D. Gene Witmer's "Naturalism and Physicalism" (from the The Continuum Companion to Metaphysics, published in 2012) has a good metaphysical discussion of both how to characterize naturalism and physicalism (as a species of naturalism), as well as how to define terms like 'natural' and 'physical':

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/g...

Thank you!

that's still just assuming the enlightenment hijack

???

You're going to have spell out your objection a bit more than that if you want the rest of us to understand you. I don't know what "the enlightenment hijack" is supposed to mean.

Joe thinks it's a big issue that naturalism and supernaturalism are not still used as they were defined in the early church. It's about a relevant a point as the fact that we're not speaking in Koine Greek.

Jabberwaokie here thinks that straw man arguments are fine. I have to hand it to him he just gave me the key need to defeat atheism.

atheism is wrong because we all know that the law of non contradiction is true. atheism means the rejection of the law of non contradiction; that's the new definition of atheism.

atheism is stupid because no one wold deny the law of contradiction

SCOTT: Asia is really a top tier prog rock band. So long as "Heat of the Moment" is playing, I seriously could knock out ten panda bears (Marquess of Queensbury rules).

JOE: According to Christians of the first century, Asia actually refers to Syria and Palestine.

SCOTT: Neat. Anyway, back to what I was talking about. Asia was the perfect distillation of the immeasurable musical talents of such trailblazers as Yes, Emerson, Lake and Palmer, and the Buggles! Nostradamus predicted their rise clearly in couplet...

JOE: According to Christians of the first century, Asia actually includes the Anatolian Peninsula.

SCOTT: Um... yeah. Neat. So anyway, back to the absolutely greatest band of all time of the time period between Spring 1983 and late Spring 1983, and that band is named none other than Asia!

JOE: Which, according to first century Christians, had lions.

SCOTT: WHOA! Shut up! They had lions? What instruments did they play?

JOE: No instruments. I mean the Roman continent named Asia.

SCOTT: Why are you talking about that?

JOE: Because it was called Asia.

SCOTT: But I'm not talking about that Asia.

JOE: But you said Asia...

SCOTT: I clearly stated I was talking about the band.

JOE: I want to talk about the continent.

SCOTT: But no one's talking about the continent.

JOE: I'd rather talk about the continent, before its name was hijacked by a bunch of 1980s British rockers. By the way, the band is really overrated. I mean, other than "Heat of the Moment," what do they have?

SCOTT: Blasphemy! I am going to smack you down like you were a giant panda wearing a Katy Perry tee. Asia have mercy on your soul!

Thanks for making your objection both clear and entertaining!

cute, but mere obfuscation. you want ot knock Christianity but you don't want to attack what it really says, you can't only fight straw men. if my ideas are just from the dark ages how is it that I got them from living people?

Swing and a miss, Joe. I evinced no desire to attack Christianity, nor any religion.

LOL

The problem is that theists don't use your definition of supernaturalism. Even if your version was the original, if most theists use a different definition then that is the one which must be discussed. That's simply how our language works.

Then why do i have it in my class notes from Perkins? I talked to Dr. Babcock about this last month. He still holds to his view.

That's alright for Babcock. Unfortunately, if most theists do not use the term in the way Babcock does then Babcock is not being an ethical speaker by using the term the way he does. As you might notice, it seems no one on this blog has seen people use "Supernatural" the way you do, and I think that's because "Supernatural" in almost every case does not denote what you claim it does.

Mathias Joseph Scheeben did. Look him up you see he was a major theist. Eugene R fairweather does Paul Tillich did .William S Babcock gave me the concept. hie's a major church historian.

How does listing four (4) names contradict Ryan's statistical generalization that MOST theists use a different definition?

those guys represent the tradition a lot more certainly than do any number of idiots in the pew. Truth iks not up for re-election.

what if we survey freshmen taking philosophy 101 and see what they think about the aspect of Jeff's professional works of which he is the most proud .would he be willing to change his work to come into line with what the majority of uneducated people think about his work?

The meaning of words is determined by common usage, not etymology and not by historical usage.

Even the Saler source above that Joe referenced as supporting his definition of supernatural uses a "Western" definition of supernatural similar to yours to contrast it to the primitive definition of supernatural. I find this all a bit creepy.

