Talk:Supernatural

Archives
Supernaturalization 1 (May 2003) Supernaturalization 2 (May 2003) Creeping supernaturalization (May 2003) July 2002 – June 2003 June 2003 – June 2004

Religion ans the Supernatural

I think this article makes a big assumption in some points that supernatural realities and religious worldviews are identical. Furthermore it uses the word in many different ways confusing to the reader. For example, a genetically modified organism could be considered "supernatural" as it is completely above the natural order. Also, the point about hindu vs christian eschatology has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of a supernatural realm; it seems like a lot of these points are thoughts that individuals here have had d not hardline philosophy. I think the article needs to be cleaned up. 68.60.53.141 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

a genetically modified organism isn't "above the natural order", it's simply pushing the envelope as far as what has manifested so far in the world. It's completly natural and as big a part of this world as we and any other form of life, the only real difference being that it was "forced" into being rather than spontaneously appearing. Supernatural phenomena relates to aspects of the world that are beyond the physical reality without being, according to those who believe in such things, in direct conflict with the fabric of reality or "how things work". It's breaking the rules while playing by them. Genetic modification is replicating a process that occurs constantly in nature by it's self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.63.34 (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

NPOV policy and proofs

NPOV says scientific and mathematical proofs are far more universally accepted than supernatural ones, from which it follows that scientific and mathematical proofs are more powerful than supernatural ones (for whatever reason). You and Wesley will agree that the proofs for "Jesus Christ is the son of God" (rejected by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc) are far less universally accepted than the proofs for "pi is irrational" and "the earth is spherical" (accepted by Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc). Different people and different cultures find different sorts of proofs convincing. If different people and different cultures find different proofs convincing, then Pythagoras's theorem (as we call it) would not have convinced the very different people and cultures of Europe, India, China, etc for the past 2500+ years. But it has. And I'd still like to see a similarly spectacular modern equivalent of Elijah's miracle. Please add it to the Wikipedia if it isn't already here. Our Lady of Fatima is, but I presume that doesn't convince you either. This is my suggested NPOV addition to the article or one of its offshoots:

Supernaturalism and Proof

Many supernaturalists assert that it is possible to prove certain facts about the supernatural to a very high degree of certainty or even with perfect certainty. However, different supernaturalist groups have proofs that contradict: even within the single religion of Christianity, although different groups will agree that infallible supernatural proof is possible, they will then use their infallible supernatural proofs to reach contradictory supernatural conclusions. Some Catholics, for example, claim that papal infallibility can be proved beyond doubt; some Protestants and Orthodox Christians that it can be disproved beyond doubt. Within the religious family known as the Abrahamic religions, Muslims, Jews, and Christians all agree that some supernatural facts can be proved beyond doubt, and then disagree about what those supernatural facts are. It is apparent, therefore, that proof within supernaturalism is of a different order to proof within mathematics and naturalistic science. In mathematics, proofs can be established permanently and universally and once established are accepted by all mathematicians throughout the world, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture (see for example Pythagorean theorem). In science, the strength of a proof is proportional to the strength of the evidence put forward for it, and the strongest proofs are again accepted by all or a vast majority of scientists throughout the world, regardless of race, ethnicity, and culture (see for example the winners of the Nobel Prize in Physics). Because no single supernatural proof has ever been accepted universally across racial, ethnic, and cultural boundaries in the way many thousands of mathematical and scientific proofs have been, many skeptics, some of whom nevertheless accept the existence of the supernatural, would therefore argue that proof is impossible within supernaturalism. Some skeptical supernaturalists, such as Unitarians and adherents of process theology, further argue that God could not allow certain knowledge of his existence, nature, and purposes, because certain knowledge would remove the need for believers to exercise their free will and individual judgment.

NPOV says scientific and mathematical proofs are far more universally accepted than supernatural ones, — J. Jacquerie, You continue to say this as though it means something important, but it it's not a clear statement. By trying to use this article (and a few others) to explain yourself, you are risking turning this into even more about you and your views. The paragraph you are proposing is more puff. Mkmcconn 14:10 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, you illustrate your articles! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum). This is an ad populum fallacy. Because everyone agrees apon a premise, it must be true and the more people agree upon the premise, the truer it is. It leads to absurdity of course (if everyone agreed that the world was flat, it would becomes so). teggers 080207

Proof of Supernaturalism

This Wikipedia entry is fascinating proof of the supernatural. An extension of these very profound proofs exist in regard to the Tunguska Event. which should be included in the article and made available for the cognitive Wikipedia audience. It makes it very difficult to be NPOV in regard to supernaturalism.

we are not here to "prove" wether or not there exists supernatural phenomena, we're here to convey informatiom deemed important by the wikipedia standards. As far as proof goes for supernatural going-ons, the fact that someone yet has to explain something and describe how it came to be is far from proof that it's part of a supernatural world view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.63.34 (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL "This extraordinarily powerful flash of lightning succeded the movement towards the earth of a visible body. If the rationales here are to be correct then, it stands to reason the identity of the body should be Satan himself!" Why not Stalin? Either way, creoblogs ≠ WP:RS. . dave souza, talk 11:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Most people believe in some form of supernaturalism

