Once we arrive at the conclusion that mere
matter and natural laws are not sufficient to explain the existence of
the universe and life, but a super intelligence is, then what? For some,
this begins a life of exploration. Others turn the matter over to
organized religions that claim to be a conduit to the creator. For yet
others, who assume supernatural is synonymous with superstition, it
means stopping before they begin.
The word supernatural is laden with
emotion and confusion. It connotes a surrealism, subjectivity and
phantasm that makes it easy to set aside, reject or use to justify an
agenda. In religions it circumscribes a sacred domain where profane and
mundane science cannot tread and where religious leaders can claim
special knowledge and exert power. Materialists use the word to smugly
describe the place where people go when they have abandoned science and
reason.
Here's the point I would like to make
that will clear the air for all sides and create common ground for
progress: there is no supernatural; there is only natural.
This is why I can say such a thing. To
know what supernatural is, natural must be defined. The prefix,
"super," means beyond, or exceeding. So we must know where
"natural" ends before we can know what is beyond it. The
problem is, no one would (a better word is should) be so silly or bold
as to define the limits of natural. That's because philosophic and
religious ideas that separate natural from supernatural have fallen one
after another to the revelations of scientific exploration. Lightning
turned out not to be arrows in the quivers of supernatural gods, disease
was not supernatural devil possession and the universe was not a
supernatural firmament circling the Earth.
In earlier times, the state was religion
and the church defined science. Ancient Egypt and Rome typified this.
There was no real separation of secular from religious. All was hunky
dory. Then along came the scientific revolution, beginning in the 17th
century, and science decided to depart from the fold. A truce was made
and a deal struck whereby the church could have the supernatural, and
science would take the natural. The fear of being shot down yet again by
science has created a mood of capitulation by religions. They have
surrendered even where they need not have, such as with the issue of
evolution.
In any case, this unwritten agreement
about a division of authority worked out pretty well until quantum
physics showed that there was no real divide between the physical and
non physical (the supernatural). Now we are once again at the point
where all knowledge properly belongs under one header:
reality-truth-nature.
This is an interesting state of affairs,
not particularly comfortable for either side. Religion sees its
supernatural being whittled away by advancing science; science sees its
materialism vaporizing into a quantum world that has flavors of
religion.
Exploration is the enemy of the
supernatural. The more we learn, the more natural there is and the less
supernatural. That does not bode well for the word. When a concept keeps
caving in to the pressure of advancing knowledge, it may be a good time
to retire it. If we do, a reason for much of the conflict between
science and religion will disappear.
Since truth is our objective, discarding
a word should not be a problem. That which is revealed from nature,
natural things, is just truth. There is neither super-truth nor
super-nature. Truth is truth. We may not have fully discovered all the
truth nature contains - and we certainly haven't - but that does not
make the yet unknown super-truth or supernatural.
All things of truth are natural, even
that which we cannot see, hear, feel, smell, touch or even
conceptualize. Radio waves are natural, X-rays are, as are microbes,
molecules, atoms and quanta, even though they are invisible, unknown to
our naked senses and fundamentally inconceivable. There are infinite
unknowns beyond our perception and even our technology. Is it all
supernatural or is it just nature yet undiscovered or poorly understood?
That's rhetorical. Is it not the height of egocentricity and an
outrageous curiosity of humans that we would define the world as divided
into natural and supernatural based upon what we humans have or have not
discovered or understand?
Extraordinary, miraculous and paranormal
events are actually only glimpses of reality beyond normal human bounds,
not aberrations beyond nature. They are just preternatural, meaning
outside the normal course of nature, unusual, not supernatural. If a
person can walk through a wall, materialize objects out of thin air, see
through matter, rise from the dead or predict the future, that means
they have a special ability to tap into a part of natural reality that
most people cannot, not that they are supernatural.
