The Existence of the Supernatural: An Unnecessary Assumption

by Ervin Taylor, August 8, 2016: SUMMARY This discussion considers the conjecture that there is only one type of reality which we here will simply call Reality. A centerpiece of this conjecture is that Reality is totally naturalistic. For theists, God, however this entity is conceived, inhabits this Reality just as humans and all other sentient beings in the universe/multiverse do. The “supernatural” does not exist. Only the “natural” exists.
We observe that the category of “supernatural” and the contrast between supernatural and natural is of relatively recent appearance in Western thought. It appears that this category was a unique conceptual invention appearing at the beginning of the transition in Western culture from the Medieval to Modern Era in the early 16th Century. What appears to have been the principal purpose of the natural/supernatural distinction was to create a space for the development of a new way of approaching the study of the physical world that occurred in the West in the early 16th Century. This new way of approaching how the physical world operated evolved into what came to be called the Western Scientific Revolution in the late 16th Century.
An important component of this conjecture is that only a very tiny fraction of Reality, as defined here, can currently be perceived by contemporary human observers directly or even with the current set of technologies which today can dramatically extend our observational capabilities. Perhaps, at present, the most serious problem may be that we, as yet, possess neither the necessary sensing structures nor cognitive systems that can process information that would be coming from all of the elements which constitutes Reality. It is possible that a part of this deficit may well include how the environmental sensing systems and brains of Homo sapiens are currently configured.
The goal for which the natural/supernatural paradigm was created has been fully realized. Because there is only one Reality, for both theists and non-theists, we posit that the supernatural can be retired as a theological category. We suggest that one of the positive results of adopting this point of view is that it is compatible with the rejection of the belief that humans possess a separate, non-physical soul that survives physical death.
A Superfluous Category
Several years ago, a physics colleague mentioned that a century ago in his field, there was posited the existence of something called the Ether or sometimes, the luminiferous Ether. The purpose of this substance was to provide a physical medium for the transmission of electromagnetic or gravitational forces.
Early in the 20th Century, a series of investigations − one of them the famous Michelson-Morley experiment − were designed to define more closely the nature of this assumed substance. All of these experiments failed to detect this supposed substance. In his 1905 paper outlining his Special Theory of Relativity, Albert Einstein stated that he had rendered the existence of the Ether superfluous. It did not have to be invoked to explain anything about physical phenomena. After a short interval, the majority of his peers concurred and the Ether and the reality that it was supposed to represent were considered as being nonexistent. We might say that this nonexistent concept joined phlogiston, and later it is where non-existing entities such as N-rays and cold fusion were placed. Let us employ as a soft analogy what had happened to the concept of the Ether in physics to consider if the supernatural as a conceptual category in theology can be permanently retired from serious consideration. To put it bluntly, it never existed and does not now exist.
However, it is assumed that no one would dispute the assertion that this nonexistent category of “supernatural” has played and continues to play a major role in the religious conceptions advanced by many modern faith traditions, including most branches of Christianity. It’s probably safe to suggest that, in the view of representatives of traditional Christian religious communities, faithful adherents are expected to believe in two separate realms of reality: the natural and the supernatural.
Definitions: Natural and Supernatural
To initially frame this discussion, let us first consider definitions of these two terms. In the context of our topic, we first define natural from two perspectives and then present a single definition of supernatural.:
Natural is that which exists as a part of the physical or material world of entities of currently known, or as yet undiscovered, characteristics which have the current or potential capability to be observed and examined by human agency, either directly or indirectly, through a known or yet-to-be-developed set of procedures.
Let me quote the definition kindly suggested by a colleague in a discussion group, with additions by the writer in italics of additional elements that reflect the thesis being presented in this paper:
Natural is that which exists and is known to the senses and to science as currently constituted and conceptualized, or will be in the future constituted and conceptualized, about such categories as energy, space and time, operating exclusively as defined in terms of empirically derived processes, as currently known or as yet to be discovered.
In contrast to the natural, here is the definition of supernatural:
Supernatural is that which exists as the product of the actions of non-physical or non-material/non-physical beings, entities and forces of a superior order above the natural which have the capability to interact with and influence the physical or material world.
Non-Existence of Supernatural/Natural Distinction in Pre-Modern Western Thought
From a historical perspective, there appears to be no ancient Hebrew text suggesting, or even hinting, that the conception embodied in our current Western distinction between the natural and supernatural had ever been made. With only one possible exception, there also seems to be no evidence that this distinction ever occurred to any early Christian writer. The only possible exception are statements written by or attributed to Paul. What we today label as the separate categories of natural and supernatural were, among both the Hebrews and early Christians, totally fused into one undifferentiated category.
With regard to Medieval Christian literature, based on various secondary references and a discussion with a distinguished scholar familiar with this literature, it appears that no medieval writer addressed any topic where the natural was clearly distinguished from or contrasted with the supernatural.
Natural/Supernatural Distinction
The invention of the word supernatural to contrast it with natural has been traced to the efforts of several early Renaissance intellectuals in Italy and France to separate that which could be known and understood by humans, using only their unaided reason, from that which could only be known to humans as the result of special revelation from God, including that which is transmitted through special individuals.
It appears that the principal purpose of creating the natural/supernatural distinction was to clear a space where the study of the newly defined “natural” world could be pursued without reference to strong dogmatic beliefs derived from interpretations of texts of biblical writers or Aristotle or the dictates of the then-dominant religious authorities, whether Catholic or Protestant. The reality of the supernatural realm was not denied and traditional religiously derived beliefs were not challenged. The new theme projected by advocates of this age could be summed up succinctly in the justly famous comment of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) that “The Bible shows us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.”
The majority of the first generation of the new natural philosophers felt no need to challenge any traditional Christian doctrine and most lived as or declared themselves to be loyal communicants of whatever religious organization was dominant in the region where they lived. All they sought was to be left alone to do their newly defined work of explaining how the materialistic natural world functioned.
A scholar familiar with the literature of this period suggested that one of the earliest sources of the original form of the natural/supernatural distinction could well have been a French philosopher who happened also to be a member of the Roman Catholic clergy, Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655). Another possibility was an unknown member of the group of early 16th-Century French Philosophs — a set of “free-thinking” intellectuals who were known to have gathered around Gassendi in Paris.
Gassendi himself is best known to historians of science as one of the first European intellectuals to formulate the elements associated with what we now regard as a scientific approach to understanding how nature operates. He is also widely known by those familiar with the history of philosophy and theology for his efforts to reconcile ancient Greek Epicurean atomism with Christianity.
Supernatural as Superfluous Category
It is the thesis of this discussion that the category of the supernatural as generally conceptualized in most current traditional Western theological and religious communities is a superfluous category. To put this suggestion in a more concrete form, the category of the supernatural is unnecessary. It was conceived to solve a specific problem that no longer exists. Therefore, it is posited that we should consider working from the perspective that there is a single unitary reality — what some might then call natural reality. However, since what is being suggested here is that there is only one type of existence, we will label it as simply Reality.
It is probably immediately necessary to emphasize that a denial of the existence of such an unnecessary category traditionally labeled in modern Western thought as “the supernatural” does not necessary deny theism. The existence of God, however conceptualized in contemporary popular or formal theological discourse, for example as Tillich’s “Ground of Being,” is not necessarily called into question if one accepts the proposition that the supernatural does not exist as a category that explains anything about Reality as defined above.
Any suggestion that rejecting the existence of the supernatural automatically denies the existence of an entity to which, in English, the term God is applied, is rejected — or, to use an ecclesiastical term — any such suggestion is declared anathema. Some may not accept that proviso, so some further exploration of the details of this argument may be needed.
In an effort to be thoroughly transparent about the nature of what is being posited here, credit must be given to a distinguished theologian who read an earlier version of this paper and suggested that it might be helpful to state, without equivocation, that a logical consequence of a rejection of the natural/supernatural distinction means that, using the definition of natural employed here, God, however conceived by different schools of theists, would then have to be considered as a natural entity, as defined and stipulated in this discussion. The author is happy to confirm that this is the view being advanced here.
It is recognized that this point of view requires a reorientation of some of the classic Western characteristics assigned to the concept of God familiar to the general laity and which are contained in some historic Christian creeds. If one is to accept that the view being outlined here merits at least continued dialogue, a reorientation of the traditional conceptions and characterizations assigned to God certainly would seem to be necessary. For example, the best known among the general laity for characterizations of the Christian God have traditionally included, from a long list, the three “Omni’s” from the Latin word meaning “total, complete or perfect.” These characteristics are (1) Omnipotent, meaning “All-Powerful,” i.e., that this entity can do anything that he/she wants, if it can be done, (2) Omniscient, meaning “All-Knowing,” i.e., possessing perfect knowledge about what can be known, and (3) Omnipresent, meaning that the deity can be present in any place in the universe simultaneously. A fourth possible characteristic that might be added is “Omni-Loving.” There is the suggestion that at least one of these attributions might need to be highly nuanced, if not totally abandoned.
The need to reconsider the historic attributions that humans have attached to one or more human conceptualizations of the Christian God is similar to that which has been thought necessary because of the issues created by the theodicy problem. To refresh readers’ memories, this is the problem of reconciling the attributes associated with the Christian deity with the existence of evil. In considering all of the issues just noted, we need to remember that all of the attributes assigned to the Christian deity have been assigned by humans. None of these assigned attributes fell down from the sky from some presumed heavenly realm.
