Is this term an oxymoron? I suspect it is. Or at least, I think the worldview it describes is incoherent.
J.B.S. Haldane said;
“Now my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”
Which suggests to me the following hierarchy of possibilities:
1) The universe is queerer than we suppose.
2) The universe is queerer than we can suppose (Haldane)
3)The universe is queerer than we will ever be able to suppose
4) The universe is queerer than anything can suppose
5) The universe is queerer than anything will ever be able to suppose
So is 'supernatural' a contingent term, dependent on some specific time and epistemic horizon, or is it a statement of principle?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't find it a very useful term either. But I do think it can be defined coherently. Looking at the many things we tend to lump together under the label of "supernatural" I see what appears to be a common element.
They are things claimed to exist, act, or gather knowledge of the world through nonphysical means.
Thats my working definition anyway. Again, not that I find the natural/supernatural distinction all that useful.
I'm not really convinced. I think you have just masked the incoherence by your use of the term 'nonphysical'. But if we try to think about what this might mean, we run up against the same problems.
Post a Comment