To disprove events such as near-death and
out-of-body experiences, some skeptical investigators duplicate elements
of these experiences with drugs such as DMT and LSD and with centrifugal
g-force experiments. The assumption is that if unusual phenomena can be
induced by a physical act, in other words shown to be natural, that that
diminishes their merit by proving they are not supernatural. The logic
of that escapes me. The fact that physical natural factors can induce
extraordinary phenomena does not prove that such events cannot occur
outside of the laboratory in the private lives of individuals. It proves
that apparently "supernatural" events are natural. Exactly my
point: there is no dividing line between the two.
Weird extraordinary things are not that
at all, in a more expansive understanding of reality. The point needs to
be whether things are true, if they are facts and actually happen, not
whether we can classify them as supernatural or not.
So let's strike the word
"supernatural" from vocabulary (put in quotes henceforth) and
from our logic. That way we will not be surprised by discovery or
disappointed that our special little "supernatural" thing
turned out to be natural.
Understanding that all is natural opens
the mind, removes fear and makes everything fair game for study and
exploration. On the other hand, the more "supernatural" we
accede to, the more we are helpless victims and supplicants. Religion -
constructed around the "supernatural" - can be an excuse to
escape responsibility for our own actions and put things in God's
"supernatural" court: "It was God's will," "God
made me do it," "God is punishing me," "God is
blessing me." How convenient for those not wanting to take
responsibility for their own actions. Life is better lived as if an
atheist (no irreverence or disrespect intended): Don't blame God and
don't expect God to step in.
Those who claim special knowledge of the
"supernatural" can gather power to themselves to lord it over
those who buy into their claim of privilege. We mere natural creatures
can only bow to that which is beyond nature and to the agents who claim
their guesses about it are sureties. But how can any mere natural
creature speak with certainty about that which is
"supernatural," and therefore unreal?
Not only do some within religion take
advantage of the "supernatural," so too do materialists. The
latter assume, with no little bravado, that because the
"supernatural" has had to constantly retreat in the face of
advancing science, that eventually everything will be measured and
tallied with their machines. They see "supernatural" as an
excuse for intellectual laziness. To them the "supernatural"
is either unreal, fraudulent, or a part of nature waiting to be
harnessed by scientific instruments and nomenclature.
The failure of the
"supernatural" in the past to stand up to scientific scrutiny
gives materialists an excuse to reject all nonmaterial phenomena and
assume that materialism is an accurate explanation of all of
reality...which it most certainly is not. In other words, since science
defeated the supernatural doctrine that the Earth was the center of the
universe, it is reasoned that science will defeat any religious,
spiritual or metaphysical idea. To them no investigation is needed.
Something being "supernatural" is enough reason to reject it
out of hand. "Supernatural" becomes an easily defeated straw
man.
By assuming that things beyond measuring
are just religious fantasy or psychic voodoo, materialists close off
discovery and condemn themselves to a narrowed and constricted viewpoint
that reveals only a smidgen of reality. On the other hand, by attempting
to strictly define the "supernatural" and then having that
definition constantly gnawed away by advancing science, the religionist
is faced with constant intellectual dilemmas. However, if
"supernatural" is stricken from vocabulary, everything then
becomes natural. The materialist cannot so easily dismiss nonmaterial
events no matter how weird they may be; the religionist can welcome any
discovery science has to offer.
Omitting "supernatural" opens
the whole panorama of reality for exploration and discovery. The more we
learn about nature, the greater its girth. What lies out there yet to be
discovered, however, is natural even if we never discover it, are
incapable of doing so - or it has no corpus and is infinite, omniscient,
omnipresent and omnipotent.
In the end, the term
"supernatural," (and remember it is only a word) seems to only
create utility for those who make pretentious claims to know all about
it, and to provide an excuse for materialist's rejection of anything
that falls under its rubric. Demystifying reality by releasing it from
the artificial bonds of "supernatural" is the necessary
beginning to rational, scientific and spiritual (three words that should
mean the same thing) discovery.
About the Author
Dr. Wysong: A former veterinary clinician
and surgeon, college instructor, inventor of numerous medical, surgical,
nutritional, athletic and fitness products and devices, research
director for the company by his name and founder of the philanthropic
Wysong Institute. http://www.wysong.net.Also
check out http://www.cerealwysong.com
|