Talk:Supernatural/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This discussion was the talk page for Supernaturalization, a title that now redirects to Supernatural.

I deleted the contents of the article because it was essentially a personal essay about a non-topic, or rather two. The two non-topics are 1) that many people believe in the supernatural and use this to explain natural events -- this is an ispusue currently discussed on other pages, and contributors to this page ought to add to those other articles. 2) that many people take the Bible literally or metaphorically to be the word of God, but that many people also study it critically. Again, there are other obvious articles where this is already discussed and more effectively I might add. Both of these points have been addressed by philosophers, theologians, historians, anthropologists, and so on, and all articles on these topics should reflect current scholarship and not the author's personal opinion. Slrubenstein

I reverted the removal of the first bit of the article: this appears to be a real term (24 Google hits) -- perhaps some of the content should be merged with the page on the supernatural: or, as you say, replace with up-to-date scholarly thinking on this topic. -- Anon.

Look, maybe this could become a real article. But the current text is misleading. here it is, with comments:

Supernaturalization, from the neologism supernaturalize, meaning "to make supernatural", has several possible meanings. Two of these possible meanings can be defined like this:

  • The interpretation of a natural event or phenomenon as supernatural or as having supernatural significance.
  • The addition of explicitly supernatural elements to a story about a natural event or phenomenon, which may also include reinterpretation of the natural event or phenomenon as supernatural.
Both of the above definitions miss the point. As many historians, geographers, and sociologists of science have argued over the past century (really, ever since Kant, arguably ever since the beginning of philosophy), "nature" is itself a social construction, an interpretation of phenomena.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean there is no objective reality? If "nature" is a "social construction", why do human beings tolerate such inconvenient things as gravity, disease, old age, dangerous animals, etc? They're all part of "nature". Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

The above definitions assume that an event of phenomena reall is "natural." Events and phenomena really are perceived, and then people classify them in various ways. I think very few if any people who are "supernaturalists" would say that they are claiming that they are interpreting "natural" events as supernatural;

I'd agree. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

they are asserting that certain events really are supernatural.

No, not unless the events are completely miraculous. Otherwise they'd say certain events have supernatural significance or meaning, i.e. that some supernatural entity is working thru nature. Xtians who believe AIDS was sent by God do not think AIDS in itself is supernatural, they think its origin was supernatural. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

If anything, they would accuse others (e.g. evolutionists) of interpreting a supernatural event as "natural." In short, the definitions above are hopelessly POV.

Examples of the first kind of supernaturalization are extremely common:

leave aside the POV of "Old Testament" -- the Bible asserts that there were plagues and that these plagues were of divine origin. There is no basis to claim that the Bible describes "natural" plagues which readers "interpret" as supernatural.
There's the basis of Occam's razor. Unlike the OT, we can now explain plague naturally in great detail. Unless plague was supernatural just so long as microscopes etc weren't available, plague was natural in OT times. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

You can reject the Biblical account -- fine -- but then reject the claim that the plagues occured at all.

The claim that a plague occurred does not stand or fall by whether or not one agrees with the interpretation placed on the plague. Homer claims the Greeks outside Troy were struck by the "arrows of Apollo", i.e. that the plague was supernatural. I don't agree that it was supernatural, but I certainly accept that plague struck a besieging army outside Troy. Nor is it just "plague": in the OT conquest by foreign powers was also interpreted as "supernatural". We have evidence from the conquerors that the conquest took place, and archaeological evidence as well. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

If you accept the Biblical claim that the plagues occured, you might as well accept the claim that they were supernatural. There is no scientific (natural) evidence for the plagues even having happened.

There's evidence in the human genome that mankind has been attacked by diseases thruout evolutionary history. And of course there's "natural" evidence: the writers of the OT were human beings. Unless they observed the plagues and composed the OT supernaturally, their eyewitness (or 2nd-hand) account of plagues etc is natural. Their claim of supernatural origin was not eyewitness: it was an interpretation. The modern claim that plagues are natural, OTOH, is eyewitness: it rests on detailed observation. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Okay, they believed this. The defeat of the Armada was not a "natural" event. In any case, what you have is a debate between people who explain things like the Armada in supernatural or non-supernatural terms. To state that the Armada is a non-supernatural event is just as POV (a POV I happen to share, but at least I admit it is a POV).
Again, the Armada itself was not said to be supernatural, the defeat of the Armada was. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
ditto
ditto. These examples get tedious -- what do they tell us? There are plenty of people who think that I missed the bus today because of God's will. These specific examples, with no context, are utterly uninformative.


Examples of the second kind of supernaturalization can be seen in the New Testament in passages like this:

John 5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. 3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had. 5 And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

The earliest manuscripts of John do not include the words from "waiting for the moving..." through "...of whatsoever disease he had". In other words, the angel, a supernatural being, has been added to a story about a presumably natural phenomenon, the moving of the water, and the natural phenomenon as a whole has been reinterpreted as supernatural.