Most people and cultures believe in some form of supernaturalism; it is far more universally accepted than atheism and materialism. Your statements about papal infallibility reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate; that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove, it is a dispute about the tradition of the Church has always been; it's primarily an historical and doctrinal question. Mathematicians and scientists also disagree with each other about specific questions. Someone makes a new discovery or proposes a new formula or theorem, and it takes a while before everyone or most people accept it. I still remember when my high school physics teacher announced that a recent discovery made on a space shuttle mission meant that all the high school physics textbooks would need to be rewritten. I also recall an astronomer vigorously disputing the distance of quasars from us, though he was in the minority. Things aren't as cut and dry as you suggest. Wesley 16:21 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your statements about papal infallibility reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate; that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove, it is a dispute about the tradition of the Church has always been; it's primarily an historical and doctrinal question. A dispute between churches that is primarily an historical and doctrinal question. There's a rara avis. Try these simple steps: 1) follow the link you provided to papal infallibility and find External Links; 2) Follow the external link "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Infallibility - historical treatment"; 3) Scroll down the page till you come to the heading: "PROOF OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE", where you'll read:

From Holy Scripture, as already stated, the special proof of the pope's infallibility is, if anything, stronger and clearer than the general proof of the infallibility of the Church as a whole, just as the proof of his primacy is stronger and clearer than any proof that can be advanced independently for the Apostolic authority of the episcopate.

4) Finally, scroll down the page a little more until you come to the heading "PROOF OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY FROM TRADITION". But according to you "that question is not something Christians try to prove or disprove". And your statements about atheism and materialism reflect a deep misunderstanding of this debate: science entails neither atheism or materialism, but I understand why you introduced them ex nihilo. I won't bother responding to the rest. Jacquerie27 22:32 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the Roman Catholic proof of papal infallibility; clearly I was mistaken in that point. The reason I introduced atheism and materialism is that they both appear to be very natural and direct consequences of your POV, that science can make no allowance for anything supernatural. Perhaps I should have used the word "naturalism" instead. The point is that many people the world over do accept a number of scientific and mathematical axioms as being true, while also believing in some kind of supernatural being(s) or activities. Wesley 16:18 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, if you don't know much about Catholicism it's understandable you hadn't come across that. ...very natural and direct consequences of your POV, that science can make no allowance for anything supernatural. It's not my POV: it's science. Atheism and materialism claim to account for everything; science doesn't (yet). The point is that many people the world over do accept a number of scientific and mathematical axioms as being true, while also believing in some kind of supernatural being(s) or activities. Yes, but my point is that they accept different and contradictory supernatural proofs but the same scientific and mathematical proofs. Science and mathematics are genuinely catholic; Catholicism, like all other forms of supernaturalism, isn't. Jacquerie27 21:53 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Scientists counter that if this is so, then believers in supernaturalism themselves would be utterly incapable of witnessing any supernatural phenomenon or miracles; all human senses are limited by the laws of physics, and can only sense events occuring in the natural, physical world.

I think this is POV and should be cut: if supernature exists it could interfere or interact with the laws of physics and the natural world, which are not perfectly known and not necessarily fixed; second, supernature wouldn't necessarily have to act thru the human senses in any case: it could affect the brain or mind directly. Jacquerie27 21:53 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can I change 'Arguments in favour of supernaturality' to 'Arguments in favour of the existance of the supernatural', as the same for against?

Many scientists and mathematicians

I keep on bumping into scientists who particularly suffer from the preconception that science reveals objective truth. Never mind. If you think it is defensive or offensive, remove the comment. (20040302 13:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Removed paragraphs

I just removed the following paragraphs, because they are about the social causes of religious persecution. They are quite off-topic for an article on the supernatural. Most books on the Christian religion don't discuss the supernatural in general, and most books on the supernatural nenever even allude to this topic. This discussion's presence here is more a cause of the personal interests of contributors, but probably not a good editorial placing. If you want, we can move these paragraphs to an appropriate article. We can always mention this subject within this article, and link to the article where this topic is more appropriately discussed. RK

• Because the truth of supernatural claims cannot be objectively tested, disputes about them often lead to schism and persecution. The philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed this out in his essay "An outline of Intellectual Rubbish":

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.

• Examples:
  • The Great Schisms among Christians were the culmination of centuries of disagreement concerning the powers of the Pope to decide doctrine. No objective standard for resolving these differences has been agreed upon, then or since. It may be argued, then, that only the abandonment of the competing supernatural claims can possibly lead to the resolution of differences.
  • The Thirty Years War was justified as a defense of inviolable privileges granted by God to the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Emperor, over against the Protestant claims of God's grant of the rights of nations and of self-government according to the Bible.
  • For centuries, Christians angered and frustrated by the refusal of Jews to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah have considered the Jews to be especially guilty of the crucifixion of Christ, cursed and deserving of suffering (see deicide). Other folk-religious beliefs about alliances between the Jews and Satan, and similar terrifying conspiracy theories, have fueled hatred and cruelty toward the Jewish people, and have produced a special indifference to Jewish suffering.

Arguments in favor of supernaturality

There are currently eight "arguments against supernaturality" and four counter-arguments ("arguments in favour of supernaturality"), yet two of the latter include counter-counter-arguments! This is hardly fair, so I have removed the counter-counter arguments.

