This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Refuting supernatural

Steve Zara's Avatar Jump to comment 184 by Steve Zara

Comment 182 by Schrodinger's Cat

'The supernatural' is really an utterly meaningless term.

I have, in a philosophical paper, seen it given a very clear definition: that which is beyond science.

However, this doesn't mean that it actually refers to anything real. It is in the same category as the word 'unknowable'.

I believe there is considerable confusion because 'supernatural' is assumed to be a valid property of something. It's not. It's an attribute that can never be justifiably used because that something is beyond science can never be demonstrated - it is impossible.

It is impossible to demonstrate that something is beyond 'natural laws' because we cannot in principle determine the limit of natural laws; what we call natural laws are provisional and could be changed at any time by the next observation.

The whole business of 'natural' and 'supernatural' is a distraction. It would be better if the terms were not used. What we have is a world in which we see things happen, and we use science to try and investigate. There is no other way to find out what is real and what is illusion and delusion.

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 13:26:56 UTC | #950945