Comments on There is only the natural world

Go to Religion in the Modern WorldAdd a commentGo to There is only the natural world

Re: ash_pradhan - "what is not natural" can be used as a broad definition of

All observations / events at any given time can be broadly classified into "natural" and "not natural".

The supernatural as you define, and I have no problem with that eloquent description, is still a subset of what is "not natural".

At any given time, that includes observations / events, some of which are commonly held, while some depend on a particular societal segment.

This may partly explain why, in general, the Western world is more "advanced" in the scientific phenomena, and the Eastern world is more "advanced" in the spiritual phenomena.

But the conclusion you make, at the end of your good commentary, in your last sentence is too absolute to be correct / rational.

Btw, I do respect your knowledge, ability, and willingness to conduct an intelligent, reasonable dialogue, provided the other person shows reasonably similar attributes.

But I am of the humble opinion that that treatment should be given to all, regardless of their behavior / attitude / capability, and leave it to them to benefit if they so choose.

Looking forward to more interactions with you, and hoping to draw other participants comfortably. 

Peace :),

posted by ash_pradhan on March 19, 2009 at 7:42 AM | link to this | reply

ash_pradhan - "what is not natural" can be used as a broad definition of

the supernatural but it is sometimes innacurate, depending on context.

There are two problems in the way you are using it in your original comment; First, in what you are attempting to imply in that the supernatural inspires scientific discovery. This is simply not true to any real extent in modern science . . . then as I mentioned; you are using the word natural in a different context than I did in this post, where it is no longer an antonymn for supernatural.

Replace the word natural in your first comment with any of the synonyms I provided and the sentiment expressed remains the same but it no longer has any relevence to the supernatural.

Obfuscation of context does not an argument make.

posted by gomedome on March 19, 2009 at 6:29 AM | link to this | reply

Re: ash_pradhan - Re: Good commentary...
Why wouldn't the supernatural be what is not natural (to include all of the definitions you state) at that particular time ?

posted by ash_pradhan on March 18, 2009 at 1:39 PM | link to this | reply

ash_pradhan - Re: Good commentary...
In this post I speak of the natural world versus the supernatural realm. In your comment you attempt to use the world "natural" out of this context, which does not in any way refute what I have said. One need only replace the word natural in your comment with any of its contextual synonyms, the sentiment expressed remains virtually the same but becomes irrelevent in speaking of the supernatural realm. Examples: anticipated, characteristic, common, commonplace, consistent, constant, counted on, customary, familiar, habitual, legitimate, logical or routinely expected.

posted by gomedome on March 18, 2009 at 8:58 AM | link to this | reply

Good commentary...
however, belief in something beyond what is generally believed as natural, is one of the very drivers of new discoveries..world's greatest scientists did not let their imaginations be confined by what was considered natural during their days.

posted by ash_pradhan on March 18, 2009 at 8:21 AM | link to this | reply