Returning to the thesis of this discussion, another well-regarded theologian confirmed to the author that the simple idea being advanced in this paper—the idea that the supernatural, as defined here, does not exist—could be aligned with a view expressed by theologians identifying with the Process Theology perspective. Clearly, it is stipulated that the manner and vocabulary which theologians of this school employ to advance this perspective is much more conceptually sophisticated. I have been informed that in Process Theology the idea expressed in a highly simplistic form here is treated in much more depth, structured with more conceptual rigor and placed in the appropriate philosophical and theological context. However, the author is gratified that the basic idea presented in this paper, in such a simple manner, has been considered previously by mainline professional theologians as something that is worthy of reflection.
Confirmation of Existence of a Natural Reality (= Reality)
In expanding somewhat on the thesis being presented, let us first affirm the postulate that the natural world exists independent of human perceptions. Part of that natural world is the “ordinary” reality of objects as currently detected by the human senses, with or without the enhancement afforded by various forms of currently known technology. However, it is stipulated that there are a number of conceptual and philosophical issues that require us to nuance many aspects of how the natural world is generally perceived by the sense organs currently possessed by Homo sapiens, as reported to the large brain of this habitually bipedal, largely hairless primate.
It is stipulated that there are many questions such as the degree to which what is actually “out there” is being detected by the currently constituted, aided or unaided human sensing systems. In the context of this discussion, two of the most important questions that need to be addressed are: (1) the nature of the extremely complex, multilevel, human physiological and neural processing of primary sense impressions, and, (2) the relationship between the coding of such experiences in human language systems and the means we have for correlating the language-coded individual’s sense perceptions to construct accurately the world external to the human organism.
In the context of this observation, there appears to be no accessible objective, i.e., publicly accessible methodology, to, on a one-to-one basis, map our sense impressions—aided and/or unaided by current or future technology—onto some hypothetical “bare” physical reality. We thus will stipulate that (1) we currently do not have direct access to that which exists, i.e., Reality and (2), all human perceptions of any part of Reality are interpreted or processed in multiple ways before the processing centers of the brains of humans become cognizant of them.
For purpose of this discussion, the significance of recognizing the problems of detecting the natural world because of the complexity of all of these interconnected perception and processing issues is stipulated. However, accepting all of these provisos, it is posited that there is no compelling publicly accessible data that would cause one to conclude that the natural world does not actually exist and is only a projection of the human brain.
On the basis of these arguments, we will then accept as a postulate that if a tree falls in a forest with no human observer, it actually has fallen. It is a fact of physical Reality. It is asserted that the lack of a human observer in the macro-world of nature is irrelevant to the reality of a perceived or inferred physical event or condition. (With regard to the relationships involved in the micro-world of subatomic physical entities such as quarks, these issues are totally beyond the ability and probably intelligence of the writer to understand the mathematics, or even appreciate the experimentally-confirmed reality of the quantum world.)
Stipulating the Existence of Critical Unknowns
Close readers of the definitions of “Natural,” which, in this discussion, is considered to totally encompass “Reality” as defined above, may have noticed the use of phrases such as “the current or potential capability,” “currently known or undiscovered characteristics” and “processes as currently known or as yet-to-be-discovered.” These phrases are important in the conceptualization of the thesis that only “The Natural” exists. This is because that, fundamental to the arguments presented here, is the view that the physiological and cognitive means which we humans currently possess at this stage in our evolution may be existentially seriously deficient. At present, we simply may not be able to perceive, let alone understand, the range of phenomena that exists within the category we are positing as constituting “The Natural.”
If this is even partly true, then we may be looking at the passage of many generations of humans awaiting further developments in the way our brain functions and in the way we code the information that becomes available to us, before we even have a small chance of perceiving additional parts of what is being called here Natural Reality, or just Reality.
One way of illustrating this concern would be to think of the entire range of our assumed information about that Reality as being represented by all of the frequencies currently assigned to the AM radio band in the United States. Ordinary radios are built to receive all AM frequencies. However, let us here rather assume that all radios were built to receive only one AM frequency. Let us also assume that no citizen of the United States is aware of the fact that there is more than one AM frequency. In fact, no one in the entire history of the United States has ever conceived of a radio as having the capability to receive more than one frequency.
In this crude illustration, all of the AM frequencies represent what we think we know about Reality, and all U.S. citizens are all human beings. In this case, there is obviously a great gulf that separates what they think they know about the number of AM frequencies and what actually exists.
But the illustration can be used to represent an even more acute problem. There also exist all of the FM frequencies, all the TV frequencies, the military frequencies, the emergency frequencies, the cell phone frequencies, and on and on. In our illustration, we humans are totally oblivious to 99 percent of the assigned electromagnetic frequencies representational of this “Reality.”
But perhaps this illustration is deficient. Let us consider a second one.
Two members of the Loma Linda University Church Sabbath Seminar class recently offered another analogy of the problem that we are here addressing. It needs to be emphasized that this illustration was not conceived by the writer, but offered by two much more creative individuals.
Let us assume that “Reality” is represented by 100 trillion jigsaw pieces (we can also use Legos). Actually, we should probably say that the number of such pieces would probably be, at least, several hundred orders of magnitude more numerous, but, for this illustration, let’s go with 100 trillion. Our goal is to assemble the picture that exists when all of the 100 trillion pieces are assembled together correctly. That picture will then tell us something about the true nature of Reality in this part of our universe.
Let us now ask: “To how many pieces of this Reality puzzle do we humans currently have access?” Let us be generous. Let us say we have 12 pieces with which to work. Some may object, “That’s not realistic.” Okay, let’s be really generous. Let’s say that when we combine all of the information available to all branches of humanity in the 21st Century, accumulated over the entire period of time humans have been on this planet, we have a grand total of 37 pieces out of the 100 trillion.
How do we go about trying to assemble our 37 pieces to construct a picture of “Reality”? Well, we have a number of problems. First, we don’t know what the picture that would result from assembling all of the 100 trillion pieces correctly actually looks like. Second, we don’t have a clue as to where any of our puzzle pieces are supposed to go in that unknown picture.
If these illustrations even faintly represent the problems we humans currently have with perceiving—let alone, understanding—”Reality,” they can represent a helpful corrective that allows us to realize that whatever “big picture” we think we currently have that represents anything about Reality, we are like little children at the seashore picking up grains of sand and thinking that we currently have all the information we need to construct in our heads the nature of the “Reality” of the entire world. Of course, such children do not even have the linguistic tools to conceptualize what they are trying to do. We humans are, of course, the “children.”
In light of this point of view, this conjecture would include a stipulation that we obviously would not limit God and the current species of humans existing on planet Earth as the only entities that inhabit all of Reality–however conceived. We are aware of the disputed views of the Schrodinger/Hawking type that our universe is just one of many in the multiverse. Whether Reality involves just one or many universes, we would conjecture that the number of sentient or self-conscious organisms of whatever physical configuration that this posited Reality contains would also exist as part of a natural Reality.
Problematic Existence of Supernatural
In turning to the traditional Western Christian understanding of what is encompassed within the category of Supernatural, it would seem that we immediately encounter a very different conceptual element from that which we defined as Natural. Of course, the author might, and probably will, be corrected by someone much more informed about these matters, but he is not aware of any generally persuasive argument that has, to date, been offered that concludes that humans possess any publicly accessible objective evidence that confirms the existence of the category, in English, labeled as “The Supernatural.”
It is argued here that all such evidence presented to support its separate existence—however conceived—is, at best, radically subjective, i.e., is not publicly accessible for independent investigation. It needs to be quickly added that this observation is not–repeat not– insisting that reported subjective experiences classified by some as being of supernatural origin, did, in fact, not occur. The literature of religious mysticism which has been collected over millennia from various types of societies represents a truly massive corpus of such reports. What is at issue is the precise nature of these reported experiences. A more nuanced way of putting this would be to say that the issue is first to determine what exactly is the range of the cross-cultural human experiences attributed to the supernatural, however conceived, and then to determine their precise natures (plural).
All that is being said here is that the writer would appreciate being directed to any publicly accessible body of data that confirms to the satisfaction of some group of reasonably objective observers that the existence of the supernatural has been clearly demonstrated. Some may wish the word “disinterested” to replace “reasonably objective” in that sentence. The reason that “reasonably objective” is used is because it is suggested here that a good case can be made that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to locate a truly disinterested individual when this topic is considered.
On the other hand, perhaps a group of well-informed adherents of an appropriate branch of Buddhism might be assembled who might be considered disinterested with regard to the Christian-oriented reports of the existence of the supernatural. I admit, however, that I can think of reasonable objections to believing that even these individuals would be considered disinterested parties.
The previous paragraph has been written, cognizant of a distinction contributed by the American theologian Philip Clayton, who outlined what he views as four levels of personal adjudication of theological or metaphysical assertions. He disputes the binary view that insists there are only two ways of evaluating theological or metaphysical propositions: by agreeing or disagreeing. Clayton has suggested there rather are four levels of justifying the giving or withholding of assent to some theological or philosophical proposition or set of propositions.
Conclusion
It is suggested that there is only one kind of reality, not two. There is only a natural reality—which we can simply call Reality. We suggest that the idea of the supernatural was a conceptual invention brought forward at the beginning of the Modern period in the West to create a space for the development of what eventually became the 16th-Century Western Scientific Revolution.
This development of this concept had the effect of allowing the study of the physical world to be undertaken with a minimum of interference from those still functioning within a Medieval world view. The Western Medieval Age of Faith and Miracles gave way to the Western Age of Science, and it is here argued that the betterment of mankind was thereby enhanced by several orders of magnitude. Today, the distinction between natural and supernatural need no longer be made in the name of supporting any brand of religious orthodoxy. There is only one Reality and, for theists, not only humans but also God inhabits that Reality.
All types of observations, comments, objections, affirmations and disagreements of a constructive character are solicited.
