Miracles

"The unnatural--that too is natural." --Goethe

As a non-skeptic who's had several mysical experiences, I don't think there is such a thing as the supernatural or the unnatural. I think there's just natural, pretty much by definition. If telepathy exists, there's a natural law that covers it, same as faster-than-light travel or anything else that people dream about but don't seem to be able to bring about (yet, or consistently).

So it's all semantics, really.

Right. And actually this is why I wasn't sure what to comment in the original 'miracles' post - I believe that the miraculous happens within the ordinary, much as Goethe says. Most of the 'miracles' that seem to defy all natural laws (e.g. statues that weep blood, etc.) have been exposed as something more like religious showmanship than actual supernatural events. I believe a real miracle is when the Gods intervene in human affairs and something wonderful happens, such as a life being saved - but this can easily all take place within the laws of nature, as the Gods are the great powers behind nature itself. What makes it a miracle then is not that the event is unnatural or impossible, but that it was no chance incident - it was intended to happen by divine will. Trying to scientifically prove that this is the case is not even logical, as it's not a case of empirical data, but rather the meaning behind what has happened, spiritually and aesthetically. Would you try to 'prove' the validity of a poem or a work of art? The way a piece of music moves you? Of course not.

Agreed. Anything that happens is, IMO, natural; perhaps our frameworks on natural law can't currently explain it, but that gives us an opportunity to refine and rework them to capture reality more accurately.

I've had all kinds of bizarre experiences that can't be explained scientifically, but that neither invalidates them nor science.

Experiences that can't be explained scientifically? Or experiences which you did not know how to explain scientifically?

Saying that something can't be explained scientifically is the very definition of the paranormal or supernatural. Since in principle science can explain any natural phenomenon, something that can't be explained, in principle, is therefore supernatural.

On your first question, *shrugs*... I don't really know. Perhaps it's things that I simply can't explain scientifically.

As for your second statement: science defines what is natural? Hence, as science evolves and becomes more refined, the sphere of what is natural does as well? A thousand years ago, was basic chemistry supernatural?

There are many perfectly natural phenomena which science still has difficulty explaining; if by the term science you're referring to what will ultimately be explainable using science as opposed to what is currently explainable using science, then we cannot speak on the subject.

I don't see why there should be any difference between what science can currently explain and what science may be able to explain in the future.

Science has improved over the centuries to the point where we can now confidently assert that science can encompass all natural phenomena. This was not the case at times in the past. And yes, in Newton's time, the mechanism which moved the planets in their orbits was supernatural.

Sure - science does not have all the answers. But science is based on the idea that we are capable of finding out the answers to any given question. As soon as someone postulates something that is not in principle explainable by science, now or in the future (because science is fundamentally limited in some way), then you're starting to talk about the supernatural.

Science has improved over the centuries to the point where we can now confidently assert that science can encompass all natural phenomena. This was not the case at times in the past.

No offense, but my mind is absolutely boggled at the fact that you're making such a claim. Do you sincerely think that a thousand years from now, our scientific knowledge won't dwarf what we currently know and just like the case of Newtonian mechanics, we won't view our current scientific models as functional in some cases, but entirely inaccurate in others?

It strikes me (perhaps incorrectly) that you're taking science as fact, when it consists of nothing more than human-constructed models that hold up to scrutiny and experimentation. Don't get me wrong - I like and respect science a great deal, but I don't believe that any scientific model will ever be more provably true than any sound religious framework, even if they oppose in many ways. This is, incidentally, why I opt to study math instead of science: I like certainty, and at least in theoretical mathematics, given a set of axioms, there are classes of statements that are provably true and provably false. That sits a lot better with me than applied subjects, where reality gets in the way and makes things messy.

Anyways, I view science and scientific thought as a tool, just as I view spirituality. When they're useful, I use them, and when they're not, I don't feel that I should be limited by them. Tools should never be cumbersome, and there are always many more in the box when one isn't proving to be ideal. Now, admittedly, I often have more respect for science than many traditional religions, because science usually encourages new ideas and is thus a tool open to its own evolution and refinement, but that doesn't discount the value of spirituality. I'm of the opinion that atheists who place too much importance on and stock in the value of science to the exclusion of other things are not particularly different from fundamentalist Christians.

As soon as someone postulates something that is not in principle explainable by science, now or in the future

Unless one can somehow know the future, making such a postulation is absurd. I don't dare dream to profess to know the future, so in my mind, I see no reason to distinguish between "natural" and "supernatural". Everything that happens is an experience of the world around me, my internal constructions, or both to some degree. Seems natural enough to me, even if science hasn't yet derived models that incorporate these experiences.

Seems to me that you haven't studied enough science yet :) no offence...

As earlier posters have made the point, "all things are natural" - in other words, science can explain all things. The scientific framework we currently have is strong enough that in principle it is capable of explaining any future discoveries.

Since you're into mathematics, let's think about Euclid for a moment. It's a framework that can describe any geometrical situation. Even modern non-Euclidean geometry is a modification of only one of the original five postulates - the first four remain intact. So Euclidean four-postulate geometry is a framework powerful enough to explain any geometrical situation.

Science is like that. A few things here and there will need to be reinterpreted to fit the evidence, but in general science is theoretically capable of explaining any and all phenomena.

Thats's what I meant when I said Science has improved over the centuries to the point where we can now confidently assert that science can encompass all natural phenomena.

"in other words, science can explain all things."

well, that might be taking things a step too far. science is very good at describing physical events. the products of scientific observation and thinking are, in fact, probably the very best models available for describing physical events. however, physical events are not the only events which occur in nature, and there are other models which are better at describing, for instance, mental events.

there is, as well, some question about whether scientific methods in their pure form will ever be able to come to a final conclusion about the fundamentals of matter (witness the problems with developing an experimental test of string theory, for instance). metaphysics - the study of why things exist - is also outside the purview of scientific method.

is that necessarily what a miracle "is", however? to define something as an absurd thing, then call all other things which have been referred to by that term "absurd" is a straw man.

as rosefox points out through Goethe's quote, there is nothing unnatural or supernatural. all things that occur, occur in nature.

I'm completely curious. Do you believe in miracles, and if so, what definition would you attribute to the word?

i do. i would define "miracle" as an amazing or wonderful occurance. other definitions are preferential toward one particular religious form.

That definition turns a "miracle" into something completely mundane. If I get a new job, that may be a miracle. My partner buys me a birthday present. That's a miracle. I was thinking more about the more ... um, "miraculous" miracles.

what's not miraculous about those things? what is not miraculous about life?

if you want something absurd, that, as they say, is not my problem. ;)

you shaved?

I'm going to agree with those that have already posted. If it exists within the natural world, it is by definition not supernatural. I tend to say that I'll believe the supernatural when it happens to me and I cannot assume an unknown natural explanation. I'll believe it when I see it basically.

you shaved?

It's another Festivus miracle!!

Nothing miraculous about that.