What do we mean when we say "supernatural"?

[MHopcroft1963]

A lot of people are asked whether they "believe in the supernatural", yet I am not entirely clear what those who ask the question mean by the term. If by that they mean "something that does not follow the laws of nature", then that would in theory mean nothing supernatural exists or can exist.

But I'm sure there are other, somewhat more benign definitions. Not that those definitions would include really outlandish claims -- if you tell someone you are visited every day by the ghost of Groucho Marx taunting you for taking everything too seriously, that someone has every reason not to believe you regardless of how they define the nature of reality. But even if we don't accept ol' Groucho's specter, are there things outside how we perceive the universe now that we can accept without contradiction? Can we accept reality of things that we have no physical evidence to rely on?

[Belinda]

It is disappointing that so few people have any grasp of metaphysical ontology. My impression is that many people when they say "supernatural" are referring to what is more properly called "paranormal".

[Barry Sears]

My first thoughts when reading this were firstly considering a definition as, experiences or events that cannot be explained by science. Secondly the expression, spiritual experiences, also seemed to fit into the box.

I wonder if people are interested in sharing any experience they may have had, of which they would consider to be supernatural, paranormal or perhaps spiritual.

[Misty]

A lot of people are asked whether they "believe in the supernatural", yet I am not entirely clear what those who ask the question mean by the term. If by that they mean "something that does not follow the laws of nature", then that would in theory mean nothing supernatural exists or can exist.

If the "laws of nature" were created by a super-natural being, then the laws of nature that we are subject to would not apply to the supernatural being.

[Belinda]

Misty wrote:

If the "laws of nature" were created by a super-natural being, then the laws of nature that we are subject to would not apply to the supernatural being.

Absolutely correct, Misty.

And how can the supernatural creator be perfect when there is something , i.e the laws of nature, that is not the supernatural being? He would be incomplete in that case. This is why I am a pantheist because the Creator cannot be Supernatural (Supernatural implies excluding the natural.)

[Misty]

Misty wrote:

If the "laws of nature" were created by a super-natural being, then the laws of nature that we are subject to would not apply to the supernatural being.

Absolutely correct, Misty.

And how can the supernatural creator be perfect when there is something , i.e the laws of nature, that is not the supernatural being? He would be incomplete in that case. This is why I am a pantheist because the Creator cannot be Supernatural (Supernatural implies excluding the natural.)

Why would the super-natural being be incomplete by not being a part of the natural?

[Fooloso4]

Belinda:

(Supernatural implies excluding the natural.)

Etymologically ‘super’ means above, over, or beyond. Supernatural would be what is above, over, or beyond the natural.

And how can the supernatural creator be perfect when there is something , i.e the laws of nature, that is not the supernatural being?

The laws, or nature itself, could be an emanation, a manifestation, or something created by the supernatural being. As the creator of the natural the supernatural being would be capable of creating supernatural events, that is, miracles that are contrary to the laws of nature.

It may be, however, that what we call supernatural may be natural, it is just that we do not understand the natural processes that caused it.

One problem raised in the OP is that once we allow for the possibility of the supernatural there is no logically consistent way to disallow any claim no matter how extraordinary.

[Neopolitan]

It seems to me that the word "natural" is a bit vague. What exactly do we mean by that term? What did the OP mean by "laws of nature"? Did they mean the word descriptively (which is more scientific) or prescriptively (which is more theistic)?

It seems to me that much of what is described as paranormal and even supernatural is, in a sense, "natural" but with additional or different assumptions. In other words, for the supernatural and paranormal other causes are posited rather than no causes, even if ultimately the singular non-natural, uncaused cause is a god or something similarly magical.

[Belinda]

'Supernatural' is most usefully used by philosophers to denote a supernatural ontological substance e.g. God, which is other than the natural substance. The natural substance is this relative, temporal, world .

Unexplained phenomena such as ghosts, teleportation, poltergeists, clairvoyance etc. exist. Unexplained and maybe inexplicable does not properly imply supernatural. This is why 'paranormal' is a better word for ghosts etc.

[Fooloso4]

Belinda:

'Supernatural' is most usefully used by philosophers to denote a supernatural ontological substance e.g. God, which is other than the natural substance. The natural substance is this relative, temporal, world .

Unexplained phenomena such as ghosts, teleportation, poltergeists, clairvoyance etc. exist. Unexplained and maybe inexplicable does not properly imply supernatural. This is why 'paranormal' is a better word for ghosts etc.

I don’t think it is a matter of defining our way out of the problem. Claims about what is outside the natural, whether as cause or consequence, raise the problem of veracity. The term ‘supernatural’ when used correctly by your definition still leaves the problem of unsubstantiated claims, including the claim that God is a substance. What determines true from false claims about God? There would, by definition, be no reality check since God is the cause of reality as we know it and can know it in any kind of agreed upon objective sense.

[Neopolitan]

Unexplained phenomena such as ghosts, teleportation, poltergeists, clairvoyance etc. exist. Unexplained and maybe inexplicable does not properly imply supernatural. This is why 'paranormal' is a better word for ghosts etc.

I'd agree that quite a few unexplained phenomena do exist, but I'm not sure why you should include a list of phenomena that patently don't exist (except in the minds of some people).

There are probably some phenomena that are not actually explained even though we foolish humans think we have explained them. A century ago, there were plenty of phenomena that we now know to fall into that category. Was lightning paranormal before we could properly explain it? What about the aurora borealis? Are the rings of Saturn paranormal today because we don't know for sure what caused them to form (although we have "explanations", knowing that they might well be wrong)?

It seems to me that paranormal fits into a quite different category to these phenomena. Paranormal claims seem to be limited to phenomena which don't call for any explanation at all because evidence of the phenomena actually occurring is non-existent.

