7 ms·

Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry. But replace the loaded term "God" with s

Rejecting one definition (after a half-hearted explication) doesn't solve anything except by ignoring further inquiry. But replace the loaded term "God" with something else, say "Nature" or "Infinite" or "Universe" or even "Matter", and I can't see how one doesn't tumble back to a more humble position. Well, obviously I believe in "nature" and "universe" and "matter". But praying to these things is silly, because they don't have minds and can't hear you. That's not what "God" means. What "God" means, to the majority of english speakers at least, is some form of magical super-fairy who created the universe and loves you. And no, I don't believe in magic or super-fairies, and I am not convinced that the universe's has a creator, and if it does, I'm further not convinced that said creator would necessarily be loving, or even have emotions as you and I conceive them. The slippery definition is a common tactic. You can't just redefine the term until it's something we all agree on, and then pretend that you're still talking about the same thing that we were disagreeing with. Either God is a magical ghost, or it's nature. If it's nature, then let's stop pretending that this is about deities and theism, and admit that we're just using poetic terms to talk about physics, declare that praying accomplishes no more than any other kind of meditative activity, and stop treating "religion" as any more special than sports or soap operas. I'd be ok with that.

robg 18y ago
Honestly it's not a "tactic" for me. I've come up with a workable definition that I'm very comfortable with. Luckily my wife and I mostly agree - and she's Indian. That's good enough for us - my definition doesn't have to work for you. And prayer, for me, is simply finding a stillness in my mind. You're insisting on a set of concepts that never worked for me. So I gave them up. It's still weird for me that this thread is filled with this common response, among folks very comfortable writing their own definitions on a daily basis, but this subject area provokes resistance but not reformation. By "Nature", where does that end for you? This planet? Or the solar system? The universe? Or the "metaverse"? There have been Christian theologians who can be read as naturalistic pantheists. See Charles Hartshorne. Good luck ascribing classical concepts to him, for instance.
- IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
  Nature = what is. (By extension, "supernatural" = "what isn't." By definition, it doesn't exist.) If that is what you mean by "prayer" and "god", then you shouldn't use those terms, for the same reason that you don't call firetrucks "lampshades" and asprin "peanut butter". I suspect that those concepts never worked for you because they don't work, period. Giving them up is called being an atheist. Why not just own that?
  - astine 18y ago
    That is not what nature means. In the broadest sense, nature is what exists on a material level. If you assume a priori, as Hume did, that all things that exist do so on a material and sensible level, then sure, that is a fine definition of 'nature.' But that's an assumption that, right or wrong, not everyone makes, so it isn't correct to say that.
    - IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
      nature is what exists on a material level. On a material level... So, what exists on a non-material level? The existence of information implies that it has some representation in some medium. Scramble the representation, and the information is gone. Qv, the files on my hard drive that time I used a magnetized screwdriver to put it in a new case, or the speaking ability of old alcoholics. Pretty smart people sometimes get confused by different levels of analysis and then start saying absurd things. We can talk about semiconductors or registers or instructions or lines of code or functions or programs. It's not that each one of these conversations are the same, but they do imply one another. When we talk about an abstraction like "purple" or "justice" or "motherly", we're implying all the real world examples (past, present, and future) of these abstractions, and focusing on what they have in common. "Justice" doesn't exist apart from just things, any more than "purple" exists apart from the typical human experience of purple light. There's no sense in looking for Plato's Ideal Forms; you won't find them, no matter how many caves you turn around in. I would argue that, when we talk about "nature", we are referring to all that exists, but that's not enough to know how to use the term, which is why you find that flip definition unsatisfactory. We're specifically focusing on the level of analysis that involves fundamental properties of things. Since things are the sum of their properties (in other words, "things are what they are"), "nature" is what is, "natural" properly means "consistent with a thing's fundamental properties", and "supernatural" is "imaginary and not real." God isn't natural, therefor, God doesn't exist. Quid erat demonstratum. And that's why geeks are atheists ;) In all seriousness, I actually think that this is what people usually mean when they use the terms "nature" and "supernatural". They sometimes bundle in the assumption that supernatural things can exist (which is a contradiction) and that humans are somehow magical non-animal creatures and not a part of nature (which is silly.) But that's an assumption that, right or wrong, not everyone makes, so it isn't correct to say that. If the assumption is right, then the people who don't make it are incorrect, aren't they? They might mean something vague and undefined when they say nature (in fact, I'm quite sure most do), but that doesn't mean that the soup of contradictions most people carry around in their heads is even slightly valid or worth worrying about.