He discusses the modern view of course he does not say that's the true view.

i linked to pdf by anthropologist Benson Saler in last post. the term was
http://onlinelibrary.wiley....®ionCode=US-TX&identityKey=1130ca21-c2e4-4568-b5bd-4182ae5b9b0f

Thanks, Joe. I'll read the entire essay when I get the chance.

In the meantime, I have no idea what is supposed to be the connection between your "enlightenment hijack" and the linked article. Maybe the article itself spells it out. With that said, the first paragraph of the linked article doesn't instill confidence when it remarks that the natural-supernatural dichotomy isn't present in Ojibwa thought. I have no reason to doubt that is true. But that point is of no philosophical importance whatsoever, since whether Y is a logical implication of X has nothing whatsoever to do with whether believers of X show an awareness of Y in their thoughts about X.

Like so many other semantic debates, people seem to get way too hung up on labels and ignore the concepts the labels are supposed to represent. If you don't like using the word "supernatural" as a label to represent a set of beliefs we think are held by the majority of people who self-identify as Christian theists, fine. We can just create a new label.

Instead of "natural" we'll use "deagol" and instead of "supernatural" we'll use "smeagol." By "smeagolism," we mean the belief that one or more smeagol agents exist, i.e., invisible agents who do not have a spatial location. Christian theism is a version of "smeagolism" because it posits the existence of an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, immaterial, immutable, holy being who created the universe. Because this being is immaterial, it lacks a spatial location. Therefore, belief in such a being counts as a version of smeagolism.

Next?

He is not a philosopher Jeff he's an anthropologist. he has a larger agenda that is anthropologically related. But along the way he shows that the modern Western category has been reorded from the larger composition of the ancient world and that because it's sheped by modern science.

Your first sentence was kind of my point.

Don't bother reading the whole thing, just go to the concluding Section V. The entire paper is irrelevant to this discussion... as should be expected from Joe.

as should be expected from Joe?

thanks Atheistwatch needed new material;.

you really are either dishonest or not a very close reader. what he says in v pertains to anthropologists and weather or not they should seek to impose the Chitin monotony upon their work. He doe not say Christian concept ids wrong he says it;s too specification Christian theology to use imn anthropology.

Do you know anything about anthropology based upon your previous statements all you seem to know about is physics.

while you are at it Jeff don't look at the guy behind the curtain.

Jeff, don't read that stuff, you don't need the evidence, the signs have always been the way the pigs said they are. None of the horses or chickens remember it saying anything else. you are just imagining things. you were brain washed by the farmer.

Listen to pigs now we are the only vanguard of the revolution.

yes it;s Atheistfarm.

here's one way it makes a difference. assume SN = Mystocsal experoiemce then ask Bowen's questions.
analysis puts an emphasis on these sorts of issues:

1. Are there any animals or persons who have supernatural knowledge? (telepathy–mind reading, extra-sensory perception, clairvoyance, prophecy, out-of-body experiences)

Yes. If SN = Mystical Exp. the there are people with SN knowledge

2. Are there any animals or persons who can communicate supernaturally? (telepathy–communication)

yes because if ME is experience of God's presence then are communicating with God when we have mystical experience

3. Are there any animals or persons who can perform supernatural healings? (supernatural healings, resurrections)

ME is not about healing so this is irrelevant,

4. Are there any animals or persons who can create a physical object out of nothing?

that's not SN because it's not part of mystical.

5. Are there any animals or persons who have other supernatural powers (not knowledge, not communication, not healing, not creating things out of nothing)? (telekinesis, levitation, supernatural flight, , invisibility, nature miracles, curses, hexes, spells, wizardry, witchcraft, black magic, etc.)

6. Are there any animals or persons who are supernatural beings? (bodiless: ghosts, angels, demons, gods)

there are people who experience the SN

7. Are there any animals or persons who have supernatural knowledge and who communicate supernaturally?

there is a noetic dimension to mystical experience.

You should check out my blog series on "The Evidential Argument from the History of Science" (see here), in which the definition of "supernatural" plays a crucial role. Randal Rauser wrote two replies to that argument. His second reply, which I discuss in Part 3 of that series (see here), was primarily about the definitions of "supernatural," "supernaturalism," "natural," and "(metaphysical) naturalism." You might find something of interest there.

ETA: I'm leaning in favor Ned Markosian's spatial location account of "physical," i.e., physical objects are objects with spatial locations. See here and here.

but since the Christian concept of SN doesn't say any of the things you argued against it's all for nothing.