Appendix
Comment: Before concluding this discussion, the author wishes to note that he is certainly aware of several cogent objections to the thesis being advanced here. One such objection would be that the author is simply engaging in a semantic game. What he is doing is merely renaming the concept of the Supernatural and assigning it as being a part of the Natural— a part which we currently cannot access. That, it could be charged, is actually not changing anything. In response to that criticism, may I respond by saying that I am currently of the view that this is not a renaming exercise. I submit that removing the category of the supernatural and declaring that all that exists, i.e., Reality, is totally naturalistic in character fundamentally alters a core concept that has existed in most contemporary Western religious traditions since the beginning of the Modern era. However, such a change does not logically require that a commitment to theism be abandoned. That said, I am certainly open to being corrected.
Acknowledgements: The author wishes to express his appreciation to a number of individuals whose names will not be cited here because it was not thought prudent to cite them by name in a text that was to be posted on the Internet. Nevertheless, I feel that it is necessary to thank the members of the Loma Linda University Sabbath Seminar for considering the arguments presented in this paper in an earlier version and offering many constructive comments. A University of California-Riverside philosopher and two Loma University theologians also provided extremely helpful perspectives on several points. Obviously, these individuals may or may not agree in whole or in part with any assertion contained in this paper. Also, any error of logic and fact about any topic considered in this paper is solely the fault of the writer.
Ervin Taylor is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology and Past Director of the Radiocarbon Laboratory at the University of California, Riverside. He is also currently a Visiting Professor at the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA and Visiting Scientist at the Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory at the University of California, Irvine. He has served as the Executive Editor of Adventist Today.
If you appreciated this piece, please consider giving a donation to Adventist Today to keep this quality of content available!
Erv,
The only reality we can experience is natural reality. Makes sense.
That said, there may be more than natural and supernatural. How about virtual reality? Elon Musk is of the opinion that it is billions to 1 that we are not living in ‘base reality’.
http://www.iflscience.com/technology/elon-musk-thinks-theres-a-one-in-billions-chance-we-dont-live-in-a-computer-simulation/
What are your thoughts on the chances we are living in neither natural nor supernatural but rather in virtual reality?
Maybe Paul was sharing an adumbration of virtual reality when he wrote to the Corinthians that spiritual knowledge, spiritual practices, and prophecy are all temporal, while faith, hope, and love endure?
Definitely an interesting exercise in thinking.
Erv,
Why use the pseudo-wisdom and twisted logic of philosophers to evaluate the supernatural and our perception of it when God has promised to reveal Himself to those who seek Him, thus bridging the illusion of a divide between the supernatural and reality to become real to us? What purpose can such a long philosophical discussion achieve other than to satisfy the craving of those who would rather debate about God than experience Him? Or to drive a wedge between the spiritually weak and their salvation? After reading your treatise, I am more fearful than ever that you are taking conscious leave of faith in God.
William Noel,
Amen!
Ervin. This simplistic issue of only naturalistic “reality”, a natural evolving intelligence of humankind, over eons, is the only logical explanation for human thought patterns, the essential objective, for the current understanding for mankind of the here and now, and our
Earth habitation, in the infinity of the Universe.
For all we know, this may be a satisfying answer, for one rigidly grounded with feet permanently mired in the clay. But it is not satisfying to most of the Earth’s people, who have a gut hunger for actual reality of their origin, both alive, and all who ever lived. Why is this?? Those, from the ancients onward, recognized an intelligence, not of this Earth, was
responsible for creating what we call life forms of exquisite phenomenal complexity of endless nano scopic, to the 1000th power, or higher, systems, as the DNA of life forms. This can not be just because a hen laid an egg!!
Your concept of simple “evolving reality”, without a super natural designer, the reason you accept the Bible is of metaphoric and myth, to satisfy the gut hunger of mankind for a “godfather”.
Prof. Taylor,
It is going to be difficult to engage me ontologically if we are not epistemologically simpatico. I mean the nature of reality has to be framed with an epistemological hammer. Bill Garber says, Elon Musk has calculated very long odds (one billion to one) we are not living in a computer simulation. Who are we to judge him wrong? By what authority?
It’s just one, big, deconstructed, multiverse where everything is possible and nothing is knowable. The Grand says who? All that business about trees falling in the forest when nobody is listening is hopelessly outdated & tribal. It all depends on what you think!! That is true reality, the reality you create. The text means what you think it means. Everyone is entitled to define the universe; each on their own terms.
End of discussion.
Hmm. I guess the interest here is, how do we stop Dr Taylor messing with our preconceptions of what Reality ‘actually’ is. Three initial questions:
1. Is it legitimate for us to infer that when Paul states ‘that which can be seen (observed via our aided or unaided sense apparatus) is ephemeral, (ie, is subject to the physical laws of our perceived ‘space-time’ ‘reality’), and, ‘that which is not seen (not perceptible to any of our sense apparatus), is eternal (ergo not part of the Reality known as space-time universe/multiverse) ?
2. Do you share a philosophical compatibility with James White who argued on the basis of naturalist philosophy that anyone or thing which exists, including ‘God,’ is made of some kind of matter (is that a rerun of Atomist theory?).
3.Does ‘dark matter’ exist in your version of Reality?
I thank Mr. Agafonoff for his interesting comments and questions (1) Paul is one possible exception of a premodern who hinted of a natural/supernatural distinction. But this needs to be further explored with Pauline scholars. (2) James White is turning out to be a very interesting individual. For example, he initially said that the Investigative Judgment doctrine was not biblical, but then had to modify this view probably because of his wife. Now it is suggested that he took the position that God was made of matter. Is there a reference to which one could go to read about his point of view on this? (3) As I understand it, “Dark Matter” has been proposed by physicists to explain certain features of their observations about the expansion of our observable universe. There is a need to understand more about the “dark matter” concept from someone with appropriate expertise to answer your question.
Whoa Ervin,
Paul is one possible exception of a premodern who hinted of a natural/supernatural distinction. But this needs to be further explored with Pauline scholars.
How about Jesus of Nazareth?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death. Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead?… …Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
In this text Jesus is totally dismissive of the space/time continuum and the grim ‘reality’ of death. (John 8 and many other places also)
We don’t have to wait for the Pauline scholars. The bible is full of pre-modern people asking, “how?” as they encounter or contemplate the supernatural (God and His Angels). The medieval term ‘supernatural’ expresses not the idea of ‘unnatural’ or ‘not natural’ but beyond or above the natural, observed, cause and effect that determines nature’s course.
Any theism that doesn’t place θεός outside and above the space/time continuum is weak tea.
Mr. Abbott makes a mistake that we all make from time to time in projecting backward in time distinctions which we take for granted but which probably was typically not being made in previous periods. This is commonly done in conventional religious discourse in which a number of distinctions which we Western moderns make are just offhandedly assumed to also be part of understandings of the ancient Hebrews. It is sometimes hard to pick up these up because of some of the mythological and poetic styles of expression and that ancient Hebrew had a limited vocabulary when compared to English, for example.
But Erv, do you not make the same mistake and fall into the same trap? Agreed Western moderns (your classification) assume that ancient Hebrew and those within Call and linage of understanding have less to offer. But then do they not demand like inclusion? While those within Calling and linage are blessed through the Gifts of generations? Then you yourself use time as a distinction to jump back and then pull forward; because of Western modern assumptions? Calling it mythological or poetic?
Erv,
From the text the Jews thought Jesus was talking crazy. Never dying, always living. It was not conventional religious discourse.
If you think I am projecting. How about some specifics?
Erv,
What are you talking about? The Jews, Pharisees no less, who believed in the resurrection, thought Jesus was crazy.
Jesus was talking about a supernatural reality, where the dead are living and the living never die, and the text makes it plain the Pharisees thought He was blasphemously mad.
This was not normal religious discourse for the parties involved.
Your indictment that I was guilty of projecting the present onto the past is specious and totally lacking specifics.
You need to respond to what Jesus purportedly said. Not accuse me of misunderstanding it.
Cont… (tho it appears the first part has gone astray. Will continue, in hope)
James White merely asserts that becuase he can’t conceive of a such a thing as an immaterial reality, then noone, not even God, can. But he does ask one of the all-time perennial philosophical questions: ‘how does that which is immaterial impinge on that which is material.’ The assumptions of course being that since we humans are material, how can an immaterial/spiritual entity, such as God, interact with us? Its kind of the obverse of what Dr Taylor is asking: how can we assert the reality of anything which we cannot perceive by our sense apparatus? In the form JW asked it, he presumes that humans are of material nature, only, therefore, the immaterial can never be perceived by them. Ergo, it cannot exist. Ah, the problem of presuppositions.
If humans are matter only, how can religious folk believe that God is spirit? Since that Spirit being has no means of communication? JW was at least consistent with his philosophy, if not NT teaching.
Which leads to the critical third aspect. If reality is only that which is subject to sense perception, and therefore of material nature, what does Dr Taylor propose for a theory of free will? Materialism demands determinism. Free will of material beings not permitted or possible.
First part…
1. Dr Taylor, Are your Pauline scholars also up on their quantum physics. (I note that you do not appear to have consulted any of those in your preparation for this neverhteless interesting study). When Paul drew his distinction between the observable realm and the ‘eternal,’ he appears to be tearing apart even the concept of natural and supernatural. The eternal is not supernatural. It is not part of spacetime at all. As Jesus was reported by John (the other great mystic of the NT)… My kingdom is not of this cosmos. Quantum physics will, as spacetime continues, be more likely to disprove the thesis of this article than to prove it.
Cont…
Will have to rewrite the second part. WOrdpress is rejecting all cut and pastes of the original.
