Can Atheism Account For Rationality

[seer]

OK...I have to admit I am curious as hell. Seer, all definitions are "arbitrary" as has been shown multiple times. So I have to ask, why is it so important to you that we redefine the words "natural" and "supernatural" and what would you like the definitions of those terms to be?

I already told you Carp, in the context you could ask what can or can't be investigated. But the main point is that there is no rational justification for these definitions. Which I have no problem with you using, just be aware that the distinction is without merit.

[carpedm9587]

I already told you Carp, in the context you could ask what can or can't be investigated. But the main point is that there is no rational justification for these definitions. Which I have no problem with you using, just be aware that the distinction is without merit.

Seer...you are wrestling with ghosts...and dodging the question. ALL words have arbitrarily assigned definitions. All of them. Defining words is not an exercise in logic - it's an exercise in documenting common practice. It's how language works. You appear to be bothered by the current definitions of "natural" and "supernatural." I am curious about why, and what you propose as alternative definitions.

[seer]

Seer...you are wrestling with ghosts...and dodging the question. ALL words have arbitrarily assigned definitions. All of them. Defining words is not an exercise in logic - it's an exercise in documenting common practice. It's how language works. You appear to be bothered by the current definitions of "natural" and "supernatural." I am curious about why, and what you propose as alternative definitions.

No Carp, like I said. Words are tied to KNOWABLE physical distinctions. Boy, girl, tree, rock. We arbitrarily assign words for these, but the KNOWABLE physical characteristics assures KNOWABLE distinctions. No such KNOWABLE distinction exists between the natural or supernatural. We literally have no idea.

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, like I said. Words are tied to KNOWABLE physical distinctions. Boy, girl, tree, rock. We arbitrarily assign words for these, but the KNOWABLE physical characteristics assures KNOWABLE distinctions.

• Unicorn
• Zeus
• Quark
• Quantum singularity
• Quantum fluctuation
• Love
• Hope
• God
• Best
• Worst
• Good
• Evil

And the list goes on and on and on. So I think we can set aside that words are tied to "knowable physical distinctions." Words are defined based on their usage. They mean what we define them to mean so we can communicate. Sometimes they are a symbolic representation of a physical reality. Sometimes they represent an idea or concept. Sometimes they represent an imaginary thing. They are nothing more than a symbol for something we wish to communicate about. If we never wanted to communicate about the "thing," then there would be no word for it.

No such KNOWABLE distinction exists between the natural or supernatural. We literally have no idea.

Actually - we do. As has been noted multiple times, "natural" is defined to mean either "not made by humans" or "open to investigation by science," depending on context. Supernatural generally means, "not open to investigation by science." So if a thing meets the criteria of the first definition, we call it "natural." If it meets the criteria of the second definition, we call it "supernatural."

The definitions are fairly clear, and fairly simple to understand. So what part of these definitions do you NOT understand? What part gives you heartburn?

[seer]

Actually - we do. As has been noted multiple times, "natural" is defined to mean either "not made by humans" or "open to investigation by science," depending on context. Supernatural generally means, "not open to investigation by science." So if a thing meets the criteria of the first definition, we call it "natural." If it meets the criteria of the second definition, we call it "supernatural."

And you know that definition is correct how? How do we know the natural is always investigatable and the supernatural is never investigatable? And I will repeat Carp, the Christian would say that the universe is not natural, yet it is investigatable to a large degree. As a matter of fact we would say that it is investigatable precisely because it was created by a rational mind.

[carpedm9587]

And you know that definition is correct how?

The same way I know ANY definition is correct - by looking it up in the dictionary to find how the word is conventionally used. Really, Seer - I have no idea what you are on about. This is how language works. You are flailing about for reasons I cannot fathom.

How do we know the natural is always investigatable and the supernatural is never investigatable?