But since the Christian concept of SN says all of the things I argued against, it's all for everything.

See how easy is it is to do the philosophical equivalent of a drive-by shooting and just toss out one sentence comments without backing them up? If you want to debate the issues here, I'm game, but I'm going to need more from you than question-begging one sentence rebuttals. For starters, I'd like to know which claim or claims I've attributed to theism which you think don't apply to Christian theism.

well let me back up there. I have not red it. would you give me a link?

I think larger picture needs to come out of this is that when make assertions like "there is nothing supernatural anywhere--" not saying you said that, Bradly did. they need to be careful and specific. which view is being discussed.

I would like to congratulate Bradley on his recent posts which have gathered hundreds of comments. You're a star Bradley!

A lot of the comments are back-and-forth debate between a few people, but I'm happy to stir up such discussions. I appreciate having sharp and informed commenters like you responding to my posts, and engaging with other commenters.

I think it's tragic that "supernatural" doesn't mean "natural - only more so."

I think that would be supranatural (:

supposed Christians took a vote and said there's no supernatural there's just unknown parts of the natural what would that do to your world view?

why can't there be something above nature? Super means above or the superior kind like superman.

when fairweather says SN is the ground and end f the natural he's saying what MLK said "the arch of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.: there's a telos.

You've gone and ruined my fun by giving a serious response. But your question is apt, I think: "supposed Christians took a vote and said there's no supernatural there's just unknown parts of the natural"

The challenge in defining "supernatural" is giving it a positive and non-empty characterization. Adopting a quasi-Wittgensteinian approach, perhaps we should look at the ways "supernatural" has generally been used. Very largely, the term has been used in conjunction with an ontological commitment to souls, spirits, or other non-material substances. The suggestion is that no amount of progress in physical sciences is going to assimilate the supernatural. There will never, and could never, be supernatural computers, communication devices, power cells, etc.

But then again, maybe that's not so helpful, since many proponents of the supernatural are happy enough to advocate supernatural "technologies" that permit soul travel (like Eckankar), or psychic abilities, and so forth.

hey man sorry to ruin things with a serious answer. I could back to name calling some people seem to like that. I could tell Trump jokes. But how can you top his real speeches for comedic effect?

I don't. I'm not sure the point you are making. SN is not practical. i don't propose it as as a scientific hypothesis. It's bound up with the spiritual because raising consciousnesses to know God at a higher level is spiritual.

Supernatural, spiritual and knowing god are abstract metaphysical and religious concepts that cannot be demonstrated to exist independently as anything other than thoughts.

wrong. they realities, but they have to be experienced. they are not metaphysical they are phenomenological.

That's just your "one trick pony" understanding. You have defined it so for yourself and you try to pour every claim for the supernatural into your teensy little claim. Experiences are phenomenological. But not all experiences are supernatural and not all supernatural occurrences are experiential. I know you can't understand that but you have simply reached the upper limit of your capacity for understanding. Don't try to pawn that limit off on others. It just won't work no matter how hard you try. Others just won't accept your intellectual limitations as their own.

Jonah supposedly living three days in the belly of a big fish, Elijah riding up to heaven in a chariot, Mary being impregnated by an immaterial God and Jesus supposedly taking on a divine human body at resurrection and flying up to heaven are all claimed as supernatural events that no one alive has experienced and they are not claimed as supernatural only by those who are said to have experienced them. Try and load those examples onto your little one trick pony definition of supernatural. Let's see if you can do it without making the Bible tell lies. Or as I suspect, you will ignore this challenge and simply troll for other opportunities to rant on about your pathetically self-limited understanding of supernatural.

obervations:

(1) I never said all atheists are into scientism but those who think that science is the only form of knowledge are into scientism by definition.

(2) The notion that God is subject to the laws of physics's is scientism.

(3) It is fallacious to argue that 'god can't exist because there's no proof o anything SN, it;s begging the question.

(4) Nature is not synonymous with physical sand SN is not synonymous with nonphysical.

(5) there is no scientific evidence of any kind that shows tht only physical things can exist.

(6) prove to me with empirical evidence that subatomic particles are physical and solid?

Joe Hinman said:

(3) It is fallacious to argue that 'god can't exist because there's no proof o anything SN, it;s begging the question.
====================
Response:

This is an important point or I should say an important issue.