In the last "argument in favor" I have corrected some of the information and removed redundancy.
Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We usually don't remove text from an article to create balance. The Wikipedia way is generally to add text to maintain balance. Otherwise our articles are trimmed, and then trimmed again, and then trimmed again.... In this case we find many arguments against supernaturalism, but few for it. I would think the proper response would be too add more arguments for belief in the supernatural, if any more arguments actually exist. RK 00:29, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

ghosts are true cause i saw a ghost doing a ghost poo

Thank you for that observation, but Wikipedia has a firm policy against original research, so I doubt we can add that to the article. JRM · Talk 10:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice.

Seeking expert eyes on Natasha Demkina

Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.

Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.

TIA, - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Arguments Against

The last paragraph stated that believing in supernatural explanations for burning bushes is lazy. I changed it, but it's my opinion it's still a bit lousy. So if anyone cares to look at it, it could use a better NPOV explanation of how science deals with seemingly supernatural phenomena. 71.10.236.201 21:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I tried to clean it up a bit; not sure if it's an improvement. Noclevername 21:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could be more constructive than just tossing stones at this, but...this is really bad! Is it just me, or does the whole article read like an atheist having an argument with a strawman of his own creation? Don't they have Internet forums for that sort of stuff? Some of it is just laughable; "Scientists say..." What scientists? It looks like someone was just making it up as they went along. Perhaps a more appropriate title for this would be; "Strawman Arguments in Favour of Atheism".

Steve Lowther 08:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with the above, and I'm an atheist. This article is ridiculous but I too cant be more constructive than to point it out. Religion and "the supernatural" are NOT synonymous, for one.

Certainly religion and the supernatural are not exactly synonymous. But supernatural religion and the supernatural are synonymous. And it is certainly a good approximation that the vast majority of religions are supernatural and that the vast majority of supernaturalists are religious. Gkochanowsky 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Second, an argument against "the supernatural" shouldnt be that "all religions or none must be true" as this presumption assumes complete knowledge of the nature of reality. How do we really know that both reincarnation and an "afterlife" cant coexist? Or that neither exist? Or that one is more plausible than the other?

You would have a point if that were the argument. The argument is not that all must be "true" or not "true". But that standards for acceptance or rejection should be applied fairly. You see it is all too common and depressing just how often supernaturalists make "truth" claims using arguments that they would reject under similar circumstances when applied to other supernatural religions. In fact they do it all the time. Gkochanowsky 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Arguments against the supernatural" should actually be *strong* arguments. Some strong arguments would be sociological explanations for why certain superstitions are universal. Scientific explanations for specific phenomenon.

A "*strong*" argument appears to be nothing more than an argument that you personally think is "*strong*". So what? Gkochanowsky 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Science has the laborious task of disproving presumed supernatural events one by one. There cant really be a blanket "argument against the supernatural" THats just not high science works.

Science has no such task. Perhaps people who are interested in debunking supernatural claims have such a task but scientists as a group are not interested in showing why superstitious explanations of reality are not very good, but in finding explanations of reality that actually can be shown to have the ability to predict reality before the fact. That is because that is how you get the recognition of your peers. Scientists cite papers that help them further their work. Not debunk work they have no interest in. Gkochanowsky 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 Ironically, thats how FAITH works and it seems more and more atheists are really just those in search of some kind of anti-religion rather than those truly committed to science and fair minded analysis.  Depressing.

Have a care. This may be more a reflection of you than anything else. Gkochanowsky 14:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(Possibly unintentional) Vandalism

Somebody is editing the Supernatural page and insisting on inserting long, unwieldy, opinionated, and misspelled paragraphs about science and its virtues. While science is indeed a wonderful subject to bring into this page, you needn't vent your worship of it here; and if you must, please at least do so concisely and with good spelling. -RSR 11-06-06 02:42 PM MST

Basic Definition of "Supernatural"

The opening paragraph of this Wikipedia entry states that:

"The supernatural (Latin: super- "exceeding" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are not observable in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. If a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it can no longer be considered supernatural"

This is quite obviously untrue. Let's pretend for a minute that poltergeists exist, and one day you see one. Since you have just observed a ghost, does that imply by definition that ghosts are a natural phenomenon, rather than a supernatural one?

This appears to leave us with quite an unhelpful definition of the term "supernatural" (one that appears to reflect instead Kant's distinction between the Phenomenal and the Noumenal).

Traditionally, the term "supernatural" has been used to describe things that may well be observable in nature, but which have causes that lie outside the natural order.