2. Basically, James White was an unabashed, and utterly dogmatic, materialist. He was also an Arian in theology. His basis for materialism was simple: “Immateriality is but another name for non-entity… It has no way to manifest itself to any intelligence in Heaven or on earth. Neither God, angels, nor men, could possibly conceive of such a substance, being or thing. It possesses no property or power by which to manifest itself to any intelligent being in the universe.” R&H May 13, 1875, p.156. (Imagine that being written in an article in the R&H today.) Reported in ‘Adventism and Ellen White: A Phenomenon of Religious Materialism, Thomas McElwain. http://www.ssp.nu/vmchk/Alla-bocker/Adventism-and-Ellen-White.htm
Erv, your piece is like the atheist laid to rest at his funeral–all dressed up and nowhere to go!
Dr Taylor, I’ve been thinking more about your proposal. I’m not sure you will like the implications of this story: http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/experiment-confirms-quantum-theory-weirdness
The report starts with this: ‘The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.’
In simple terms, and at the quantum (sub-atomic) level, consciousness (in this case in the form of measuring) is what determines the nature of the kind of reality that exists. So what? you say. Well, I’m not at all sure, except of this: Reality is clearly not the apparently stable, permanent ‘thing’ our sense apparatus, coupled with our interpretations of the sense data, tells us it is.
And for you I have a question: Is consciousness a phenomenon of matter (the so-called ’emergent theory of consciousness’), or is matter a property of consciousness. Mind over matter? or mind out of matter?
I was reared in the home of a physician whose practice included praying for patients, but did not rely on “faith healing” as a primary therapy. Dad said the process of one or more human beings helping a suffering fellow human being regain (or at least reach a tolerable level of happy existence) was a Christian opportunity and that even as most illness came because of scientific realities and causes (not by fiat from On-high), so Christian health-care workers could expect most healing would result from scientific-style cause-and-effect initiatives, as a way of often educating patients to avoid repeating the mistakes that had led to their initial sickness.
Chaplains would come in and anoint and lay hands on the bodies of extremely ill patients, and occasionally one would revive “miraculously.” But we never had a comatose patient rise up and walk in response to a one-time prayer with oil and elders. As a scientist Dad felt that too-frequent “miracles” could militate against the teaching of good-health principles that he and his staff were attempting to inculcate.
When these Bible stories were written, it was widely believed that all sorts of miracles occurred. The Greeks who wrote much of what we know about life before Christ, had stories of gods and goddesses who were both mortal and immortal. “That the dead could return and interact with the living was a commonplace of the Greco-Roman world, and neither pagans nor Jews would have have assrted that it could not happen” (Crossan, “The Birth of Christianity).
The world as recorded in the Bible from beginning to end is filled with what today would be called impossible events, other worldly, supernatural. But one thing that should never be forgotten: The Bible is not basically a history book, but a story of people and events which were the oral tradition of the Jews. The Gospel are also not historical, but Gospels: The Good News, written to tell the reader of what the early believers had experienced and heard. They were written to encourage believers in their life-changing experiences: their zeal in expectation of another world; it is their story and they do not claim to be history.
Elaine wrote (cf Crossan):
“That the dead could return and interact with the living was a commonplace of the Greco-Roman world, and neither pagans nor Jews would have have ass[e]rted that it could not happen” (Crossan, “The Birth of Christianity).”
Luke wrote (cf Paul and Festus):
“I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen—that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”
At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.”
“I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable.”
Was Festus a typical pagan of the Greco-Roman world?
Who was full of non-sense, Crossan or Paul? Who was true and reasonable?
Elaine wrote:
“The Gospel are also not historical, but Gospels: The Good News, written to tell the reader of what the early believers had experienced and heard. They were written to encourage believers in their life-changing experiences: their zeal in expectation of another world; it is their story and they do not claim to be history.”
Luke wrote:
“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilleda among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.”
Would Luke not claim that his “orderly account” based upon his “careful investigation of everything from the beginning” was an historical narrative?
In CE 66, a massive Jewish rebellion broke out in Jerusalem against the Roman Empire. Rome responded in CE 70 by sieging Jerusalem, and then sacking and destroying Herod’s Temple. This siege and sacking constituted a brutal bloodbath in Jerusalem and is an event mourned to this day by Jews in a yearly event called Tisha B’Av. Oddly, this event is never mentioned in the epistles. Jesus seems to prophesy Jerusalem’s destruction (Mark 13: 2, Matthew 24, and Luke 19) four decades before it happened. If this is truly what these verses refer to, why didn’t any of the New Testament books affirm that Jesus’ prophecy had come true? Because the Gospels were all composed before 70 AD.
Luke makes it clear in the preface to his book of Acts that this is a sequel to his Gospel (Acts 1: 1-3). Clearly, Elaine, the Gospel of Luke is written prior to the book of Acts. Since, as mentioned above, the book of Acts probably predates the death of James in CE 62, this means that the information that Luke has about Jesus’ life and ministry and the information that he passed on in his Gospel may well date within forty years of Jesus’ death.
This is what modern scholarship and textual study show us.
It is indisputable that the three most influential people in the early church (or at the very least, the New Testament record) were Apostle Peter, the most vocal of Jesus’ original disciples, Apostle Paul, the most prolific writer in the New Testament, and James the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the core church in Jerusalem. James was martyred in the city of Jerusalem in CE 62. Apostle Paul was martyred in Rome in CE 64, and Peter was martyred in CE 65. Not only does Paul’s official historian, Luke, fail to memtion any of their deaths in Acts, but none of the Epistles, including John’s and James’s, mention the death of either. They were alive when these books were written. Ergo, we have there composition in the first century.
Furches, Joel. Christ-Centered Apologetics: Sharing the Gospel with Evidence (pp. 28-29). Crosslink Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Just to see this clearly–The book of Acts was authored after the book of Luke and The book of Acts fails to mention the death of Paul, Peter, and James .
The book of Acts fails to mention the destruction of the temple. Paul cites what appear to be passages from the Gospel of Luke in his letters to Timothy (64), and the Corinthians ( 57) 1Corinthians 11: 23-25,
All of these factors lend strong support to the idea that Luke’s Gospel was written fairly early. Consequently, it is telling to see that Luke’s Gospel appears to draw heavily upon the Gospels of Matthew and Mark for source material. Luke’s Gospel contains whole passages that appear to have been copied from Matthew and Mark’s Gospels. The Gospel of Luke contains 350 verses from Mark and 250 verses from Matthew. In the introduction to his Gospel, Luke makes no secret of the fact that he is simply retelling the events of Jesus’ life that he was not directly witness to. He also states that his object is to tell the story in an orderly and organized manner (Luke 1: 1-4).
And the Gospel of John is entirely unlike all of them. The sequence of events and the miracles are quite out of the ‘order’ of the other three. Three, which copy each other, vs one more unique version of ‘events.’ Makes Elaine’s version of things just as likely.
I think we are off-topic here, and I didn’t start it. But I will try to bring it back:
Is there such a thing as ‘cosmic consciousness’ or better, ‘Christ consciousness?’ Is this the thing which gives us ‘consciousness?’ or is our ‘sense’ of the ‘numinous’ just another epiphenomenon of our material existence?
Is Erv a materialist? I know he is a theist, but you can be a materialist and a theist both at the same time; even if it is uncomfortable.
Isn’t a unified, material, universe what he is after?
Darrel,
We should go off-topic like this more often. Great information.
It seemed appropriate ????
Romans 2:
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,
18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law;
19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law.
Kind of like this?
Conviction – Could you offer a more tangential, irrelevant cornucopia of non sequiturs? I doubt it. I find few things more annoying than pious, non-responsive Bible Kung fu. I am often a defender of fundamentalists on this website. But non-comments like yours make it difficult. They are a real turn-off. If your goal is to alienate rather than persuade, you are wildly successful.
Curious, Nathan, that your comment should appear just above that of Robin, who invokes Star Wars imagery in his comments. Because I, like you, cannot make sense of Mr C’s posts. I find the syntax mostly incomprehensible. So I no longer engage with them. Instead, I just smile and think, ah, Yoda is at it again.
(I dont want to make fun of Mr C, and I am sure a lot of people can’t eb bothered with what I post here also, and that is fine. Offence not mean we.)
Here’s the problem I have with “comments” like Conviction’s, Serge. He is flashing Bible texts as a sort of Crucifix used by vampire hunters. It’s like a third grader covering his ears and shouting, “Not listening, not listening!” To drown out what he doesn’t want to hear.
On this website, I don’t view overtalking the blog or other comments as reasonable. And it seems to me that simply reciting a series of Bible texts, devoid of any attempt to interact with the conversation is the rough equivalent of waving a crucifix at Dracula.
Nathan,
Conviction is very consistent. He waves the scripture at everybody, not just evil fiends.
Most homeopathic/naturopathic therapies only do harm when they are crafted to exclude more beneficial treatments. It is no use trying to persuade the practitioners that they are deluded and wasting their time resources and imagination on magic not medicine. They do not have ears with which to hear. Let them eat their magic food and take their magic pills – it does them no harm.
If the first rule is: First do no harm. Then ask yourself how much harm is done quoting scripture? That is the bulk of what Conviction posts. Second, most of the rest of his content is cryptic allusions to God’s sovereignty and saving grace and mankind’s rebellion and sin. If he is repetitive, so are we when it comes to sinning (speaking for myself).
And once in a while Conviction says something really clever. I can’t remember the context but he was right about something, I thought obviously right. Conviction confessed, ‘I am not smart’ – completely missing the implication that the other party to the dispute, who was wrong, must not be smart either, not even as smart as Conviction whom he was arguing with. I thought that was wicked funny.
I meant no ill intent.
Serge asked “Is there such a thing as ‘cosmic consciousness’ or better, ‘Christ consciousness?”. I thought Romans 2 was the perfect example. HE is in our hearts. HIS Law is written there and our conscious processes try and convict us. A perfect network of consciousness; HIS.