robg 18y ago

Honestly it's not a "tactic" for me. I've come up with a workable definition that I'm very comfortable with. Luckily my wife and I mostly agree - and she's Indian. That's good enough for us - my definition doesn't have to work for you. And prayer, for me, is simply finding a stillness in my mind. You're insisting on a set of concepts that never worked for me. So I gave them up. It's still weird for me that this thread is filled with this common response, among folks very comfortable writing their own definitions on a daily basis, but this subject area provokes resistance but not reformation. By "Nature", where does that end for you? This planet? Or the solar system? The universe? Or the "metaverse"? There have been Christian theologians who can be read as naturalistic pantheists. See Charles Hartshorne. Good luck ascribing classical concepts to him, for instance.

IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
Nature = what is. (By extension, "supernatural" = "what isn't." By definition, it doesn't exist.) If that is what you mean by "prayer" and "god", then you shouldn't use those terms, for the same reason that you don't call firetrucks "lampshades" and asprin "peanut butter". I suspect that those concepts never worked for you because they don't work, period. Giving them up is called being an atheist. Why not just own that?
- astine 18y ago
  That is not what nature means. In the broadest sense, nature is what exists on a material level. If you assume a priori, as Hume did, that all things that exist do so on a material and sensible level, then sure, that is a fine definition of 'nature.' But that's an assumption that, right or wrong, not everyone makes, so it isn't correct to say that.
  - IsaacSchlueter 18y ago
    nature is what exists on a material level. On a material level... So, what exists on a non-material level? The existence of information implies that it has some representation in some medium. Scramble the representation, and the information is gone. Qv, the files on my hard drive that time I used a magnetized screwdriver to put it in a new case, or the speaking ability of old alcoholics. Pretty smart people sometimes get confused by different levels of analysis and then start saying absurd things. We can talk about semiconductors or registers or instructions or lines of code or functions or programs. It's not that each one of these conversations are the same, but they do imply one another. When we talk about an abstraction like "purple" or "justice" or "motherly", we're implying all the real world examples (past, present, and future) of these abstractions, and focusing on what they have in common. "Justice" doesn't exist apart from just things, any more than "purple" exists apart from the typical human experience of purple light. There's no sense in looking for Plato's Ideal Forms; you won't find them, no matter how many caves you turn around in. I would argue that, when we talk about "nature", we are referring to all that exists, but that's not enough to know how to use the term, which is why you find that flip definition unsatisfactory. We're specifically focusing on the level of analysis that involves fundamental properties of things. Since things are the sum of their properties (in other words, "things are what they are"), "nature" is what is, "natural" properly means "consistent with a thing's fundamental properties", and "supernatural" is "imaginary and not real." God isn't natural, therefor, God doesn't exist. Quid erat demonstratum. And that's why geeks are atheists ;) In all seriousness, I actually think that this is what people usually mean when they use the terms "nature" and "supernatural". They sometimes bundle in the assumption that supernatural things can exist (which is a contradiction) and that humans are somehow magical non-animal creatures and not a part of nature (which is silly.) But that's an assumption that, right or wrong, not everyone makes, so it isn't correct to say that. If the assumption is right, then the people who don't make it are incorrect, aren't they? They might mean something vague and undefined when they say nature (in fact, I'm quite sure most do), but that doesn't mean that the soup of contradictions most people carry around in their heads is even slightly valid or worth worrying about.