This is a good point and well points out what happens when one confuses the phenomenon with the explanation. All cases of purported supernatural events are natural events that are explained using supernatural constructs. Such supernatural constructs are claimed to have properties that are a-priori beyond the natural. However this does not preclude that for those same purported supernatural events that completely natural explanations could also account for the phenomenon. In the end it boils down to which explanation one prefers and what is the criterion being used to choose. The supernaturalist usually prefers the supernatural explanation not because of how well it explains the phenomena and predicts future phenomena of its kind but usually by how well that supernatural explanation makes them feel. In the end this is the difference between a naturalist and a supernaturalist. Scratch any supernaturalist and their reasons for preferring such explanations is based on the "joy" it brings them. Gkochanowsky 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Have thought about this for some time. Naturalism vs Supernaturalism debate is significantly muddied, here and elsewhere, by a purely semantic problem. That is, until you have adequately defined what is natural, in other words, the LIMITS of naturalism, then any attempt at defining what is “super” to that, is going to run into all sorts of difficulties. Consider Arthur C. Clarke’s epigram: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. In the 1930s, New Guinea natives saw planes and white people for the first time, and it was an experience that totally shocked them (It was the only such encounter to be filmed). Later, those natives set up a “cargo cult” in which they built air strips etc, and waited for the large metal birds to descend and give them all that precious booty. There are still some adherents to this cult. It is a worldview that has a mythical base explaining all the events since that apocalyptic day. Unfortunately, it is all wrong. Still, it does show that it is hard to put limits on what is natural or not. And if we can’t do that then how can we clearly delinate between the two worlds.

The movie 2001, often regarded as being a “God Concept” movie in fact has nothing in it that is “supernatural” at all. The obelisk is the sentinel of a very advanced extraterrestial race. In a way, it is like the whole human race has an experience akin to the one the New Guineans experienced. Science fiction, by definion, does not busy itself with fantasy and magic, but on the other hand, who is to say what a magical event might be? Suppose for a moment that there is in reality a God who created the Universe. Now suppose that that being is actually a representative of an extremely advanced race. Perhaps so advanced that they can create universes the way we can computer simulations. These ideas are seriously considered by cosmologists. It could be even said that some Christian groups come close to such materialistic formulations of the Godhead. For example, I believe that the Mormons believe our God dwells on another planet as part of a community, and has a wife and family. If so, is he a supernatural being, or just a very advanced one, as Clarke would hold?

On the other hand, I am not satisfied in my own mind that I have actually nutted this out properly. Science fiction works on visions of (essentially) natural and material worlds, but the concepts of things like “faery land” and suchlike seems to lie outside this. “Lord of the Rings” does not look or feel like science fiction, even though Tolkein and now Peter Jackson have gone to great lengths to give the people and communities dealt with there as much detail and history as possible. Yet, there are various moral concepts that take over the landscape here. Perhaps, it is the idea that good and evil have an ontological reality that makes these to be essentially supernatural and religious works. The idea that good and evil are not just interpretations but realities in the Universe. Myles325a 05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Webster’s dates the word “supernatural” to the 15th century. I suspect that the word supernatural came about when people started questioning miracles. That century and the century prior to that presented great challenges to people who accepted the major religion of Europe. It saw endless war, great plagues, papal schism, peasant uprisings, a deeply corrupt clergy and the creation of Protestantism. My guess is that a great deal of distrust was created at the time regarding miracles and the claims of the church and I suspect that the term “supernatural” was coined to place these claims above examination. (An interesting semi-fictional account of that time can be found in "A Distant Mirror", Tuchman, Barbara, Alfred A, Knopf 1978) Gkochanowsky (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Important discussion to be having. The term 'supernatural' is not very old (a few hundred years?). Perhaps the huge chasm between 'nature' and 'super-nature' is not so wide? Perhaps there's more to nature than we know? - Dale Campbell

The etymology suggests that the concept of "supernatural" developed alongside a new understanding of "natural." But that is neither here nor there. Myles raises several interesting points but the only way to address them is by complying with NPOV and NOR. This means we need verifiable sources for definitions of "supernatural" and my bet is that there are a variety of definitions reflecting different notable points of view, and all notable points of view should be represented and correctly identified. The opening definition, however flawed it may seem to us, may be - may be one verifiable point of view and we should include it whether we like it or not. The question is not whether it makes sense to us, but whether it can be linked to a verifiable point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Rename

Do any of you perhaps think that this article might be renamed 'The supernatural'? The reason I say this is that when you say, 'Supernatural,' you generally mean the adjective. The noun form is almost always (I believe) indicated by adding a definite article in front, thus, 'The supernatural'. It seems to make more sense to me. Thanks for considering, Vlmastra 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why argue?

Supernatural things can't be explained. Why argue?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.41.119 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Why argue? Because many things once called "supernatural" have turned out to be very explainable and part of a coherent world, and therefore "natural". Ball lightning comes to mind as an example. ("Despite over 10,000 sightings of the phenomenon, ball lightning has often been regarded as nothing more than a myth, fantasy, or hoax...")

There are always "things that aren't explained yet". But the term "supernatural" shouldn't be used to cover all of them. Nanobes are not yet explained, but to say they're "supernatural" implies they will never be explained, and that's counterproductive. It would be more accurate to say these things are "The Unexplained". --signed, ThinkFest

Some folk's laziness and low IQs regarding their not knowing nor not caring what their talking about can be explained. Andrew Homer 07:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't insult that poster. Pity him if you must, but in a civil way. (they're, not their) Noclevername 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are re correcting the above sentence when it doesnt need to be corrected, the sentence with `their` is right, as it refers to the person, the verb that you are trying to correct is wrong as it doesnt refer to `their`, what you are trying to correct is `they`re`, short for `they are`. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndod (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And your point is...? If it is unexplained, then they are right in asserting a mystery. mike4ty4 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The clash we're seeing in this discussion is not just between "the people who don't want to believe" vs. "the people who want to believe". It's also between "people with very lax standards of evidence and reasoning," and "people with stricter and more sophisticated standards." It's not fair to assume all such people are "lazy" or "stupid".

