16 ms·

Well it wasn't really "supernatural" at the time. It was literally a theory about the natural world. It just wasn't correct, and have since been replaced with d

• bloaf 10y ago
  Yes and no. I think of alchemy as early contact between mysticism and objectivity. People thought mysticism was a valid way to get info about the world. The failure of alchemy proved them wrong and may have partly led to a more skeptical "hypothesize and test" approach from the original "try to confirm religion" approach.
• woodandsteel 10y ago
  No, it was supernatural because it was about allegedly existing non-material entities and forces that cannot be observed through the senses, and that have will and the ability to influence the material world. Think spirits or gods. In Christianity from the beginning this was described in terms of reason versus faith. Human beings have two basic ways of thinking about reality, the natural and the supernatural, and until modern science came along they habitually mixed the two together. So for instance if I asked someone why a tree was black, they would answer "it was hit by lightening" which is a natural explanation, and then "and the lightening was thrown by the God Thor" which is a supernatural explanation. The great innovation of modern science (inspired by the Greeks) was to decide to stick entirely with natural ideas. It took centuries to make this change, and many battles, and it made possible modern technology. Let me add that the way I am using the term "natural" and "supernatural" is not my invention, it is the standard way philosophers and scientists have spoken about these matters for many centuries.
  • olavk 10y ago
    I'm not sure I get this distinction. What definition of "supernatural" do you refer to?