You are asking the question backwards. The "natural" is investigatable because that is how the word is defined/used. The supernatural is not investigatable because that is how the word is defined/used. So if we find something investigatable, we call it "natural." If we find something not investagatable, we call it "supernatural."

But your answer here gives a clue to your ACTUAL objection. It seems to me that you are objecting to how we actually APPLY the adjectives, rather than their definition. You seem to be saying, "how do we know 'thing X' is or is not investigatable?" The answer is, we might not. It may turn out that some of the things we currently call "supernatural" are perfectly investigatable and should be classified as "natural." Ghosts, for example, may turn out to be a perfectly natural phenomenon. Right now, we have no reason to think so, and they are classified as "supernatural."

But that doesn't change the meaning of the words. It simply means that sometimes we may not know for certain to classify a particular thing.

And I will repeat Carp, the Christian would say that the universe is not natural, yet it is investigatable to a large degree. As a matter of fact we would say that it is investigatable precisely because it was created by a rational mind.

First, if the universe is investigatable, then, by definition, it is "natural." As far as I know, we can investigate the universe - which operates on repeatable/predictable/intelligible principles. Second. I know an awful lot of Christians who have no problem calling the universe "natural," so you clearly are not speaking for all Christians. Finally, why any Christian thinks they can simply redefine words on a whim is beyond me. Little wonder that communication is so difficult.

[seer]

The same way I know ANY definition is correct - by looking it up in the dictionary to find how the word is conventionally used. Really, Seer - I have no idea what you are on about. This is how language works. You are flailing about for reasons I cannot fathom.



You are asking the question backwards. The "natural" is investigatable because that is how the word is defined/used. The supernatural is not investigatable because that is how the word is defined/used. So if we find something investigatable, we call it "natural." If we find something not investagatable, we call it "supernatural."

But your answer here gives a clue to your ACTUAL objection. It seems to me that you are objecting to how we actually APPLY the adjectives, rather than their definition. You seem to be saying, "how do we know 'thing X' is or is not investigatable?" The answer is, we might not. It may turn out that some of the things we currently call "supernatural" are perfectly investigatable and should be classified as "natural." Ghosts, for example, may turn out to be a perfectly natural phenomenon. Right now, we have no reason to think so, and they are classified as "supernatural."

But that doesn't change the meaning of the words. It simply means that sometimes we may not know for certain to classify a particular thing.



First, if the universe is investigatable, then, by definition, it is "natural." As far as I know, we can investigate the universe - which operates on repeatable/predictable/intelligible principles. Second. I know an awful lot of Christians who have no problem calling the universe "natural," so you clearly are not speaking for all Christians. Finally, why any Christian thinks they can simply redefine words on a whim is beyond me. Little wonder that communication is so difficult.

Let's expand your definition: Made by humans = not natural. Yet that non-natural you would say is investagatable. Made by God=not natural. Yet, investagatable as applied to the universe.

[carpedm9587]

Let's expand your definition: Made by humans = not natural.

It's not my definition, Seer. Look it up...

Yet that non-natural you would say is investagatable.

Yes - a word can have more than one meaning:

Belt: something to hold up your pants
Belt: an alcoholic drink
Belt: hit someone

Made by God=not natural. Yet, investagatable as applied to the universe.

So we currently believe god = supernatural. That will make any actions attributed to this god "supernatural." Can the supernatural give rise to the natural? Who knows. The supernatural is, by definition, not investigatable and not quantifiable. If your god exists and is indeed supernatural, and this god created all that is, then we know the following:

a) The supernatural can give rise to the natural
b) We will never be able to scientifically investigate the origins of the universe because they arise supernaturally.

If your god exists and is not supernatural (or not completely supernatural) then that changes the equation. You know that I believe your god exists only in your mind and the minds of those who think/believe like you, so (for me) this being lies in the realm of the "supernatural," until someone can show otherwise.

[seer]

It's not my definition, Seer. Look it up...