Consider that there are still places on earth where teaching rationalism will earn you, not just ostracism from your community, but a death sentence.

Obviously, nobody wants to be told that they're lacking the tools of reasoning, but it's true; reasoning is not a deity-granted innate ability. It's a skill, just like plumbing and doing gymnastics. It's a set of tools that needs to be taught. Some people can stand on one leg; some people can do cartwheels; some people do Olympic parallel bar routines. It's the same with reasoning.

One of those "tools" is the idea, "Demand evidence of causality." By and large, "supernatural" concepts are still with us because they're upheld without (for instance) the standard of "causality" as well as "correlation". For example, some people will accept that "God's anger with gay people" was the cause of the flooding of New Orleans. Yes, there is a correlation-- 'there are homosexuals in New Orleans'-- but no evidence of a causal link. All there is, is a coincidence, and somebody loudly declaring something unpopular in their community to be the 'cause'. This makes no more sense than attributing the great San Francisco earthquake to gambling parlors.

Principles of rational thought such as "the demand for evidence of causality" deserve to be disseminated. Sometimes the word 'argument' doesn't mean fruitless mutual yelling. With a little rationalist training, it can mean 'presenting the most credible explanation you know for why you prefer a particular conclusion.' --signed, ThinkFest

????

I can't make heads or tails of the last paragraph under "Arguments against"; It seems to be saying that if you hold one supernatural belief, but don't believe all of them, then that somehow proves them all automatically false. WhaHuh?? What kind of twisted pseudologic is that? I'd have an easier time believing in the supernatural than in that conclusion. To whoever wrote that mess, as a rational skeptic, I beg of you: please don't be on our side. That was painful to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noclevername (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

It's gotten bigger and wordier, but no clearer. Noclevername 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that but it was intended to show that most supernaturalists hold their supernatural beliefs dishonestly. It makes no attempt nor does it claim to "prove" that supernaturalism is not the "Truth". As such it is an argument against supernaturalism at least for those that try to be honest. For others that do not endeavor to be honest in their "beliefs" if not their thinking I can see where it might be very confusing. Gkochanowsky 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but that paragraph is a disaster. And I don't mean structurally, I mean the basic premise. I agree with the first comment. "Arguments against the supernatural" should be a listing of presumed supernatural phenomena that have been proven natural by science. The last paragraph as it stands is essentially a faith based argument with no basis in empirical evidence. Two unproveable, unobservable states can both easily be equally valid within the framework of reality. We don't have perception after death, therefore we can't (as rational thinkers) make absolute statements about what is or is not possible following the termination of life. Oblivion, noncorporeal existance, reincarnation? None are proveable or disproveable and neither is setting up arbitrary rules like "all or nothing must be true". To go one step farther, perhaps what happens following death is determined by the will of the individual. Perhaps human consciousness exists on some quantum level and, following the termination of physical function, that quantum signature is either imprinted on a new physical incarnation or drawn off to some alternate reality depending on which way it gravitates naturally. Crazy? Maybe. But you can't disprove that, it's somewhat based on theoretical physics, and it would allow for the possibility of both an afterlife and reincarnation. Please just kill that last paragraph.

"Science cannot approach the supernatural"

I added a "citation needed" tag to the statement "science cannot approach the supernatural." I don't necessarily disagree but I wish to see attribution so I can evaluate how widely accepted this statement is, by whom, and why. The scientific method article does not mention the supernatural. Cheers. Schmitty120 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Schmitty: after seeing your comments on the Evolution talk page, I clicked over to your user page and was compelled to follow it here. Your comments at Evolution and now this comment above seem to imply that you might benefit from reviewing what science is. No citation is required to support this statement: the definition of science necessarily excludes the supernatural, although the definition of WHAT is "supernatural" is often defined by the limitations of technology at the time. Science is a method that requires repeatable ways of collecting objective measurements to test falsifiable hypotheses. If you can do that about ANYTHING, then that "anything" is not supernatural. For example, there would have been times in human history when things like radio and microwaves, X-rays, viruses, and even the atom were "supernatural" because humans did not yet possess the tools or knowledge to measure them under the scientific method. Things like ghosts, gods, and "psychic phenomena" will remain supernatural until (and unless) a day arrives that we are able to design repeatable ways of collecting objective measurements to test falsifiable hypotheses about them. Science cannot approach the supernatural because science, as a method of inquiry, is not equipped to. You can't mow a lawn with a sewing machine. You can't address the supernatural using science. TxMCJ 16:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the statement is inappropriate on different grounds. You make the point that some things that are today science that would once have been (and to some still seem) supernatural. To then say science cannot approach the supernatural gives an incorrect impression that what is currently considered supernatural can never be explained by science (this is not the actual statement, but the wording could easily be interpreted like that). They may be outside current knowledge, but may later be explainable. Scientific method can be used to test claims even if the reasons for the results cannot explained by a non-supernatural means. The supernatural and scientific knowledge effectively meet at the moment on discovery/realisation where some thing goes from being an unexplained phenomenon to a principle that there are rules to; these rules are discovered and/or refined by the use of scientific method. The two do meet as the use of science to expand knowledge causes the supernatural to recede. --Nate 10:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I concede the point, though I won't reverse my edits right away since Nate appears to still have objections. Schmitty120 02:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me at the edits in question to see if it can be rephrased? --Nate 09:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is the particular one we were actually talking about [1]. I also made numerous changes in a wave of edits here. [2]. Good luck. Schmitty120 14:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And not to mention that nobody wants to make the necessary effort to develop such real experiments, etc. (or even to try to see if they are in fact impossible and thus said "supernatural" phenomena would remain totally irrelevant to the "real" world) since no "scientists" believe in the stuff in the first place (and they don't bother to look for the stuff either.). Saying that science "cannot" approach suggests it will never approach it. mike4ty4 00:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

