supernatural?

I have for some time had a growing suspicion regarding the "natural" vs
"supernatural" dividing line. It is man-made notion with a history of
transmigration from supernatural to natural. Very few migrations (none?)
seem to go the other way (despite ID's best efforts).

At the same time, there are things like the electron for which we have a
wave description that models some behaviors, and a particle description
that models others. Two descriptions, yet the electron itself is
presumeably a single entity (best guess today, I think). Missing at this
point is a satisfactory integrated description of the real thing. We
have as yet no single descriptive model because we do not as yet (and
may never?) have a full, or at least sufficient understanding of the
reality that is an electron. Could we be experiencing two manifestations
of a thing which is actually yet a third thing that has particle and
wave manifestations? Probably.

Astronomers are experiencing the same sort of puzzle in the heavens
where matter/energy as we know seems to make up less than 5% of what
appears to be out there, resulting in the notions of dark force, energy
and matter. We know (or think we know) it's out there, but it remains
enigmatic. Is it just its own separate thing, which we have overlooked
until lately? Or is it just another previously unrecognized
manifestation of that which we are already familiar with? Or is it a
"projection" of something else still, part of which lies forever
inaccessible to us as humans?

So, I ask myself if there is any reason to think that something
identified as as natural might not be an aspect, expression, reflection,
or extension (or?) of something which may actually exists simultaneously
in both domains we separately call natural and supernatural.

Muddying the water, of course, is that history of calling things
supernatural one day, and then the next reassigning them to the natural
world as a plausible explanation emerges. And there are certainly other
things that will follow tomorrow or the next day, becoming "natural" for
the same reason.

But just to play this out, assuming that there stubbornly remains
something real that will never be accessible to us, is there any reason
nevertheless to think that what remains is not still part of one
integrated "system" only part of which we are privy to?

I guess I am talking about something like a monist perspective (I'm
certainly not that well versed in such things, unlike some of y'all!!).
But the distinction seems important because the "override" notion of
supernatural action might not be meaningful. On the other hand, the
orderly, "lawful", and creative and (dare I say?) fruitful behavior of
nature could be quite full of implication with respect to that which
remains inaccessible to us, including our creator. This also perhaps
places the second book of revelation in a somewhat different light
because of its intimate connection in system fashion to the
inaccessible, making it a more credible witness to what lies beyond our
reach than many might otherwise suppose. [Oh dear, this is beginning to
sound like, "Everything is connected!"]

I guess the bottom line question is, is there anything beyond belief
that requires us to assert two differing categories of natural and
supernatural, and a dividing line between?

I guess it would come as no surprise that I am similarly suspicious
about other subdividing categorizations (i.e., physical and biological).
  JimA

Sheila Wilson wrote:

> That is a great explanation. To expound a little: ID says in part
> that if we don't understand something, it must be
> supernatural. Science says we don't understand because we don't have
> all the evidence or knowledge required to understand. If this is
> true, where does the supernatural fit in to any explanation? What
> would cause us to believe in God if we think this way? If everything
> can be defined by natural explanations, then where is God?
>
> I don't believe ID is correct nor do I believe in a young earth. I
> also don't know where to draw the line between the natural and the
> supernatural explanations.
>
> Sheila
>
>
>
> bivalve <bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com> wrote:
>
> > The article further states:
> >
> > Perhaps the most significant shift would be in the very
> definition of science - instead of "seeking natural explanations
> for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe
> it as a "continuing investigation that uses observation,
> hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument
> and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of
> natural phenomena."
> >
> > While I don't agree with the new trial, isn't that what science is?
>
> The key change is the deletion of the phrase "natural
> explanations". ID advocates want to allow non-natural
> explanations. Actually, I would agree that such explanations
> cannot be excluded a priori; however, theological considerations
> suggest that non-natural explanations will be either bogus
> (astrology, erroneous antievolutionary claims, etc.) or else no t
> amenable to scientific experimentation (e.g., Biblical miracles,
> which were situation-specific).
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> University of Alabama
> Biodiversity & Systematics
> Dept. Biological Sciences
> Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
>
> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
> Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance
> at Droitgate Spa
>
>
>
> Sheila McGinty Wilson
> sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net
Received on Fri May 6 20:40:38 2005