It is beyond instinct, because we are here. We do not eat our kids or the weak; totally against survival of the fittest. It is not supernatural, because we exist and are in nature.
We are so single point. The tools to even our language reflect such. Without parable, how does one state such linear things as good and bad, action and reaction, pros and cons within language? Then to move past linear, how does one scratch the surface? Is HIS Word not written to us all as such a single point? Yet HE said HE would soon use words. Should we not move towards that?
HIS circuit is the perfect link from HIS existence to ours; if we are HIS. We often look at it as a single line; because we are singular. If we are at Church is it a party line? Maybe it has always been such a perfect network of conscious existence; the complexity of absolute simplicity.
I only try to place us into relevance of HIS picture. Without HIM there is no picture.
EGW, now admittedly hugely tainted and suspect due to her palagiarism, and many documented false statement, obviously believed in the supernatural–
God’s entourage of extra-terrestrials– she labeled this “the universe”.
She conferred on this “universe” a huge role as jurors/deciders/arbiters, in her signature work, the Great Controversy. They were allegedly to “vindicate” God and indict Satan. Trouble is, after multiple millenia, and counting, this mythical “universe” seems woefully absent and unable to perform their assigned function.
In my French class today we learned the French for UFO’s and aliens, “OVNI” and “extraterrestres” proving that every language has reference to the supernatural. Our epic movie series STAR WARS, with John William’s magnificent musical score embraces the supernatural.
Difficult to describe the concept of EVIL without invoking a Satan.
Such a shame that God chooses to hide so many pieces of the jigsaw or Lego.
We are left groping and grasping for answers and EGW’s toxic and inexplicable Great Controversy dogma makes the supernatural– her “universe”— even more far-fetched. These “supernaturals” would have to be primitive primates as in the movie PLANET OF THE APES, not have long ago reached a satisfactory arbitration our planet’s abyss of anguish and agony!
Erv states, “None of these attributes [omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence} fell down from the sky from some presumed heavenly realm.” The reality of the matter is that yes, they did.
We would reasonably expect that if “God” is a natural entity, as urged by Erv, then its attributes would be similar to the attributes of other natural entities. But the “God” described in the Bible is unique. I think Erv would agree that natural entities such as human beings are not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. I think Erv would also agree that the “God” of the Bible represents itself and is described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. If what the Bible says is true, then we make a linguistic error by classifying “God” as a natural entity. Such error would be akin to classifying a toaster as a human being, a watermelon as a bird, or a cloud as a plant. Because the attributes of “God” are unique, (and certainly omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are unique attributes), we are justified in placing “God” in a category that is all its own, that is different from the category for entities that do not possess such attributes. That category for “God” is the supernatural. Contrary to Erv’s thesis, the ancients perceived that they and “God” were in two different categories. Accordingly, the distinction between the natural and supernatural is as old as the earliest Old Testament writing.
Erv – who is “we?” I confess that I didn’t go through the training necessary to fully appreciate the additive value of employing what here appears to be the royal we. Nor, despite an above average vocabulary, do I purport to be skilled in penetrating the ponderous patois of scholarly exposition. So it is from relative ignorance that I find myself scratching my head.
The Apostle Paul, who perhaps wished to reach a wider, less sophisticated audience, seems to agree with Erv. “For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then shall I know, even as also I am known.”
It is entirely possible that walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, and bringing the dead to life – even self-resurrection – is but a product of undiscovered natural processes, and am gratified to see such openness on Erv’s part to what might felicitously be referred to as a supra-rational or supra-sensory dimension of reality…meaning that yet-to-be-discovered understanding or empirical confirmation may be necessary to the conceptualization of the phenomenon. Personally, I tend to use the term “transcendent” rather than supernatural. I’m not sure if they mean the same thing to Erv.
So here is another question: Why does it matter if the modern dichotomous conceptualization of reality is unnecessary? Unnecessary for what?Concept is hardly synonymous with experience. What is conceptually necessary – e.g., neodarwinian theories of life to function and survive as an evolutionary biologist – may be experientially completely unnecessary – and quite useless – outside that world, and vice versa.
No one could trace the trajectory of my life, and conclude that the assumption of the existence of the supernatural has been unnecessary to that trajectory. Experientially, it has played a vital role in the values and behaviors that form my family and my community.
The notion that a God who created freedom might be a NECESSARY assumption borders on the oxymoronic. So it seems to me that falsifying the concepts used by Renaissance thinkers to persuade folks whose view of reality is experiential lay founded on the Bible is a straw man argument.
Which brings me to my final question: Why isn’t God an unnecessary assumption? How does it make any sense, given your definition of the “natural,” to posit God as part of the natural order? You must definitionally relegate Him to a psychological projection rather than an objectively identifiable part of the physical world. This is not Theism. It is Atheism.
It is also quite possible and was accepted for most of known history that miracles were part of daily lives and not all that unusual. Today, skepticism is born of our understanding that was unknown prior to even most of the 20th century. It was not out of the ordinary for people who were thought to be dead to return to life (before there was the preservation of bodies today) and a report of a miracle in the next village was nothing out of the ordinary.
Just read in the Hebrew Bible and calculate how many miraculous events were recorded and how few, if any of those could be reported today without more than a little disbelief and absolute skepticism. The Bible was written by ancient people and they believed what they wrote to be true. But that does not mean it was factual, a there could be no investigation as would be done today.
Elaine,
You apparently haven’t lived in the mission field where “supernatural” things happen all the time. These are cultures much like that of the Bible. No, I haven’t been there but have talked to many who have. Now I would say these are “natural” events as Ervin says, but they are certainly “miracles” to the people who don’t understand their cause. These people are dealt with by both (God and the adversary) on their level of how their brains work.
Actually many in the west often have unusual things happen as well and don’t talk about it much for fear of being stigmatized.
Just as in Jesus’ time I would conclude they are natural events that are either God-caused or demon-caused. I know that’s a hard pill for you to swallow and it won’t be in any of your theology books. But it does exist.
Actually, I just finished reading parts of Crossans’ “The Birth of Christianity” which is rated as the finest yet in describing how Christianity began in the world. At that time, as he illustrates in many pages, people saw nothing extraordinary in events that were very similar to those described in the Bible. People are influenced by those around them, whether of the same beliefs or different.
It was not considered unusual for virginal conceptions of God with humans; of dying and rising again, so their acceptance of such miracles were accepted as normal. They also believed in evil spirits and demons, which is why they are described in the Bible: those were common at that time.
It is the same in countries that are still greatly influenced by witches, “spells” and magical healing. Most native cultures have had their shamans who were consulted for advice on many such things.
Today, we in the 21st century do not need to believe that God is love (it’s only by faith, not evidence) because of the miracles written about him, but because the principles he gave us are timeless and do not require beliefs in such stories to be Christians: followers of Christ. His teachings and life are what we should know, not the stories about miracles.
Elaine wrote:
“Most native cultures have had their shamans who were consulted for advice on many such things.”
In our modern cultures we still have our “shamans”. We call them “consultants” or “spiritual advisors”, etc.
I have collected a fair amount of money consulting for various companies in matters related to electronics technology in general, and computer and communications technology in particular. I have held myself to a high standard of objectivity. Had I held myself to a lower standard I could have collected far more revenue by telling my clients what they wanted to hear.
Elaine wrote:
“the principles he gave us are timeless and do not require beliefs in such stories to be Christians: followers of Christ. His teachings and life are what we should know, not the stories about miracles.”
This is a curious blend of reductionism and syncretism.
Modernism rejects the supernatural elements of the Christ narrative as superstition. The narrative must be de-constructed to remove the fables and extract the essential facts and principles. Given how little can be known about the “historical Jesus” we are left with the distilled “essence” of His “teachings”, since most of His “life” must be discarded as implausible super-natural claims of “miracles”.
This line of inquiry drags Modernism to its ultimate demise in Nihilism. Everything can be de-constructed. Little if anything survives.
On what basis do we choose what to believe and teach about Jesus Christ? What about His teachings about honesty? Must we apply these to His own claims of Divinity, attested by stories of miracles? Or evade this question by attributing anything we find suspicious or implausible or unpalatable, to His hagiographers?
Was He honest but His followers were dis-honest? They failed to learn His essential lessons? Unfortunately this is at least partly correct.
Who do men say that I am? Who do you say that I am? These remain THE crucial questions for any who claim to be Christians.
Phillip, i agree. God is a spiritual Unique Being. He is, is the Magnitum Quantum of all there is. He is the I AM, the ALMIGHTY SUPER NATURAL BEING. He is the Epitome of Mathematics. He is the ESSENCE.
One may use ‘supernatural’ to refer to what happens, that cannot be explained by normal non-agency, ‘natural’ laws of physics. Jerry Coyne’s statement below for example.
“If supernatural phenomena like divine healing or accurate religious prophecies (were shown) then we might be forced to abandon our adherence to completely material explanations.” Faith vs. Fact pg. 93
We see the contrast he is making. But when one digs deeper into the matter, pun intended, we should rightly say “everything,” that is, every ‘thing’ is supernatural. For the only truly ‘natural’ is nothing, that is, no thing! The natural state is for no thing to exist. This would mean that we are all ‘supernatural’ because exist. As Bill Preston sang it:
Nothin’ from nothin’ leaves nothin’ You gotta have somethin’ If you wanna be with me — Billy Preston (1974)
Another way to define ‘supernatural’ would be to view it as anything more organized than quantum foam, for as entropy increases over time, all things will surely return to quantum foam, so that is what’s ‘natural.’
For me it makes great sense to view everything as supernatural, because God would be the only natural, non-contingent, and eternal. Everything else is Created.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
I really like this comment, Darrell. Like most of your observations, very solid and provocative.
