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


← Refuting supernatural

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Jump to comment 185 by Schrodinger's Cat

Comment 184 by Steve Zara

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.

My point was essentially that 'supernatural' fits all the exact same criteria that define 'does not exist'. The two are identical......

Back in the 70s, there was a guy who, realising that a total eclipse of the sun was due, decided to make a litte money out of gullible Americans. During totality he opened up 200 metal cans, which he then closed before the sun re-appeared. When the eclipse was over, he then sold the cans for $20 a time as 'canned dark from the eclipse'.

This is a true story....and spawned copycat cases ( in fact amazingly you can find 'Canned Hawaiian Dark' for sale on Amazon ! ).

And it seems to me that 'canned dark' is the perfect metaphor for 'the supernatural'. The tins of 'canned dark' even come with a label that warns that the guarantee ' Contains zero photons' is null and void if the can is opened. Thus you can never establish if there really is dark from the eclipse inside the can.

And of course....because dark is immaterial and is actually the absence of anything would not find any inside even if you did open the can.

'Canned dark' and the supernatural are metaphorically identical.

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:48:02 UTC | #950961