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/4 "2005-04-22T13:18:37Z")
Isn’t this discussion very similar to the 'there is only physical … ’ discussions we’ve had in o.a. these threads?: > **[A memory is a physical thing.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304969)** > > What is a camera? A lens focuses light reflected from an object onto a plane to form an “image” - so what? Ah, but place an emulsion of light sensitive molecules at that plane, or perhaps an array of light-sensor circuits, and it becomes something... > **[What is Consciousness (Self-Awareness)?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305744)** > > (the following is a slightly adapted version of a post in the memory is a physical thing thread) The brain does a lot of things automatically. Some of them are quite complex too. Some things we do consciously at first, can become automatic,... ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/5 "2005-04-22T13:49:14Z")
> [@Arwin](#): > > Isn’t this discussion very similar to the 'there is only physical … ’ discussions we’ve had in o.a. these threads?: > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304969](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304969) > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305744](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=305744) A little. I am not here arguing, though, that “everything is physical”. Everything may indeed be metaphysical (whatever that means) or mental. I take no position on the ultimate nature of reality. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/6 "2005-04-22T13:52:50Z")
The natural is, as **Lib** said, the universe and everything in it (_not just_ the material but the waves/particles and forces, indeed the _spacetime itself_ - that’s why “materialism” is a little old fashioned compared to my preferred term of [physicalism](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/)). The universe and everything in it is an _entity_ in an [Ockham’s Razor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_Razor) sense. Now, can the supernatural **affect** the natural? Let us suppose that it can. It is still the case that **all we can observe** of the supernatural is the _effect_ is has on the natural. And so the question is _Is there any phenomenon which can only be **explained** by reference to a supernatural cause?_ Of course, the [God of the Gap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) is largely denied even by believers in the supernatural, and has unfortunately developed into something of a perjorative. I, a physicalist through and through, think that there _are_ gaps in natural explanations in which reasonable people _could_ place God if they so wished. Here are what I consider the “5 current gaps”: [ul][li]_The universe itself_. Where did the Big Bang come from? How d’you get something from nothing? What was there before? The natural answer is that all of these questions are a bit skew whiff. Relativity says that the universe **is** space and time. You can’t have _before_ all of time or _next to_ all of space. You can’t have a time of -1 second because the universe can’t be -1 metre wide. The different states of the universe **are** the different times, and no cosmologist I know of proposes a state of absolute _nothingness_. In short, science says that the [universe has always existed](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=203743). There was no creation or nothing-to-something transition, we need only explain its _nature_, its _history_, hence the title “A brief history … _of time_”.[/li]Now, of course there **are** still gaps. Exciting gaps, in fact. We might live in the 3 dimensional _region_ of the universe: the gravity in regions of two or less is too weak for life, it’s too strong in the four or more dimensional regions, maybe we’re Goldilocks and the three dimensions, just right. Maybe there are other states which could be said to be “before the big bang”, but we might never observe any evidence for them so those explanations might forever be, if you like, [protoscientific](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience) rather than properly scientific. But the gap seems to be shrinking and changing shape all the time literally year on year, so much so that it seems just like Newton’s 1690’s or Darwin’s 1890’s. Yes there is a gap there, but let’s just see what it looks like in 20 years time. The explanation isn’t full and satisfactory now cos it’s only half baked. [li]_The very first life from non-life_: [Abiogenesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). Evolution is fine from DNA and single cells onwards, but did it need a divine spark in the first place? Well, there’s a whole new scientific field called astrobiology which looks for basic biological molecules in space. Then there’s what seems to be plausible mechanisms by which those molecules form structures on Earth such as enclosed surfaces like a balloon in which proteins can link up to eventually form RNA and then DNA. Again, is this so big a gap that science will never fill it? If anything, God would probably just be giving a lucky nudge to some process which wasn’t all that unlikely anyway, but again, let’s see, let’s try and do it in the lab, let’s look on other planets (and try not to crash this time), this uncertainty is _exciting_: how dull to live when it had all been worked out![/li][li]_Consciousness_: Could we really be said to be a kind of biological computer which processes sensory information and stores it in different kinds of memory, labelled with language and accompanied by some kind of chemical emotion output? Does that really explain this incredible feeling of being me? Well, it explains one hell of a lot. Cognitive science, psychology and neuroscience have decades of experimental results which are predicted and accounted for pretty well by this Computational Theory of Mind. Again there are gaps but again, they’re shrinking all the time and new facts are changing their shape such that God looks like quite an odd piece to put there.