RESPONSE TO ERVIN: Can you imagine, I like what you have written and agree with your thesis! There is no supernatural for God always uses natural methods and laws to work through. To Him all is natural including His existence. How He created is all natural to Him. His reality, of course, is much larger than ours.
I particularly like the puzzle imagery. Which leads to an argument I have made against human time perception and that of our Creator. You are admitting that we know very little about God’s reality or reality in general: about the cosmos, time, space, laws, etc. I would suggest we know little to nothing about the creation of life and its supposed evolution. Subjective scientists in their enclaves have decided and taught through pop science what they want us to believe or what they think is true at this time. Their theories to me are incoherent, unintentional and unbelievable to common sense or as one scientist said against our intuitive belief in design. My computer did not make itself and couldn’t in a billion years.
“Subjective scientists” is a caustic label to use for those who have, over centuries, tried to understand “why” and “how” our world is as it is known. Where would we be without their total objectivity and curiosity to discover what no one has explained before?
Were Galileo, Newton, Einstein, to name only a few, only seeking glory for themselves? Did God not create humans with curiosity? How would we know much of what we know today without ours and millions of others using the God-given ability to learn and understand “Why”–one of the first questions a child asks, and one we should never stop asking.
Because we think that their “theories are incoherent, unintentional and unbelievable to common sense” says nothing about them but everything about anyone who would say that. I do not understand how man can go to the moon or design computers, but I greatly appreciate how they have opened up our knowledge of the world, if only a teeny bit, and would never denigrate them in any way.
Most of the great discoveries were by accident. Those you list had to actually fight against subjective scientists; and we definitely appreciate them. How much potential did we loose along the way in such subjection? We have actually made many discoveries, simply by breaking down the linear progression of discoveries and placing things in a different light. Maybe we were not ready or capable of handling that potential; HE knows best. HE always has and that never changes; HE never changes. But HE did make us to grow and we are a curious, inquisitive bunch; a peculiar people. Beautiful Elaine and we should definitely always cherish that.
Elaine wrote of scientists in general: “total objectivity and curiosity”
Might I suggest that most scientists would rate higher in curiosity than in objectivity? And even more so for inventors? The former are constrained by the challenge to be able to independently reproduce our results, the latter by the challenge to actually demonstrate that the figments of our imagination actually work in some useful sense. The “objectivity” comes from the “subjective” values of the larger community that enables our work and evaluates our work product, rather than being an innate animator of our individual and collective endeavors.
Elon Musk conjectures that the chances are very high that we are a simulation within some larger meta-reality, a figment of some super-cosmic imagination rather than our own self-contained reality.
I think, therefore I am, I think?
Jim, here’s another variation on the Cartesian theme:
I observe that I am thinking, therefore I must be more than the sum of my thoughts.
Serge,
About 45 years ago Yours Truly and a colleague wrote a paper on Artifical Intelligence, wherein we postulated (amongst other ideas) that the Brain simulates the Mind.
But if our thoughts are merely part of some larger simulation on some unknown meta-simulation platform, as Musk suggests, then Descartes would be wrong in the direct sense that he intended.
Whether we actually observe that we are thinking or only imagine that we are thinking, cannot be proven nor disproven.
For myself, I embrace the Biblically-derived concept that so long as I exist within the “mind of God” I exist. Regardless of whether I did/do/will exist on any other platform, the “mind of God” suffices for me.
Which brings us back to Darrell’s comment that our existence is not “natural” but rather “supernatural”.
Elaine, I think you know I am not talking about the great thinkers of the past who opened up the universe for us. Today we have Darwinian science that dominates all of society, education, museums, secular thinking and even mainstream religion. Anyone thinking differently can’t get published. These men have spent their lives and careers upholding the status quo and few step out to try a new direction or consider other logical paths which would rarely mean giving up most scientific laws but would enhance it. Instead they only associate with peers who think like them. That is called subjectivity. Yes, this is in religion as well and that would make science a kind of religion.
I am not one to think salvation is based on 100 percent belief in fundamental religious creation–that depends on motivation for belief. But Darwinian science is a closed philosophy.
I have written a Christian novel partially on this subject and how it impacts people in everyday life. You might want to check it our on Amazon entitled Starting Over in the Past under my name.
Dear Erv,
An excellent piece of work. Very thoughtful and provocative. After printing a hard copy and studying it carefully, several things appear to me.
First, the idea of “supernatural” arising in Western culture in the early 16th century. While Europe was in the Dark Ages, Islam had been flourishing and its influence spread throughout the world. Apart from scientific and mathematical influence, the arts and philosophy also flourished, though sadly its sun appears to have set.
You mention “one of the positive results… rejection of the belief… (of the) soul that survives physical death.” Were proofs offered, through logical inference, to demonstrate the plausibility of survival of the soul after death, would this qualify as sufficient to reinvigorate use of the term “supernatural”?
For example, in the Quran 2:154 there is direct reference to this theme: “And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah (God): “They are dead.” Nay, they are living, though ye perceive it not.”
So if we could prove that the appearance of Muhammad was in fact Biblical, such a verse would enter the conversation meaningfully. Would it not? So how would we do this?
Some months ago, a member of the Sabbath School Book Club proposed that the prophecies of Daniel, if proven, would affect the outcome of the ongoing science and religion debate. He was strongly criticized for this. Hence, let us consider the possibility from the standpoint of Carbon 14 …
… of Carbon 14, your forte.
The Dead Sea Scrolls, I assume, predate Christ, whether by a hundred or several hundred years, and other ancient textual sources generally accepted, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but these various texts include Daniel and Revelation, both of which speak of the number 1260 in various forms, such as 42 months of 30 days equaling 1260; 3 1/2 times 360 equalling 1260, or 3 1/2 days or years, etc.
In relation to Adventist theology, 1844 was “the number” for the year of Christ’s return, with the assumption that He didn’t keep the appointment. Now if we Google a Muslim/Christian calendar converter, we soon discover that the year 1260 AH is 1844 AD, which brings us back to Daniel and Revelation. In fact, Daniel’s last vision occurred in Elam, or southwestern Iran, where in 1260 AH, i.e. 1844 AD, a new calendar was created by the Bab (Gate) with the year ONE BE.
Now if the Bab’s claim to be the Promised One is true, then the two witnesses of Revelation are in fact Muhammad and Ali, and Islam is the logical progression of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religion. Otherwise, a billion Muslims coincidentally appeared on the planet by coincidence, and just “happen” to be related to 1260 AH = 1844 AD = ONE BE.
Why is this relevant to the paper you have presented? Because you have requested: “that the writer would appreciate being directed to any publicly accessible data that confirms to the satisfaction of some group of reasonable …
Dale wrote:
“The Dead Sea Scrolls, I assume, predate Christ, whether by a hundred or several hundred years”
Elsewhere I have propounded some evidence that the DSS portions of Daniel are pre-Maccabean, notwithstanding the present scholarly consensus.
“please correct me if I’m wrong, but these various texts include Daniel and Revelation”
Daniel – YES / Revelation – NO
The bigger problem with your proffered “proof” is that there are several other equally plausible ways to correlate the parallel passages in Ezekiel and Daniel on the one hand, and Revelation on the other, with subsequent history. Being able to show how subsequent phenomena correlate with prior predictions, is not the same as showing that these predictions actually anticipate said phenomena. Rather this only demonstrates that said predictions are not inconsistent with subsequent phenomena, a much weaker claim. This limitation permeates both “science” and “theology”. correlation does not imply causation.
Disclaimer – I DO believe that Daniel and Revelation successfully correlate with each other and with future events. But I do NOT claim to be able to “prove” this.
of reasonably objective observers that the existence of the supernatural has been clearly demonstrated.”
Baha’i Library Online is just filled with data and information which is recent, when compared to 3000, or 2000 year old scripture, or 1400 year old scripture, etc. In my humble opinion, the data is in. There is more than one AM station out there.
Best regards,
Dale
Dale,
Various Baha’i web sites do indeed offer very cogent explanations for the 2,300 day prophecy of Daniel. To an external observer, they correlate history with this prophecy at least as well as the particular Miller/Edson/Crosier synthesis currently taught by “historic Adventists”. In both cases, the proponents must appeal to “supernatural” or “transcendent” events to demonstrate that their “fulfillment” actually occurred.
Since there is no known way for humans to reproducibly observe these phenomena, there is no way to directly prove or disprove these conflicting religious claims. They are simply a matter of faith. You can choose whether or not to believe them. Your religious predilections may make one of them more or less plausible than the other.
The same could be said for choosing to believe the Book of Mormon, though in the latter case I submit that subsequent repeatable discoveries have nullified many of its claims (eg DNA sequencing has nullified the claims that Native Americans are descended from the “Lost tribes of Israel”).
Here I cannot resist a historical/political digression.
The degree of “suspension of dis-belief” required to accept some religious claims as TRUE (and likewise some “scientific” claims), pales in comparison to the “suspension of dis-belief” required to support either major-party candidate in the present US presidential election. We unfortunates are confronted with a Hobson’s Choice between a woman who has no conscience and a man who has no soul.
The Donald has dragged political discourse to a nonsensical level not seen in “Democracies” since the “socialist” totalitarianism of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks. In the process he has managed to do something that I previously thought highly unlikely – make Hillary look good by comparison.
Jim: ‘DNA sequencing has nullified the claims that Native Americans are descended from the “Lost tribes of Israel”).’
That should come as no surprise. Even the Israelites in Israel cannot prove by DNA that they are descendents of Israel. Have you not read Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People ?
Herewith a few comments on the original article by Dr Taylor.
1) I have no controversy with the notion that there is only one ultimate Reality. However, to reduce all scientific and/or theological and/or philosophical discourse to this single category, is to obfuscate much of what can be known and described. I resist any tendency to return human enquiry into a post-modern Dark Ages.