In my post that kicked off this discussion of the meaning of "supernatural" I used the word repeatedly to refer to various powers and entities related to the question "Does God exist?" So, obviously, I believe that questions about the existence of supernatural powers and entities are RELEVANT to the question "Does God exist?"

The relevance can be thought of in terms of a priori probability, or, more broadly, "Should we approach the hypothesis that 'God exists' with skepticism?" It seems to me that scientifically-oriented skepticism does provide a rational orientation towards the question "Does God exist?".

Scientifically-oriented skepticism supports a skeptical approach to this question for these reasons:

1. Billions people have held beliefs about (a) supernatural beings and (b) supernatural powers/abilities over the past three thousand years.

2. Modern scientific investigation of claims about (a) supernatural beings, and (b) supernatural powers/abilities has consiistently shown that such claims are false or without any solid empirical basis.

3. This suggests that humans have an irrational tendency to accept false and dubious beliefs in (a) supernatural beings, and (b) supernatural powers.

4. This is INDUCTIVE evidence that there are no (a) supernatural beings, and no (b) beings with supernatural powers/abilities.

One must still consider arguments and evidence that is put forward in support of the claim that "God exists", so this evidence is not conclusive. But it does provide rational justification for approaching the question "Does God exist?" with skepticism, with the presumption of atheism.

The evidence put forward by scientifically-oriented skeptiks does not prove there is no God and no gods, but it provides good reasons to doubt that there is a God or gods, and it places a significant burden of proof on the theist to come up with powerful evidence for the existence of God, to outweigh the evidence that (a) human beings have a natural irrational tendency to form beliefs about supernatural beings and powers, and that (b) whenever we carefully perform scientific investigations into such beliefs, the beliefs turn out to be false or unsupported by the empirical data.

no that; bait and switch. typical atheist, God has nothing to do with leprechauns or magical fairies. magical faeries don't exist therefore doesn't exist say that you want it;s crap.

SN = mystical experience
mystical; experience exists therefore, SN exists/.

Wow! I was wondering how your very clear and precise answer would be treated by Joe. Thanks Bradley for a pristine example contrasting how to reason vs how not to reason.

Welcome!

(1) Straw man definition of scientism.
(2) It isn't scientism. It's naive theism.
(3) It is fallacious to argue that god can exist on any empirical grounds, because there's no evidence.
(4) Everything in nature is physical, as far as we know. So nature is synonymous with the physical.
(5) There is no scientific evidence of any kind that shows that non-physical things exist.
(6) Subatomic particles are physical by definition. And if solid means they bounce off things, then they are solid.

(1) Straw man definition of scientism.

I was argtuing agisnt scientism when I was an atheist. that[sthe way we have always defined it. Webster:excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

(2) It isn't scientism. It's naive theism.

so Dawkins is a naive theist? no sorry son there is no theistic position that accepts God being subordinate to anything.

(3) It is fallacious to argue that god can exist on any empirical grounds, because there's no evidence.

I didn't argue that. I argue the co-determinate is empirical.

(4) Everything in nature is physical, as far as we know. So nature is synonymous with the physical.

are dreams km nature? Mind is not physical. I'ts mental. It maybe produced by physical apparatus but it is not physical

besides you are begging the question because nothing is on a par with God. It's totally irrelevant if things in the natural realm are natural that his no bearing on relativity beyond the physical

(5) There is no scientific evidence of any kind that shows that non-physical things exist.

I just answered that the difference in this the previous point is like the difference between Trump and Cruz.

(6) Subatomic particles are physical by definition. And if solid means they bounce off things, then they are solid.

no they are not. I have never seen any definition of then that says they are physical. since we don;t know what they asre madeof (like is it more charges?) they are not little balls you know or strings.

what are the laws of physics made of?

• Reply•Share ›

(1) Still a straw man definition of scientism. It isn't consistent with what real people believe. It is consistent with what religionists think.
(2) Dawkins is not a theist. That which doesn't exist isn't subordinate to anything.
(3) It is still fallacious to argue in favor of God-belief on any empirical grounds, which you have done.
(4) Everything in nature is physical, including mental phenomena. The evidence is quite clear, despite your dualistic beliefs.
(5) There is still no scientific evidence of any kind that shows that non-physical things exist.
(6) Subatomic particles are still physical by definition. The study of them is a branch of physics. As for what it means to be "solid", why don't you define it first?