(Note that I use "call for explanation" more lightly than perhaps I should. Not having an explanation for a phenomenon does not necessarily mean that the phenomenon does not occur. I'm just suggesting that we should not leap-frog over the need to establish evidence that a phenomenon actually occurs in our excitement to find an explanation for it - we can easily find explanations for phenomena that don't occur!)

Inexplicability is a cop-out - this forum provides many examples of people for whom careful, detailed explanations do not work. Does that make "logic" inexplicable, or just inexplicable to someone whose name I will not mention? This also links back to things that we cannot explain today, such as the rings of Saturn, and to (potential) things for which we might never have a full explanation. The inexplicability of a phenomenon, be it temporary or permanent, does not imply that the phenomenon is somehow magic. This is a fallacy in the same vein as the argument "I don't understand this, therefore it can't be true", some of our more impressionable friends just seem to be saying "I don't understand this, but I am sure it happened (stop bothering me about evidence) and therefore it must be paranormal/supernatural".

Note that Arthur C. Clarke only said that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", not magic per se. I just mention merely in case someone was thinking of misquoting the old goat.

Oh, and I too have a better word for "ghosts etc" - "********".

[Belinda]

Neopolitan wrote:

I'd agree that quite a few unexplained phenomena do exist, but I'm not sure why you should include a list of phenomena that patently don't exist (except in the minds of some people).

Paranormal phenomena do exist , as I am using the word 'phenomena'. Phenomena are perceptions of something of which a person is aware. So some optical illusion, or hallucination, or ghost, or talking zebra, is a phenomenon. I think that phenomena don't have to come with evidence of physical existence in a publically measurable world for them to be classed as 'phenomena'. What some ghost-seer reckons to be a ghost is a phenomenon as far as the ghost-seer is concerned.

[Barry Sears]

Communication. Perhaps it is all about communication. We are born without words, but basic instincts. We are taught and learn language whether that is understanding the signs of nature, the warning calls of birds, the meaning of certain clouds. What we learn how we communicate is up to who we are and where we are. If a black cat crosses the path in front of you do you turn around. In New Zealand if a Tuatara crosses the path in front of you, you turn around. Some people communicate with cards, some with stars. We are all subject to emotions or feelings how we interpret these is up to who we are.

A story of a person who started have clear feelings and visions of being trapped and in trouble, at first contemplated the theory of reincarnation and the experience of regurgitating another life. Several months later in the same town, someone escaped after being held against their will. This was then the event the person concluded they felt, they believe that because they didn't understand this they didn't do anything to help.

It is more about communication, understanding or interpreting experiences. Many people develop a language to communicate on a subtle plain.

Has anyone had any experiences they would call spiritual ? ?? ?

[Neopolitan]

I'd agree that quite a few unexplained phenomena do exist, but I'm not sure why you should include a list of phenomena that patently don't exist (except in the minds of some people).

Paranormal phenomena do exist , as I am using the word 'phenomena'. Phenomena are perceptions of something of which a person is aware. So some optical illusion, or hallucination, or ghost, or talking zebra, is a phenomenon. I think that phenomena don't have to come with evidence of physical existence in a publically measurable world for them to be classed as 'phenomena'. What some ghost-seer reckons to be a ghost is a phenomenon as far as the ghost-seer is concerned.

While it seems picky, I do believe you are misusing the term "phenomenon" - and that's the source of my confusion. While I tend to primarily think of phenomenon in terms of the first definition in the link, you perhaps mean the fourth (which is understandable under the circumstances).

The meaning of phenomenon in philosophy is not, I believe, sufficiently broad as to include ghosts. While "phenomonology" is about how experience things, the things themselves that we are experiencing are the phenomena and how we model these in our experience of them (which might be as a "ghost") are only (mis)interpretations or (mis)perceptions, or (albeit tautologically) experiences. And while Kant talked about noumena, the thing in itself, he's still counterpointing that with phenomenon meaning the thing as it appears to an observer - not a confabulation on the part of the observer.

A ghost is never a phenomenon because there is no noumenon associated with it. It's just a delusion. Paranormal doesn't really need to come in it let alone "supernatural".

Thinking of supernatural, the idea is that such events are somehow outside or not subject to nature and we still don't have a proper definition of "nature/natural" from the OP. From what I can tell, as I indicated before, the general consensus on "nature/natural" appears to be related to causation - under these conditions this event will occur as a consequence of those events. Something "unnatural" or "supernatural" doesn't seem to follow from the precursor events under the prevailing conditions.

However, much of what people talk about as "supernatural" isn't really anything other than natural with additional assumptions. While your ghosts might be considered paranormal rather than supernatural, the events and conditions that lead to a ghost are reasonably well established - someone needs to die under certain conditions (before their time, either through illness or violence, usually with a task still to be completed) and lo! a ghost is created. That would be "nature", if only there was some enduring feature of the mind that existed after death (the additional, often unstated assumption).

If there were real supernatural events, science would have serious problems because there would be no guarantee of reproducibility. If for example, most times you chopped someone's head off they died, but sometimes they'd just find it an inconvenience. Most times you gave someone an aspirin their headache got better but sometimes - for no reason - they turned into a vampire. Pretty much always when you dropped something it fell directly to the floor, but sometimes it would do something completely different, like fly around the room and dance a little jig before curling up in the corner.

Note to Barry: the topic is "supernatural" not "spiritual".

[Sy Borg]

Re: Belinda's use of the word "phenomenon", just some parsing. Hallucinations and dreams are phenomena in themselves. The subject matter of hallucinations and dreams are only real insofar as they are symbolic reflections or products of the phenomenal workings of the brain at the time.