<- Honestly seems tagged on there, and think the article is better off without it. --Nate 15:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another problem that didn't seem to get mentioned is that this would entail that supernatural phenomena are totally impossible to observe, as observation would constitute some sort of "data" having been gathered, and thus any report of a "supernatural" phenomenon being "observed" would be a logical contradiction in terms. How can you observe something you can't observe? It's like saying 1 = 0. It makes no sense. If ghosts or other "supernatural" phenomena exist then they would not be "supernatural" since observations of them have been reported (this does not say whether ghosts are spirits or not, it would just rule out them as being "supernatural" under this definition.). So it seems this is not a good definition. Supernatural phenomena would be totally unknown, and thus there would be no reason to even consider the concept in the first place. "Phenomenon" itself would be an invalid descriptor since it implies the ability to observe the thing, so "supernatural phenomenon" would be an oxymoron. If it can be observed, then it would not be "supernatural". Period. So if ghosts, etc. exist and people really have seen them, they are not "supernatural", PERIOD. So this is pretty much a useless definition. mike4ty4 00:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All supernatural activity, if proved, is no longer supernatural in definition, so it is technically impossible to capture or enforce beliefs in supernatural activity, a better word would be unexplained or paranormal, am i correct?

What would you do if you were suddenly in touch with a 'sixth' sense for example one day you felt as if you had a telepathic experience(s)? Wouldn't that be 'supernatural' in a way and possibly suggestive of some 'god' or otherworldly experience or at least a very strange one? Now it could be the 'cargo plane phenomenon' verse god(s)/spirits-or not. Perhaps there is something to it - 'god(s)' and 'ghosts/spirits' and even more in some 'dimension' or place that as yet is undefined by science. Perhaps we just might not have the ability to find it with our present technology and our limited human capacity for understanding. Maybe there are some people who have had 'sixth' sense experiences. I disagree that it is technically impossible to capture beliefs in 'supernatural'activity unless its added that its true only by present experimental methods and at the present time. Scientists have studied geese - see Princeton Sixth Sense Study that were able to migrate by sensing magnetic fields and another study that proved certain sharks sensed prey by electrical feedback. These were senses previously undiscovered but once found shed light on unexplained behavior. Perhaps a particular sense(s) may one day be discovered with people who have experiences with the 'supernatural'. It may seem like a long shot but science has to admit that knowledge is an ongoing endeavor and what is the unknown today is tomorrow's truth. Thank god (pun intended) those geese weren't waiting for science to prove that they could find their way home. The tough part in all this is keeping a reasonably open mind despite the unknown and the frivolous. There might even be different degrees of 'supernatural' with 'god' turning out to be plausibly explained or eternally outside of our efforts. I like unexplained better than paranormal as it lends itself to the sideshow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.134.202 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced

Added an "Unreferenced" tag to the whole article 11 April 2007. This is an important article with a lot of forward statements that need to be supported with references. Later on I may add more specific citation needed tags. Cheers. Schmitty120 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed tag today. Schmitty120 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Added NPOV tags to the sections "Competing Explanations and Criteria of Preference" and "Alleged instances of supernaturalization," because they were written with a naturalist POV. The former section makes supernaturalists look like idiots for choosing comfortable but irrational explanations for phenomena. It's watered down with some weaselly "mays" and "some peoples," but this just makes it more boring to read without removing the POV. At the very least some sources are needed for the claim that pervades this article, that the science cannot work with the supernatural. The naturalistic POV at the end of the latter section is, I think, fairly obvious and again, cries out for attribution or deletion. Cheers. Schmitty120 22:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

In regards your comments on "Competing Explanations and Criteria of Preference" are you ignoring that both points of view are presented? Certainly the term supernatural begs the term natural. Those could and often do represent opposing points of view, but as is pointed out in that section there are many that embrace both depending of course on thier criteria of preference. Exactly what bias are you talking about? Gkochanowsky 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I decided to add a cleanup tag today, which will hopefully attract some helpful attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schmitty120 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Under Cleanup I would submit the following paragraph from Section 1. It is wordy, muddled, stream of consciousness. It is terrible 6th grade writing and terrible amateur philosophy.

"So, if something 'supernatural' exists, it must by definition not be supernatural. And only magical thinking that power could come from where power could not come from could contend otherwise. i.e. a contradiction in itself. The question is where may power come from, or if there are other as of yet confirmed or understood places where power comes from. i.e. likewise, for if bigfoot is found and confirmed, he will not be mysterious or supernatural. In the past, people doubted the existence of the rhinoceros. There is little present belief in the existence of the Unicorn. Certainly there may always be things outside of the realm of human understanding, or as of yet unconfirmed and dubious in existence, and some might term these 'supernatural.'" Talkingtomypocket 02:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Religion as a science???