This is an argument about texts, and it is hard to be sure what people believe. The use of the word "presumably" in the last paragraph is a clear giveaway that we have a non-scholarly, POV assertion.
If there is any debate about the meaning of John 5:2, put it in the article on Christianity or the New Testament.
If there is any debate over whether or not "God" explains anything in the universe, put it in the article on God, or Religion.
Discussions of the invocation of God for the Spanish Armada or events following 9/11 are not really about supernaturalization but about people's appeal to the supernatural in violent conflicts; they can be discussed meaningfully in articles about those conflicts.
These are perfectly appropriate places for this kind of discussion -- as long as it is well-informed and NPOV. Slrubenstein
Again, fine. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Very well said, SR. For what it's worth, the POV itself that the article appears to reflect appears to be described under philosophical naturalism rather well. Haven't looked recently, but there's probably some related info under epistemology. Some related articles that some of the content might be appropriate for include: Spanish Armada, Bible, Tanach, Old Testament, New Testament, Biblical canon, Religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Prayer, Revelation, Mysticism and Miracle. Check the links from those articles to related ones; hope this helps identify some of the places where this sort of material has been discussed. Wesley 20:06 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

I wish to register my agreement with Slrubenstein and Wesley. The article needs to go; not because there is anything wrong with discussing such subjects, but because it was a mishmosh of many different topics, put together with no apparent logical organization, and with a title that was a made-up word. The author of the original article is invited - nay, ecouraged! - to continue contributing. We are glad to gave you with us. However, it is important to first define precisely which topic you wish to write about, and write about them in the already extant entries on this subject. RK

I accept that, and thanks for not being aggressive and dogmatic. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Response to J:

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean there is no objective reality? If "nature" is a "social construction", why do human beings tolerate such inconvenient things as gravity, disease, old age, dangerous animals, etc? They're all part of "nature".

You misunderstand my point, which is pretty widely accepted -- just read Kant for a philosopher's view, or Berger and Luckman's The Social Construction of Reality for sociologists' view. People fall down, that is a sensate experience. That we call this an effect of gravity, and describe gravity as a "natural force" which obeys, or can be described in terms of, laws, is a social construction.

This is just the truism that people describe natural phenomena using language. The "social construction" of gravity is determined by the phenomenon: we do not choose the laws or the gravitational constant, tho' we can certainly get better at describing them. Jacquerie27 17:28 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

That we take gravity and put it alongside all osrts of other stuff and call them "nature" is also a social construction. You do not have to agree with this: some people just naively think "nature" is out there,

Well, is it out there objectively or not? If it isn't, why do we put up with things like disease, old age, mosquitos, etc? Why has science been so successful? Jacquerie27 17:28 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

and other people think "nature" has nothing to do with it, it is the hand of God or gods. That is fine, these are all different points of view. But for you to assert that one of these points of view is "true" because you believe it is arrogant, and certainly has no place in this encyclopedia.

Let's see: 'That we take gravity and put it alongside all osrts of other stuff and call them "nature" is also a social construction.' Is this true or false? If it's true because you believe it, are you being arrogant? I'm not asserting naturalism is true simply because I accept it, but I'm certainly asserting that it's been the most successful way of interpreting and shaping the world. It's been too successful. Jacquerie27 17:28 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
No, not unless the events are completely miraculous. Otherwise they'd say certain events have supernatural significance or meaning, i.e. that some supernatural entity is working thru nature.

This is a very good point, and a good example of the real contribution I think you can make to this project -- but as I have explained, this point belongs in some other article (see Wesley's list)

There's the basis of Occam's razor. Unlike the OT, we can now explain plague naturally in great detail. Unless plague was supernatural just so long as microscopes etc weren't available, plague was natural in OT times.

This is not about Occam's razor, it is about how to read texts.

Occam's razor is a tool used when you read texts. It's a valuable part of epistemology. Jacquerie27 17:28 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I read a book called Red Planet about the colonization of Mars. As far as I could tell, all of the science within it was correct. But I do not seriously believe that there is a functioning colony on Mars.

If you're arguing from a book in a modern genre following quite different rules that the OT has to be accepted in toto or not at all, you've failed to notice that you haven't rejected the modern book in toto: you've accepted the science. You accept the science and reject the colony on Mars; I accept Jewish history (more or less) and reject God as the engine of it. Jacquerie27 17:28 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I read a book called Pride and Prejudice and it all seemed pretty realistic to me. But I really don't think Mr. Darcy ever existed or did the things he does in that book.