2) There are different manners of perceiving Reality. Different subsets of Reality can best be perceived by different methods. I have frequently espoused “binocular vision” – ie learning to look at phenomena through BOTH the “eye of (empirical) facts” and the “eye of faith”. Both “science” and “religion” employ mixtures of the “eye of facts” and the “eye of faith”.
3) The debate on how best to perceive and describe Reality is not recent – it has been proceeding for millennia. Consider, eg, Thucydides, Socrates, Democritus and many other ancient luminaries. These preceded
(continued)
4) Considering the “eye of facts” it is useful to decompose Reality into subsets, based upon the amenability of phenomena to empirical observation and mechanistic explanation. Here is a simple decomposition that avoids philological pedantics.
a) Let P1 be the subset of phenomena in Reality (R) that can be observed via physical human senses, potentially aided by technology (eg telescope, microscope, spade, etc).
b) Let P2 be the subset of P1 that is amenable to repeatable observations.
c) Let M1 be the subset of phenomena in R that can be described by mechanistic causal/behavioral models.
d) Let M2 be the subset of M1 that can be described by rigorous mathematical/algorithmic models.
5) Newton’s classic Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica was a monumental systematic attempt to address the intersection of subsets P2 and R2 of Reality. The title is very precise, as befits Newton’s stupendous intellect. Restricting the scope of discourse to Natural Philosophy was specific and highly intentional.
6) Newton also wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation, applying among other ideas, the Year-Day principle later used by Miller. Newton would almost certainly have excluded this work from his category of Natural Philosophy.
7) Using different intellectual and analytical and observational tools to address different problems, was one of the key breakthroughs that has allowed knowledge to increase exponentially over the past few centuries. The antithesis is allowing one domain of “experts” to unilaterally veto other methods and modes of observing and analyzing and explaining Reality. Scientists from various disciplines rightly decry past attempt by theologians to veto their work. Ironically now that scientists are in the ascendancy in Western society they are committing the very same offenses they condemn in earlier generations.
8) One way to achieve intellectual dominance of the market of ideas, is to broaden the scope of enquiry over which one reigns. Establishing one category called Reality, could ultimately lead to one category of Thought Police, or more likely, protracted wars between different aspiring camps of Thought Police.
Let no man join together what Newton hath set asunder.
Dr Taylor wrote:
“It appears that the principal purpose of creating the natural/supernatural distinction was to clear a space where the study of the newly defined ‘natural’ world could be pursued without reference to strong dogmatic beliefs derived from interpretations of texts of biblical writers or Aristotle or …”
It seems to me that the reasons for the conceptual distinction between natural and supernatural are just as valid today as they were in centuries past. Faith and religion need a safe place to seek God without a lot of extraneous static from scientists who believe the only things that actually exist are those things that are, at least potentially, observable, aside from some quantum weirdness. Scientists need a safe place to pursue knowledge of nature without some goof asking “What are you going to believe, the Word of God or your lying eyes?” Something is needed to validate both sides, not dismissing either. Then … peace?
Schopenhauer was Einstein’s favourite philosopher. Maybe in these quotes from Schop. we might find some of the thinking behind Einstein’s oft-quoted one-liner: ‘Reality is an illusion… albeit a persistent one.’ Here are the statements.
“What gives our life its strange and ambiguous character is that in it two fundamental purposes, diametrically opposed, are constantly crossing each other. One purpose is that of the individual will, directed to chimerical happiness in an ephemeral, dreamlike, and deceptive existence, where, as regards the past, happiness and unhappiness are a matter of indifference, but at every moment the present is becoming the past. The other purpose is that of fate, directed obviously enough to the destruction of our happiness, and thus to the mortification of our will, and to the elimination of the delusion that holds us chained to the bonds of this world.
…
Awakened to life out of the night of unconsciousness, the will finds itself as an individual in an endless and boundless world, among innumerable individuals, all striving, suffering, and erring; and, as if through a troubled dream, it hurries back to the old unconsciousness. Yet till then its desires are unlimited, its claims inexhaustible, and every satisfied desire gives birth to a new one. No possible satisfaction in the world could suffice to still its craving, set a final goal to its demands, and fill the bottomless pit of its heart.”
I propose that “dark matter” is something which fills the minds of those who won’t accept the Light?
I assume that in spelling the word light as “Light”, DD is making some type of point. Would it be too much for him/her enlighten us by explaining what the “Light” is?
Ervin, I’m no scientist, but to my understanding the scientific fraternity invented the theory that “dark matter” exists–something they are unable to fully explain. I think it’s a never ending quest in trying to understand how the universe and all matter came into existence. What’s next?
“…we possess neither the necessary sensing structures, nor cognitive systems to enable us to process information from all elements of what we define as reality…”
Erv, this comes suspiciously close to an admission that we have epistemological barriers that preclude us from conclusively knowing all that constitutes reality. If so, then how can we possibly say whether the supernatural is a necessary assumption.? Wouldn’t your logic suggest that the practical possibility of the supernatural is in fact a necessary assumption for those who are intellectually honest?
I like the 100 trillion piece puzzle analogy. It presupposes a designer, though admittedly not a supernatural designer. So what if the designer embedded freedom into the natural order? What if a great many of the puzzle pieces are morphologically identical, but have subtle differences in appearance, giving rise to the possibility – the likelihood – of incorrectly assembling the puzzle? The pieces interlock fine, but the picture is a Cubist distortion of reality.
But you say, freedom, if it exists, requires us to find out these things by trial and error. It’s called progressivism. And I say, “Not necessarily. Perhaps – just maybe – the designer gave us a box top picture of what the portions of the puzzle that are accessible to us should look like, so we can fit the pieces together correctly. Wouldnt that be amazing! If only we could get our hands on that box top…
If Supernatural defines what is beyond our understanding, that would mean that for all of us there are many more things we cannot understand than what we are able to discern. There are some who are trained to understand more than others in certain areas, but no human has the ability to understand, let alone explain,
much of the world around him.
Ancients had their own reasons for explaining “apparent” supernatural occurrences for what we now have
rational explanations. Daily, scientists have discovered what were once believed to be supernatural or miraculous, have legitimate reasons. No doubt, there will be many more with simple explanations.
Elaine, I’m not so sure that the ancients were actually that interested in the kinds of things that science busies itself with. Rather than want to know how stuff works, they seemed to devote much more effort into thinking about the mysteries of life/death/existence itself. This is the kind of thing which defies science also. For the really big questions, philosophy trumps science every time. And what happens when science reaches the limits of its abilities? A lot more quantum physicists become philosophers than vice versa.
Originally, there were no “scientists” by or definitions today. They were philosophers or alchemists; the latter were searching for how to “make gold” and the scientific method has not yet been recognized. The wise men, who we still realize today as unlimited by time as are scientists, were the Greeks, primarily, which exerted the most influence: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras and many more. They revered the gods and their teaching was based on what was pleasing to their god(s).
I know personally, only one quantum physicist, my nephew, and have not heard him discuss God, but I would classify him as an agnostic, if not atheist. All true scientists. IMO, don’t dismiss or reject God, but realize that he is not subject to our investigation. How does one “study” an idea with no specific quantity?
Speaking of cubism, Nathan, I heard a nice, and apt, analogy the other day. Trying to solve some modern existential puzzles is like solving a Rubic’s cube, while the cube is fighting back!
And to continue in the “speaking of activism” vein……. In Cubism the artist broke down objects, then put them back together in an abstracted manner to depict them in a variety of viewpoints simultaneously, and by doing this they placed them in an entirely new context. Perhaps theologians do a similar breaking down and reassembling of Bible “truths” and place them creatively in new contexts.
Activism should read “Cubism… dern that spell correct feature!!!
Recently, on my trip to Poland I saw a man levitating off the ground. Is that natural or supernatural?
Quite natural, Peter, like all magic. The possibility of divine miracles being the product of natural laws operating within the realm of particle physics seems increasingly plausible. The question would then be – how did the natural laws come to be?
It seems inconceivable that natural laws (code) could arise spontaneously. So the source, almost by definition, would have to be supernatural, right? If we’re still on the same page, we then get to Erv’s question: Is that assumption necessary? Necessary for what? For the reasons I set forth last evening, I say no, it’s not NECESSARY, because I believe that freedom is built into the natural order. But if I want to assemble the “puzzle” effectively/correctly, then I must choose to not only assume, but existentially embrace, the assumption of the supernatural as not only the source of natural law and the order of nature – but also as a Personal Being that relationally frees me, as human being, from dependency on naturalism.
If it happened, it is a highly unusual natural occurrence which requires a high degree of objective evidence to document what actually happened. In this case, “objective evidence” would be publicly accessible evidence. In the absence of such evidence, a serious, rational individual could conclude that the observer was confused, under the influence of some controlled substance, or, for some other reason, communicating an untruth.
Our eyes are easily deceived. How many have seen people sawn in half? Disappear from a locked box, and suddenly reappear in that box again. Do most people, excepting children really believe their eyes, or recognize that “eyewitnesses” are not reputable at all. How many “eyewitnesses” to a crime have very different accounts?
Thanks Elaine for that bit of forensic information.
question:
“Do most people… really believe their eyes” Ahh Elaine, ask the scientists. doesn’t science, to which you so religiously subscribe to, rely on methodical objective data, and how do we get that data, by believing our eye that have observed the data. or maybe science is just an illusion?
Do forensic investigations allow CCTV footage as evidence?
Please read my account above to Erv. It wasn’t staged and no objects of illusion or trickery was available
Scientists do not only rely on their personal observational studies, but are repeated by a number of scientist who either confirm or disavow the results claimed. All such studies are worthless unless submitted for peer reviews.