[/li][li]_The paranormal_: Has anything “supernatural” ever happened ever? That’s the million dollar question. [Literally](http://www.randi.org/research/). Randi wants a testable demonstration - if I said that my supernatural ability was calling a coin toss correctly 50.00001% of the time he’d tell me to get stuffed, and rightly so. He’s looking for an _ability_, not something hidden in statistical noise. Nor is he looking for things like unexplained astronomical measurements or paths in a particle accelerator. We know the _limits_ of Relativity Theory - James Randi’s looking for something that would turn Einstein upside down. Of course, nobody’s won the million. Nobody’s even got past the preliminary tests. If there is a gap here, it’s a funny kind of gap which appears and disappears so randomly and inconsistently that we have to ask whether it’s really there at all? [/li][li]Finally, related to the previous two: What about **personal, subjective experience of God**? Intense epiphanies or near-death experiences or even just personal conviction of a higher significance? Surely here is a gap which science will never fill? Even here, there is natural Polyfilla of a sort. The way the brain works is that parts of the temporal lobes, near your ears, judge the significance of sensory input. Now, what happens when these modules in the temporal lobes go a bit haywire? Temporal lobe epileptics show huge bursts of activity in those modules during a seizure, and they often say they get a strong feeling of divinity or cosmic significance from it. Could it be that there is a natural [neuropsychological](http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=132) explanation for those deeply personal experiences? We all have to judge significance somehow, and we all occasionally have little glitches in our significance judgements. They’re called [deja vu](http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/6). Maybe not even this gap will stay open for ever.[/ul][/li] But even if there _is_ a scientific explanation for everything, even if the gaps all do _eventually_ get filled, that **still doesn’t disprove the existence of** the metaphysical or supernatural. Even Ockham’s Razor is only a guiding principle, and respected thinkers like Leibniz and Kant even proposed their own _anti_-razor (“The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished.”) If proposing supernatural entities exercises your significance-judging modules and thus causes your words and actions to be judged by _my_ modules as “kind” and “good”, that’s surely all that _really_ matters? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/7 "2005-04-22T14:21:24Z")
Thanks, **SM**. I was hoping you’d come in. > [@SentientMeat](#): > > But even if there _is_ a scientific explanation for everything, even if the gaps all do _eventually_ get filled, that **still doesn’t disprove the existence of** the metaphysical or supernatural. But if all the gaps are filled (and I’m definitely not arguing that they cannot be filled), what do you mean by the supernatural? In your scenario, it sounds like an empty set. Can anyone clearly define what they mean by it? ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/8 "2005-04-22T14:29:44Z")
> [@](#): > > But if all the gaps are filled (and I’m definitely not arguing that they cannot be filled), what do you mean by the supernatural? In your scenario, it sounds like an empty set. Can anyone clearly define what they mean by it? It would just be “something _other_”. If it sounds like an empty set to you, that’s because Ockham’s Razor is so _fundamental_ to you that you consider it some kind of inviolate _law_, that entities _must not_ be proposed beyond those necessary to explain what your ears and eyes and temporal lobes tell you. There is no reason God cannot ultimately _cause_ all of that stuff and, more importantly, no way you can prove he _doesn’t_. ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/9 "2005-04-22T14:46:57Z")
First, I object to the assertion that there’s no way to prove the God question one way or the other. My modus operandi is antithetical to the fideist position–I believe that nothing is beyond the purview of reason. In that sense, I agree with the OP. In other words, I define the universe to be everything that ever existed, currently exists, and will exist, and then that universe obeys some coherent set of laws. I do not presume that humans necessarily have the ability to discover or understand those laws, although that is my hope, but I am confident that such laws exist. Under that model which I have just defined, if there is some kind of Creator, He must be included in those laws, as well as any other phenomenon not currently understood by our science. Just because it scares/confuses us specks of dust doesn’t mean that it has some special place in the universe. I think T’Plana Hath of Vulcan (pardon my geekdom) said it best: “Nothing unreal exists.” ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/10 "2005-04-22T14:51:34Z")