Did you all ever stop to wonder whether or not religion is a science. A record keep of supernatural events that can't be catagorized into the mainstream deffinition of science. Repetative events. For example the buhdist belive that through medition and pondering a state of higher egsitance can be obtained, science has proven that "finding yourself" , the modern term, leads to more fullfilling life and heallthier lives at that. scientifically when poeple get struck by lightning weird things happen to their brain and bodies, some good and some not so good. maybe the buhdist route might take a little longer but it is probbible safer. Similair teachers are within both christs "life everlasting" teaching and in the hindu realms as well. Babalonyan scholars thought the Hebrew bible was an amazing conglomeration of sociology in both personal and cultural context. But thats how they get you huh. After you start to explore the Realities of the religions that have survived and quite a few don't. you start to understand how and why religion is there in the first place. To understand that which in not understood. I belive in god for what its worth.

Frankly, I don't think that believing without evidence adequate to the claim is worth anything. A religion fails to qualify as science when it requires or even merely hints to anybody that they shouold accept something with no future possibility of questioning.

No, I never stopped to wonder if religions were science, because it seemed very obvious to me that they're not. Scientists are required to account for both evidence at the time of their writing, plus all evidence that comes along later. Countless religions once claimed that a deity hurled lightning bolts. When the theory of electricity and clouds came along, those who maintained "belief" in Thor, Zeus, and Wotan were obstacles to accuracy. In the mere 200(?) years science has been around (science didn't exist prior to the 1600's) the ancient religions have been challenged and have lost, over and over again. Racism, slavery, arranged marriage, and monarchy were all supported by unprovable religious views. Racism, slavery, arranged marriage, and monarchy did not fall until people demanded better answers.

(There are times when I wish science was, itself, a religion, with a deity. I'm really grateful to it for the abolition of racism, slavery, arranged marriage, and monarchy. The profound emotions of my gratitude and my respect will probably just have to go to waste. Drats.)

The more neurologists figure out how thinking and memory and emotions actually work, the more the 'spirit' believers have to look elsewhere for worthy evidence-- Science demands there has to be more than "I just can't believe it happens because of a brain and hormones like oxytocin." Should we not research how the conscious functions because we should be happy with the common religious explanation that we all have a "soul"?

A religion fails to qualify as science when it fails to subject itself to peer review. A religion fails to qualify as science if it fails to require that published information cite a pedigree to permit independent checking of its accuracy. A religion fails to qualify as science when it fails to write why its leading competitors could "get things so wrong". The list of differences goes on and on. Science has rules called the scientific method.

Okay, maybe some religions began as honest attempts to explain things way-back-when. But, science is alot more than merely "trying to explain things". It also includes, being willing to let concepts go, not ordering people to "believe", as many religions do. Science says, "Belief has to be rightfully earned-- and keep on being earned-- in the face of new information." "Belief", for a scientifically-minded person, means commitment to an idea-- but only so long as the idea is supportable. Scientists have to be faithless, abandoning theories when there are better ones. I prefer not to use the word "faithless" here. I'd rather remain "faith-free". Faith is adherence to an idea in spite of evidence against it. (If there was evidence, it wouldn't be "faith", it'd be "a conclusion.")

(--ThinkFest)

To answer what I think is your question, religion and science are generally considered to operate in different realms, with different methodologies. Religion operates through introspection , received teaching and appeal to ancient texts. Religious teaching is usually established by a hierarchy, promulgated from authorities to ordinary people, and rarely changes, regardless of human progress. That's why it's called religious "dogma". Science operates though observation of natural phenomena, and attempts to explain and predict by developing principles or "laws" that encompass the observations and provide a basis for understanding them. While science has its hierarchies and cherished principles, these are all ultimately subject to new findings, deeper understanding and new principles that encompass and extend the old. Religion does not do this. This is not to say that psychological or social insights cannot be gained from religious practice, but as a method for finding truth about the natural world, religion doesn't even come close to science. Talkingtomypocket 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

While understanding that religion and science are different ways of approaching the world, you seem to be interested in similarities among world religions. I can recommend two of the classic texts in the field, both available on Amazon.

The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley

The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James

You can look at the Wikipedia articles on Huxley and James to get a feeling for these guys. These were some cool old dudes. Talkingtomypocket 23:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Why does this article start with the Controversy, before anyone has a chance to understand what supernatural even is?

Secondly, I had to quit reading because there was more in the article about Materialism, than there was about Supernatural. Hegelian Dialectic does not inform, but clouds the actual topic.

Third, since the article has be usurped and is about Materialism (nominally, marginally, about Supernatural) then we need to examine Materialism's follies. Materialism is a subjective view of the universe, starting with bias, and ending with the same bias ("I think only the physical universe exists"). Hence Materialism belies itself. I could go on. Can we make this article about Supernatural, please? 99.161.154.162 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to improve section 1, paragraph 2, the part after the quotes. Please examine my edits. I have also eliminated references to Superman and Wolverine as these are purely fictional, not supernatural. Talkingtomypocket 00:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

"Many claimed supernatural phenomena vanish when they are examined closely."