How many separate and different levitational magic has been verified and validated by those who are trained in magic? Magicians, unlike scientists, never reveal their “secrets” as they are income-producing. Humans do not have simultaneous 360-degree vision, unlike some animals, even owls who come close. We cannot see in the back of our heads, or the back of any scene.
Erv:
I did actually film the person and around him, and have many eye witnesses, so I don’t think I or my camera were hallucinating. It happened in the city of Krakow in the public square and the public was all around the person. One lady, in a timid way, hurriedly walked up to the person and quickly slipped her arms above and below the person to make sure no wires or other supports were assisting the person.
“natural occurrence”? Please explain. Surely if it defies the laws of nature (gravity) it cannot be natural.
Nathan:
“magic” please define what you mean by magic!!
“quiet natural” -are you sure? read my description above to Erv. If you still think its natural please repeat this in the same setting with people having access to you 360 and able to put their arms above and below you. Oh and let me know so i or a rep can witness your natural feat.
Sorry Peter. Not biting. I’m not really interested in the paranormal.
Where are the Fox sisters when you need them?! Surely they could explain it.
The Bible indicates that Lucifer was cast out of heaven, to Earth, with a third of the angelic host. Supposedly the other angels are ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation. Then angels seemingly have eternal life or conditional long term life. If this is true, this would be supernatural. Is the Bible true??
I am just catching up with the discussion here but, wow, thank you Nathan for a very clear and helpful insight: ” if I want to assemble the “puzzle” effectively/correctly, then I must choose to not only assume, but existentially embrace, the assumption of the supernatural as not only the source of natural law and the order of nature – but also as a Personal Being that relationally frees me, as human being, from dependency on naturalism.”
I am reminded of how Scientism diminishes our Rationality as human beings. Because it’s reductionism defines the working of minds to deterministic chemistry.
Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”
CS Lewis. The Case for Christianity
I appreciate the affirmation, Darrell. Rereading the comment, a startling question occurs to me: WHAT IF THE NATURAL IS AN UNMECESSARY ASSUMPTION?
Is it just possible that, through the message of the Sabbath and the revelation of reality through the God-man Incarnation, God is telling us that we are not determined or controlled by the necessity(s) of natural, material reality? To me, that’s pretty mind-blowing.
Beginning with Genesis and continuing through Revelation, the dominant, recurrent question is this: Who do you trust – the Creator or your own sentient reality? Wasn’t the purpose of Jesus life, death and resurrection to reveal the loving God who is not bound by natural, material reality? Did the early Christians live with bold recklessness for Jesus because they knew he would perform miracles, or was their boldness produced by the conviction that the resurrection had made the natural order – which would otherwise be a mortal threat – an unnecessary assumption?
Could it be that, as the world and some Christians seduce us into believing that the supernatural may be an unnecessary assumption, God is calling us to see natural and material reality as certainly real, but an unnecessary assumption?
Nathan,
Jesus seems to have operated on your hypothesis: The natural reality is an unnecessary assumption.
And the Lord said, “If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.’
“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.”
Jesus said unto him, “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.”
Abraham too:
By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall your seed be called: Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from where also he received him in a figure.
Nathan,
Also, What about Jesus’ disregard for the elemental foundation of natural reality, time?
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Jesus said unto her, “I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”
God says, “Tell them I AM sent you.” I AM THAT I AM transcends the natural reality of beginning and ending.
Nathan you have hit the proverbial nail on the ol’ head; you have, you have. I have been searching for the right words the whole time this thread has been up.
The natural reality is an unnecessary assumption for all them that believe.
William, does this profound text add to your thesis?
2Cor4.18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
One translation uses ‘ephemeral’ instead of temporal. I would suggest that the ephemeral nature of the visible, observable, measurable realm is, by virtue of its ephemeral nature, less real than that which cannot be perceived with one’s eyes.
It’s Nathan thesis. Credit is due where credit is due.
Elaine writes, ” studies are worthless unless submitted for peer reviews” yet naturalists reject all peer review research demonstrating natural processes do not produce digital code
and/or the genetic machines that ‘read,” execute and edit said code.
Just a few examples below. At the cutting edge of biological science, especially Genetics, Naturalism is completely dead!
• Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).
• Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
• Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).
• Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).
• Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).
• David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
In the Middle Ages, this would not be questioned if given a religious twist. Witches flew around. The Devil bewitched people. Etc. But we don’t live in the Middle Ages. We have the advantage that our culture passed through the Enlighenment and the scientific revolution.
In the Modern world, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Magicians know many ways to fool the eyes into seeing things that the magician wants them to see and not see those things which needs to be hidden for the trick to work.
However, I must say that my curiosity is aroused as to what might really be going on. If you would put your video on Facebook and post on this thread the URL for it, I would certainly take a look.
“Perhaps, at present, the most serious problem may be that we, as yet, possess neither the necessary sensing structures nor cognitive systems that can process information that would be coming from all of the elements which constitutes Reality. It is possible that a part of this deficit may well include how the environmental sensing systems and brains of Homo sapiens are currently configured.”
I must admit this article didn’t turn out as I expected, and I found I agreed with much of what Dr Taylor had to say – especially the above quote. Consider ‘miracles’ – so-called. Why in our modern arrogance do we consider them either ‘supernatural’ or ‘impossible’? Who says they are not ‘natural’ scientific phenomena that we simply have no current tools to understand? Are we so full of ourselves?
As a simple example, Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawking seriously believe in the possibility of time travelling and alien life. Both ideas are serious today but would seem ‘supernatural’ to most, especially in the past. Hell, modern medicine probably seems ‘supernatural’ to our ancestors. Yet people think the idea of a time-travelling alien from the sky (John 3:16) is simply ridiculous.
To hone in on Dr Taylor’s last point, the only difference between Dawkins and the Apostle Paul is indeed the language. Use scientific descriptors = ok. Use religious descriptors = ridiculed. Semantics in fact matter a great deal.
“The literature of religious mysticism which has been collected over millennia from various types of societies represents a truly massive corpus of such reports… One way of illustrating this concern would be to think of the entire range of our assumed information about that Reality as being represented by all of the frequencies currently assigned to the AM radio band in the United States. Ordinary radios are built to receive all AM frequencies.”
Also very much appreciated Dr Taylor’s comments here. Not sure if it was his intent, but I have often thought, in great moments of doubt and despair, that there must be more ‘out there’ than modern sceptics claim, simply by the vast amount of cross-cultural material of religious experiences. Consider the idea of ‘angels’, ‘spirits’, ‘demons’ or other ‘supernatural’ beings – all cultures report them.
I further agree these religious experiences do not necessarily point to a ‘supernatural’ reality – just a ‘natural’ reality we humans cannot observe – usually. I love the analogy of the AM radio.
Now consider prophets. Consider Ellen White’s ‘mental illness’. Have you considered that she did have a mental illness, but she also wasn’t a fraud, but rather that ‘damage’ altered her cognitive abilities so she was say receiving ‘FM’ radio instead of the usual ‘AM’ radio. And of course, she interpreted those signals in her own cultural context, but the signals themselves may have been ‘real’. Same for…
I had missed earlier Mr. Ferguson’s helpful comment about the exact nature of EGW “visions.” One of things which is sometimes said by critics of EGW is that she was a conscious “fraud.” I don’t think the historical evidence supports that charge. She, like Luther and all of the great religious leaders, made many mistakes. It comes with the territory. She was a human being. A number of her errors were errors of fact that she was repeating from her immediate cultural environment. At the base, she was a devotional writer and mere facts were not too important to these individuals. Her histrionic personality and that she experienced periods of depression did not help. But a fraud. I don[‘t think so. However, if anyone has such evidence to present, it would be interesting to consider.
Neurologists who study the brain often see patients whose cognitive abilities are either damaged or are not functioning properly. The brain is a most interesting subject: It is possible today to pinpoint the exact location of a “problem” area and often remove or ablate the problem through technology available.
When the first lobotomies were performed, surgeons were essentially guessing at where the problem was. But it was discovered that removing that particular region of the brain there could be devastating results. One early surgical “experiment” was performed on the youngest sister of JFK at the request of Joe Kennedy. She became much worse. Another, a concert violinist was having mental problems and following this procedure she could not even read music!. But there have been many recent surgeries, particularly on Parkinson’s and epileptic patients where tiny electrodes can ablate particular areas causing the problem–while the patient is awake to “tell” the surgeon if he is correct!
In the earliest editions of Early Writings, EGW does not use the word “vision” but “dreams” recurring nightly with new information. How can dreams and visions be classified, other than by the recipient?
“In the earliest editions of Early Writings, EGW does not use the word “vision” but “dreams” recurring nightly with new information. How can dreams and visions be classified, other than by the recipient?”
I’m not sure Elaine. All I do know is throughout history and culture, humans keep having the same type of ‘supernatural’ experiences, if applying different names and concepts per their culture.
But the more we seem to learn about the brain, the more it seems we don’t understand it at all. We use to think it was fixed – now we know of nuroplasticity. No one still quite knows was consciousness is – I heard one recent expert say it was not the brain but more likely the electrical signals themselves.
The whole point to me, using Dr Taylor’s AM/FM example, is we should be careful of two equally dangerous assumptions:
1) That everything ‘supernatural’ either is impossible (i.e. made up) or failing to realise it may be ‘natural’ phenomena beyond our current understanding.
2) Coming to quick judgments that unusual cognitive states, which we preparatively call ‘mental illness’, are fraudulent.
I think that both things reflect modern attempts to make everything an ‘illness’. It reminds me of Austism-spectrum campaigners fighting stereotypes that they have an illness that needs curing – they instead argue they are simply a different type of normal.