In that case, **Rift** , you are merely _defining_ God to be natural and the supernatural to be nonexistent, rather than _proving_ it. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/11 "2005-04-22T14:58:25Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > It would just be “something _other_”. If it sounds like an empty set to you, that’s because Ockham’s Razor is so _fundamental_ to you that you consider it some kind of inviolate _law_, that entities _must not_ be proposed beyond those necessary to explain what your ears and eyes and temporal lobes tell you. There is no reason God cannot ultimately _cause_ all of that stuff and, more importantly, no way you can prove he _doesn’t_. A god who exists in a wholly other “plane”, having no interaction, in the present, past, or future with our existence, is indeed conceivable and possible. I have trouble with Him when he starts interacting with us, even as a first cause. I know there are several types of causation; which do you mean? As to your answer to **Rift** , if it is **only** a matter of definition, then it’s kinda trivial. But you seem not to think that. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/12 "2005-04-22T15:11:50Z")
> [@](#): > > I have trouble with Him when he starts interacting with us, even as a first cause. I know there are several types of causation; which do you mean? Like I said, I’m an Ockhamist physicalist to the bone - you’re rather asking me to characterise positions I don’t hold (which risks me _mis_representing theists here). I believe many theists consider the natural universe to be a _subset_ of God. As for “causation”, that really is a _function_ of time and so explanations of the nature of time _encompass_ causation, but for the sake of this thread I’d go with (4) & (5) of [this](http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/explanat.htm). > [@](#): > > As to your answer to **Rift** , if it is only a matter of definition, then it’s kinda trivial. But you seem not to think that. I can only state and defend my position of Ockhamist physicalsm (which is probably **Rift** ’s well, ultimately). But _defining_ it as correct is indeed trivial. We must _all_ be prepared to say “I might be wrong” (even if, like me, you cannot even imagine any evidence which would _convince_ you you were wrong.) ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/13 "2005-04-22T15:21:20Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Like I said, I’m an Ockhamist physicalist to the bone - you’re rather asking me to characterise positions I don’t hold (which risks me _mis_representing theists here). Agreed! The question was not wasted, however, since I got a good cite out of you. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/14 "2005-04-22T15:49:31Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I can only state and defend my position of Ockhamist physicalsm (which is probably **Rift** ’s well, ultimately). But _defining_ it as correct is indeed trivial. We must _all_ be prepared to say “I might be wrong” (even if, like me, you cannot even imagine any evidence which would _convince_ you you were wrong.) That’s the kind of rational open-mindedness this world needs more of, and I admire you for it. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/15 "2005-04-22T16:01:15Z")
And I you, if you agree. Many thanks, **Rift**. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/16 "2005-04-22T16:09:54Z")
Meh. Half this existence is 90% mental. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/17 "2005-04-22T16:11:12Z")
And furthermore, **Rift** , your post went beyond tautology, as **SM** s and my remarks may not have properly acknowledged. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/18 "2005-04-22T16:14:00Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Meh. Half this existence is 90% mental. So what’s the remaining 55% of existence? Chopped liver? ---
**Author:** ![Theologue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@Theologue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Theologue)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/19 "2005-04-22T16:22:09Z")
Sorry I don’t have time for more than a drive-by post. I agree with what **Liberal** was saying in the other thread. This is more a philosophical than theological question, and the semantics are very important. I recommend C.S. Lewis’s _Miracles_ for more on the subject. (The book is much better than the glurgey description on the back makes it out to be.) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587/20 "2005-04-22T16:39:51Z")
Let me propose a test for the supernatural: a physically measurable phenomena that violates basic laws of science that appear to be still operative. Say you found someone who could repeatably levitate a car with mind only. It should be possible to set up an experiment where energy around this is measured. If the energy expended is much greater than can be explained by any energy source, I think you’d have a good case for the supernatural. Whether supernatural events follow their own laws would be interesting, but not essential to this definition. We’d also assume that this would be repeatably tested, but would never yield up a physicalist explanation. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/there-is-no-supernatural/300587.md?page=2)