But do you think Jane Austen based her characters on real people? Do you think she transcribed actual experience in any way? Then you treat her as I treat the Bible: as in some way based on reality. Jacquerie27 17:28 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I read a book called the Bible that describes ten plagues. Yes, of course I know "plagues" can and have happened. But why should I believe that those ten plagues happened, happened where and when they happened, and happened for the reasons they happened? There is no external evidence that "the ten plagues" happened. Why are you so committed to saying they happened?

I'm not: I don't accept everything in the Bible in detail. But I'm certainly committed to saying the Bible contains observations based on nature. Jacquerie27 17:28 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Just because you believe the Bible? But you don't -- you explicitly reject the Bible's protagonist (God) and his actions!

Because God's "actions" are interpretations of observed phenomena we now have detailed naturalistic accounts of. I believe the Bible to the extent that I do because it was written by human beings who transcribed their observations of natural phenomena and then interpreted those phenomena as supernatural. I accept the observations; I reject the interpretation. What's so unusual about that? The Bible talks about the sun, moon, and stars. Am I supposed to conclude there were no sun, moon, and stars in OT times because I don't believe God put them there? Jacquerie27 17:28 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

To me this is like saying "Moby Dick was a great book, except it's misleading because the whale wasn't really white." That is not a very interesting way to talk about Moby Dick! I find your way of talking about the Bible equally silly. Slrubenstein

There's no genuine ground for objecting to the color of the whale in MD; there are strong philosophical and scientific grounds for objecting to the supernatural interpretation of events described in the Bible. Jacquerie27 17:28 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

This is a valid article, and I find the above arguments to be weak and inconsistent. "Supernaturalization", "supernaturalized", "supernaturalizing" etc. are valid terms and they are indeed used in the sense described herein. I certainly strongly object to the outright blanking of an article before at least a minimum of discussion has taken place.

However, let's not turn this into a flamewar. I think the main objection is that the article was written a bit too matter-of-factly, as if the perspective regarding supernaturalization was the only correct one.

You're right, but I did say the definitions offered were "possible" ones. Jacquerie27 17:28 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I have rewritten it a bit and attributed the perspective to skeptical readers of religious texts, which is accurate. Well known critics of religion such as Deschner and Russell have certainly used this line of reasoning in the past. It also seems to be popular among defenders of religion who seek to retain a certain belief in biblical stories, while doubting the occurence of the supernatural.

We do of course need to follow NPOV and separate this perspective from others, such as belief by faith. Arguments against the perspective of supernaturalization can of course be included. But the article itself is completely within the scope of Wikipedia. --Eloquence 16:25 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I am not going to remove the text to talk again, but I do hope that more people participate in this discussion. I do want to once more register my 3 main complaints:

1) the article mischaracterizes a debate about whether events are natural or supernatural, as a debate about whether natural events have supernatural causes.

2) the contents needs specific attribution. Eloquence finally mentions some real people, e.g. Russell -- but please place the name and citation in the article in the appropraite place

3) most of the contents is more appropriate to other articles.

I want to point out that only comment 1 is critical of the content per se. I see my other two comments as touching on more general issues that should be concern to all wikipedians, namely: should we have articles on neologisms when there are other articles that cover the topics, and should articles present positions without ascription? Slrubenstein

The article refers to a specific process which, I think, we can agree exists: People ascribe supernatural causes to natural events, and they may increasingly do so over time. This process is distinct from another process which we may posit exists, namely that supernatural events are sometimes simply invented entirely. Supernaturalization refers to events which have occurred in one form or another, but which are increasingly muddled with mysticism. I believe it is important to keep in mind that these are separate discussions, and you will find documented evidence for both in the literature.

For example, the process of supernaturalization is frequently cited as one origin of formalized, organized religions, e.g. by von Corvin in his anti-religious tract Der Pfaffenspiegel ("Wie die Pfaffen entstanden sind" - "How the priests came into the world" -- he argues that Jesus' miracles were actually healing techniques learned by Buddhists or from other sources), probably by many other anti-religious 19th century writers, certainly by Deschner, and probably by many progressive pro-religious writers who argue that religion is essentially metaphorical.

On the other hand, virtually all critics of religion claim that most "miracles" have been invented entirely, or were deliberate trickery (in both cases supernaturalization does not apply), that many biblical stories are plainly false etc. This is what Deschner writes about a lot in Der gefälschte Glaube (The forged belief), where he also documents how pagan beliefs seeped into Christianity etc. But this is not what we are talking about here.