Usually the phenomenon doesn’t vanish. The grill cheese sandwich with what looks like a likeness of Jesus is still there. It is usually the case that the explanation of the phenomena in terms of a specific version of the supernatural is found to be inadequate or inferior in predictive power to other explanations. This article as well as many others in Wikipedia suffers from a lack of distinction between the phenomena and a specific explanation. Gkochanowsky (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! WP needs to be more objective in its NPOV. Supernatural is more of a lack of explanation than an explanation. Mike0001 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Restored NPOV

I noticed a bias in the Arguments For and Against sections and have removed it. Mike0001 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a good ideaTutonite (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Supernatural is Not Real

I am going to end this argument: God is not real, and that is final. The supernatural is not real either, because the definition of the word "supernatural" means "anything that breaks the laws of nature and/or physics".--98.199.76.184 (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Arguements against a Supernatual reality

"Many suggested supernatural phenomena vanish when they are examined closely. There have been, for example, various studies on astrology, most of them with negative results[7][8][9][10][11](a single positive result cannot outweigh many negative ones, as it can be expected by mere chance)."

Ok here is something to ponder, ... as per the previous statement a single affirmattive answer cannot outweigh multiple negative ones... What does that make math? Because we all know that 2+2=4, 3*3=9, 100/4=25, and 3-2=1. Also that none of the following are corect 2*2=5, 6+5=12, 10/2=3, and 6-6=1. Personaly, I belive that arguement has no legs to stand on.

--Integraracer1989 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)Integraracer1989 09:36 EDT 20080805

A bit too late, but I couldn't resist answering this one. Your logic is completely flawed. The statement says that more negative than positive studies/evaluations on a claim/a set of claims (like astrology) means that the claim(s) are wrong. Saying that 2*2=5 isn't even evaluating anything. If you say it's evaluating the "correctness" of mathematics ... it's not. Mathematics is not a claim. Like science, it's a method, a way of doing things. --wj32 ^t/c 05:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Cdesign proponentsist

"William Dembski writes: "For the theist attempting to understand nature, God as creator is fundamental, the creation is derivative, and nature as the physical part of creation is still further downstream".[3] " While he's better qualified as a theologian than as a mathematician or scientist, he's not a reliable source, so I've removed it. . . dave souza, talk 13:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It also isn't clear in that context what he's saying and there are UNDUE issues since he isn't a major theologian. Good call. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge with paranormal?

According to the first sentences of Supernatural and Paranormal, the difference is that the former describes "entities, events or powers … that … lack any clear scientific explanation" while the latter describes "unusual experiences that lack any obvious scientific explanation." As it stands these distinctions do not seem sufficiently clear-cut to warrant keeping these articles separate, which would argue for merging them. If however there is a substantive difference then it needs to be brought out more clearly in the first sentence of each article. At present Wikipedia is in effect claiming that they're essentially the same thing without explaining why they need two articles. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Any objections to merging Supernatural with Paranormal? One obvious objection is that there's a nontrivial amount of material in both articles, which will take some work to reconcile. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be possible to be merged after one missing differentiator is properly formulated in both articles. Namely, from the scientific perspective, supernatural is something totally beyond control e.g. miracles, thus lack the possibility of scientific verification through repetition, while as in the context of paranormal e.g. ghost hunting, some sort of communication is under consideration at least. --Marttir (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Arguments in favor of a supernatural reality" - I feel kind of cheated. No argument was actually presented! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.64.175 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please specify your wish in more detail? Reality is something that comes from the nature, unlike supernatural. For me, supernatural reality is absurd like the question, what was before time? --Marttir (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What about this contention?

See link: A Secondary World with codes --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is hopelessly confused

This article requires a sharp etymological account of the term "supernatural". When was it first used? How has it been applied? And so on. Is the term "supernatural" contemporary with natural philosophy (BCE 15th 16th) as it would seem to be? If so, it stands against the developing structures of explanation of natural philosophy, which became science. It would then indeed be a term used to either denigrate or denote a phenomena that was yet to be explained by natural philosophy and, later, science. This surely cannot be an article that deals with the profundity of ontology, since the term "supernatural" is so caught up in an embattled relationship with burgeoning science.

But the whole is confused anyway. It is not clear that the topic deals with science, and science is confused with materialism/physicalism at different points. Science is not, as I think some other contributors have pointed out, the same thing as materialism - one (science) is a practice, the other (materialism) is a philosophical stance that may explain such a practice in metaphysical terms. Surely the purpose of the article is to define the term "supernatural" and give examples of its usage, not organise a horse-race between science and religion or ghosts or whatever else is being proposed here.

The admittedly weighty debates that people are understandably keen on engaging with should occur in the talk section on the "ontology" entry. 121.45.57.202 (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 'A word for unexplained events'

This view is essentially subset of the following "Another part of a larger nature" (the title of which should probably be changed). Lynn Thorndike's thesis concerns Christian Europe during the early middle ages, during which time the scientific method was not in use. Many Greek schools of thought, such as the Epicurean school, considered the universe as primarily a natural phenomenon years centuries before the scientific method. Similarly, early Buddhism also denied supernatural and magical explanations. I am deleting this view as it is redundant and in error by merit of being too culturally specific if it is valid at all.24.80.229.203 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)