Yes - a word can have more than one meaning:

Belt: something to hold up your pants
Belt: an alcoholic drink
Belt: hit someone



So we currently believe god = supernatural. That will make any actions attributed to this god "supernatural." Can the supernatural give rise to the natural? Who knows. The supernatural is, by definition, not investigatable and not quantifiable. If your god exists and is indeed supernatural, and this god created all that is, then we know the following:

a) The supernatural can give rise to the natural
b) We will never be able to scientifically investigate the origins of the universe because they arise supernaturally.

If your god exists and is not supernatural (or not completely supernatural) then that changes the equation. You know that I believe your god exists only in your mind and the minds of those who think/believe like you, so (for me) this being lies in the realm of the "supernatural," until someone can show otherwise.

So? By one of your own definitions that which is made by humans is not natural, yet it still would be investagatable. A universe made by God would not be natural, so why couldn't it be investigatable? The only reason is because of a biased assumption, nothing more.

[carpedm9587]

So? By one of your own definitions that which is made by humans is not natural, yet it still would be investagatable.

So here's what you are doing:

"By your own definitions, Michel, you should be able to use an alcoholic drink to hold up your pants."

When a word has multiple definitions, they are not necessarily related to one another. There are many things "made by human hands" that are "investigatable." They are not "natural" if you are using the first definition. They are part of the natural order if you are using the second. Context is everything.

A universe made by God would not be natural, so why couldn't it be investigatable?

So the process of "making the universe" by a supernatural being is most likely "not investigatable." How can you investigate the actions of a being you cannot investigate? Can this being create a natural (investigatable) thing? Well - if your god actually exists, the answer to that is apparently "yes." If your god doesn't exist, the answer is "who cares?"

The only reason is because of a biased assumption, nothing more.

You apparently have a need to make an issue where none exists...

[seer]

You apparently have a need to make an issue where none exists...

Yet you keep answering me... Are you a glutton for punishment?

[carpedm9587]

Yet you keep answering me... Are you a glutton for punishment?

In this case...yes...a tad. Your "issue" around this somewhat fascinates me. I'm used to your arguments not having actual content (i.e., the whole morality discussion, for example), but I have to admit that this is the first time I've seen you trying to redefine words or complain that words shouldn't mean what they are defined to mean.

The whole thing is so odd...it fascinates me. I guess I'm trying to fathom the logic behind it...

[Adrift]

The irony is rich.

[JimL]

That is my point Jim, these are arbitrary definitions. Let me ask you - if this universe was created by God in what sense could you call it natural? What would be natural about it?

What do you mean by arbitrary? Natural defines this world, if there is another distinct existence then supernatural defines that world. What you are trying to do semantically is to define the two distinct existences as one and the same existence. Even should you be correct and the natural world was created by the supernatural existence you wouldn't mean to assert that they are one and the same thing, would you. Are you a pantheist, seer?

[carpedm9587]

What do you mean by arbitrary? Natural defines this world, if there is another distinct existence then supernatural defines that world. What you are trying to do semantically is to define the two distinct existences as one and the same existence. Even should you be correct and the natural world was created by the supernatural existence you wouldn't mean to assert that they are one and the same thing, would you. Are you a pantheist, seer?

Well...sort of. I'm not sure "natural defines this world" is an accurate statement. This world/universe is described as "natural" because it has characteristics consistent with both definitions of the term (i.e., not created by humans, and investigatable via science or the scientific method).

At the end of the day, I think Seer's problem has to do with assignment of "things" into one group or the other. His complaint is just badly worded. I don't think he's saying "how do you know supernatural things aren't investigatable" because that question makes no sense. As I said - he's approaching it backwards. A thing is "supernatural" because it is "not investigatable," not the other way around. I think what he is trying to say is "how do you know that things commonly classified as 'supernatural' aren't actually investigatable and therefore perfectly natural?"

And if I don't have that right, then I don't have a clue WHAT his issue with natural and supernatural are...