Yes, we need attributed quotes, more perspectives etc. The article is hardly perfect in its current form (which 'pedia article is?), and may even be better placed in a different context -- suggest one and we can talk about it. However, I think it can be expanded usefully, and that it is currently already in line with Wikipedia policy. --Eloquence 19:19 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

My main suggestion is simply that you add these concrete references to the article itself. As for better places for material, I (and Weslely) have already made some suggestions, if you disagree, c'est la vie. However, I must repeat that I do not agree (except in a very limited and conditional form) with the assertion that "we can agree" that "People ascribe supernatural causes to natural events." I believe that this statement is not NPOV, and I also think that it characterizes at best a small number of the examples in the article; otherwise it is inaccurate and misconstrues the issue. And I am not asserting this from a religious (or theistic) perspective. Philosophy (meaning, Western Philosophy) is practically founded on the question "What is real?" One need not believe in God, or believe that God is the cause of all things, to ask this question (although Plato-cum-Socrates spoke of gods they really aren't important in his philosophy). The notion of "nature" which can also be an object of scientific study or objective contemplation is not universal and in the West of relatively recent invention, spanning largely from Bacon to the Romantics.
Yes, it's been a tiny part of human history and believed in by a tiny number of human beings. It's also been the most successful "notion" ever invented. If you judge by knowledge gained and successes achieved, naturalism is in the overwhelming majority. Jacquerie27 21:34 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Given these facts from history and philosophy, I think it would be wrong to assume some ontological or epistemological priority to nature and to claim that that assumption is NPOV.

I keep pointing out there is no assumption: naturalism says things and proves them. It offers detailed explanations of phenomena like plague, flood, hurricane, locusts, etc, etc. It also attempts to predict and control these phenomena and has had a great deal of success. Supernaturalism does none of these things: its proponents observe the phenomena and then claim they are supernatural in some way. They offer no precise details and no objective way of verifying this, contradict themselves, and retreat into the explanatory gaps as naturalistic science advances. Claim both POVs are equally valid or equally worthy of respect if you like: the facts say otherwise. Jacquerie27 21:34 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

In this context, the debate between skeptics and theists is not whether "natural" events "have" supernatural causes, but whether there are events that are not natural. Slrubenstein

The debate is whether the claims of naturalism and supernaturalism have the same value and the context is that of the skeptical term "supernaturalization": the interpretation of demonstrably natural phenomena as supernatural at some deeper, inaccessible level. If supernaturalists want to create an article on "naturalization", I'd be glad to see it. They'd have to show that there is a detailed, objectively verifiable supernatural explanation for phenomena that naturalists nevertheless interpret as natural at some deeper, inaccesible level. Because there has never been a detailed, objectively verifiable supernatural explanation for any phenomenon, they won't be able to do it. "Detailed, objectively verifiable supernaturalism" is in fact an oxymoron. Jacquerie27 21:34 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
I may add some specific references, let me see if I find something adequate. I don't think the content belongs to philosophical naturalism -- it is certainly related, but we need to be able to refer to the specific process, not merely the underlying philosophy. Moving the individual examples to respective topical articles misses the point of an example.
I get your point regarding the nature of reality, and I agree that this philosophical question should not be brushed aside. Postmodern views of reality as unknowable are distinct from faith, and one of the perspectives which, as I noted above, should be mentioned in the article. However, these arguments can be applied to virtually any statement in Wikipedia. I hope you don't suggest that we add "However, there are philosophers who think we cannot really know this" to every article ;-). We are in the realm of philosophy here, but we are also in the realm of rational/scientific skepticism, where such things as the knowability of reality are taken for granted, silly as that may sound.
That the knowability of reality is taken for granted is of course a specific philosophic and epistemological position. It is not the only one.
That's about all I have the time or energy to say on this right now. Perhaps when I have time to research the subject properly, I'll compose an article on Naturalization that describes the process of how historical events once known to be supernatural have been gradually reinterpreted so as to fit within the confines of materialism and philosophical naturalism. Wesley 20:28 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
That certainly sounds interesting. I'm looking forward to it. --Eloquence 20:31 May 9, 2003 (UTC)
In this context, the debate between skeptics and theists is not whether "natural" events "have" supernatural causes, but whether there are events that are not natural. I regard this as a simplification of the actual debate, which has different components, as I have noted above. It's not just about whether the supernatural exists -- it is also about explaining the claims of the supernatural. Are they deliberate distortions and lies? Are they the result of a slower, more subtle process where the supernatural silently slips into a culture's perception of natural causes? ---Eloquence 19:48 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments. No, I am not asking for all articles to be prefaced by some epistemological disclaimer. But I am a stickler for information on sources for positions, and the context for debates (whose position is it, when and where did this position emerge, and under what conditions), which I consider essential to preserving NPOV and accuracy.
I think you and I may just disagree over how best to characterize this issue. I agree that causality is an important part of the debate, but I do believe that there are other elements, especially concerning epistemological and ontological claims, that just cannot be dismissed.
I think the solution to this edit conflict is to continue to add more specifics (a few of which you have provided on this page). As we get a clearer idea of who has developed this position, under what conditions, etc., it will be easier to decide how best to characterize and introduce it. For what it is worth, this is how it all started, my asking J for sources and more specificity about context. Slrubenstein