Chance v. Design Part 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, August 20, 2012, 20:26 (4476 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Dhw just replied that he doesn't like the word "supernatural." Maybe you should both consider the definition I raised in this thread. Dhw, might I offer a mathematician's guidance? Let's just define the terms.-Supernatural-- adj. A phenomenon that is unexplainable according to known laws and observation.
Natural-- adj. A phenomenon that can be explained according to known laws and observation.-Tony has rightly highlighted the fact that the term "supernatural" is often associated with irrationality ... you are regarded as a crank if you take so-called supernatural experiences seriously. The crucial point is that the laws we know and the observations we make are so restricted that we have no explanation for many of the phenomena we experience even in our daily lives. There are no known laws or observations that can explain consciousness, but I suspect that both you and I believe it exists. So is it to be called supernatural? In some contexts and for some people, the term entails going beyond the unexplainable into the realm of the fantastic, and the borderline between the two is subjective. That's why I don't like the word.-To illustrate this: Tony has asked you why "dark matter" and "dark energy" are not categorized as supernatural ... after all, they can't be explained according to known laws and observations. We don't even know what they are, and yet they are discussed in all seriousness. OBEs and NDEs and shared visions, however, even when they provide information corroborated by third parties, are dismissed by some people as "supernatural", and so not to be taken seriously. The faith of the materialist is based fair and square on the assumption that all the unsolved mysteries "can be explained according to known laws and observations", while I as an agnostic am not prepared to make such an assumption, because maybe the laws of Nature extend far beyond those that we know. It's not the definitions that are the problem, but the associations and assumptions.