Supernatural

From RationalWiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the series on
Pseudoscience
Main Topics

Alternate historical chronology - Astrology
Creation science - Crop circles
Dogon people - Erich von Däniken
Face on Mars - Lunar effect
Non-materialist neuroscience - Paranormal
Perpetual motion - Ufology
Alternative medicine

Other topics

2012 Apocalypse - Attachment therapy
Ball lightning - Bermuda Triangle
Cryptozoology - Dianetics
Feng shui - Food woo
Graphology - Laundry balls
Lie detection - Neoshamanism
Out-of-body experience
Parapsychology - Phrenology
Polygraph - Pseudoarcheology
Reincarnation - Shroud of Turin
Supernatural - Technical analysis
Tutankhamun's curse
William Strauss and Neil Howe
Crystal skull

Supernatural refers to phenomena that fit one of the following definitions:

  • Supernatural events as "beyond nature": This is the RationalWiki definition of choice. supernatural phenomena are "beyond" the natural world. When it comes down to it, the "supernatural" cannot be "real": because if we could then perceive it then it would be part of the observable world - and would no longer be supernatural. Supernatural explanations are, by definition, outside the scope of the scientific method. It often refers to... well, hmm. What could possibly not be natural? Perhaps ghosts, angels, gods, and Zombies. Probably Uri Geller, too. The problem with this definition is that none of the phenomena commonly described as supernatural fit the definition. Pagan gods were commonly described as having corporeal form, and even interbreeding with humans. The monotheistic God is described as being perceivable through His interactions with the physical world. Zombies are of course dead humans that have been raised to something resembling life. Virgin birth does not fit the definition, because it is a physical event. Thus no events commonly described as "supernatural" are "beyond nature," and this definition yields a null set.
  • Supernatural events as violating laws of nature: Supernatural phenomena are phenomena that violate the laws of nature. The problem with this definition is that it assumes we comprehensively know the laws of nature in order to identify violations. Thus an islander who has never seen an aircraft or a walky-talky would describe them as "supernatural" because they violate the laws of nature as he understands them -- despite the fact that they are consistent with the laws of nature as they really are. Since we do not comprehensively understand the laws of nature, we cannot meaningfully determine with events truly violate the laws of nature.
  • Supernatural as a meaningless word: Others believe that the word "supernatural" carries no meaning. For something to be "beyond nature" it would have to have no interaction with nature -- and thus any events in that realm would be beyond our perception or meaningful knowledge. However, that does not exclude the possibility that events described as miracles -- which occur in the natural world, despite being unusual occurrences -- are possible. The key question with "supernatural" events, therefore, is not whether they are supernatural, but rather whether they occur. If they occur, they are not "supernatural," but rather "unexplained." If they do not occur, they are not "supernatural," but rather "fictional."

Oh, and we mean no offense to people's "religions", "faiths", or "holy" books. We just calls 'em as we sees 'em.

If you came here to read about "elves, fairies, gnomes, and pixies" then please see woo.

[edit] See also

Personal tools