I have a problem with calling anything "magic" or "supernatural." If something is "magical", meaning outside the laws of nature, then "the laws of nature" does not have any meaning. If a yogi floating in the air breaks the laws of nature, then extreme magic, like turning off gravity across the universe, would be just as possible. Distinguishing between minor magic, like floating, and turning off gravity only makes sense if there is some kind of "law of nature" to separate the two. There can be no such thing as only sort-of breaking the laws of nature.
The reality is "magical" things lie just beyond our comprehension, or at least beyond the comprehension of some people. But once comprehension is gained, then the appropriate "laws of nature" also become at least partially understood. 200 years ago it would be "magic" for a person to fly, but now it is a simple matter of understanding the laws of nature regarding air density and aerodynamics. Humans may not fully understand how the laws of nature apply to any given situation but it is guaranteed some form of "laws of nature" applies.
Science is the practice of experimentation and testing in order to comprehend the "laws of nature" to the extent possible. But of course science cannot answer all questions since some things, like the nature and/or existence of God, are beyond human ability to test. I am totally comfortable with the idea of not knowing certain things, but it seems lots of people cling to a "supernatural" explanation for things beyond comprehension even though there is no such thing as "supernatural."
The definitions of these terms are notoriously tricky; I don’t think there’s anything wrong, per-se with construing things as you do. But I think a pretty common alternative way of conceiving things is specifying that there is some class of causes that are non-natural. So, for example, if after death a ghost continues to exist that can interact with the world but doesn’t seem to follow the laws of physics as we understand them, I don’t see why we can’t call that supernatural.
I also don’t see why you think that there being any exception to the laws of nature means they have no meaning. Who says the laws of nature have to be exceptionless? Most ‘laws of nature’ we use in science have exceptions because they are not fundamental laws, they are regularities that are held in place by deeper patterns. Just because there are certain circumstances we know a law is violated, doesn’t mean it’s a useless law and anything goes all the time.
I guess the tricky part is defining the "laws of nature." For me this means things that, as far as we know, cannot be altered, like the mass of an electron or the relationship of mass and gravity (assuming we humans have a complete understanding of these things). They are fundamental. I don't see "regularities that are held in place by deeper patterns" as "laws." They are just regularities.
If a natural law can be broken, is it really a law? If something like a ghost continues to exist beyond what we believe is "natural", it just shows that we don't have a complete understanding of what goes on with ghosts. A "broken" natural law shows an incomplete understanding of natural law rather than something "supernatural." It used to be thought that one element, like lead, cannot be turned into another element, like gold. This was thought to be "natural law." But now, through a greater understanding of physics, we know that radioactivity and nuclear decay can turn one element into another.
Imagine a star that suddenly vanishes. It may be tempting to call that a supernatural event. But I can guarantee astrophysicists would try very hard to come up with some kind of natural explanation, even if that means tossing all we think we know about physics to come up with a new theory of everything, a new understanding of "natural law."
Sure, maybe, but it’s a semantic question. Back in the Renaissance there were Magi who practiced ‘Natural Magic’. They understood it as using their understanding of nature to cause effects. Natural magic was distinguished from magic that called on the powers of angels or demons. Natural magic included astrological influences and what we call ‘sympathetic magic’ which relied on the belief that similar objects had a causal connection. You’re basically saying ‘none of those are magic, if it’s systematic and grounded in fundamental causes we can study it and be scientists of it.’ Which, fair, there’s nothing contradictory in talking in thinking this way. If there was a science of demon binding and it was grounded in fundamental laws then we could investigate it scientifically and uncover and quantify how it worked.
But I personally prefer to distinguish certain kinds of causes as supernatural. I think that if it were possible to bind demons to cause strange effects, even if that practice has various regularities and can be investigated empirically, I would call it magic, and the abilities of the demons as supernatural. Similarly if nature worked the way the natural magicians thought it did.
Ultimately I think it’s a semantic preference.
Beyond that, there is the question of whether one can imagine natural laws that hold except when certain ‘exceptions’ operate. If those exceptions are under the conscious control of noncorporeal beings (that is, intelligences that don’t have a body made out of matter, or something like that), I think that’s a kind of ‘metaphysical miracles are real’ situation. If mind is not supervenient on physics, we can imagine will and thought being able to override nature and not being subject to nature. I don’t think this is the way things work, but I think it’s a coherent worldview that doesn’t fit your way of thinking.
Yes, there are always semantic preferences. I prefer to define magic as "something a human does that appears to defy the laws of nature" and miracles as "something happens that appears to be impossible without some kind of 'supernatural' influence." Then the question becomes, appears to be supernatural by whom? And of course we all have different opinions on what exactly is impossible. Who's opinion counts the most? Do we decide if something is really supernatural by consensus or some kind of democratic process?
I heard about a guy today who had just survived 20 days stranded in the wilderness, and attributed his rescue to divine intervention. Okay, fine for him, but is that something that should be studied as an example of the supernatural? I don't think so.
I agree with your point in the original post, that "we'll figure it out eventually" is the best approach to take. Even if will and thought are able to override nature, I would sure like to know how that works. And how that works would become another "law of nature."
Belief in God is like belief in the Big Bang theory. Proof will never be found to substantiate either belief. Same thing with magic and miracles.
Something more relevant and much easier to substantiate is the power of prayer. It is very evident that the children who witnessed the miracle of Fatima, where very devote Christians, and in the middle of the first world war would be very reasonable for them to be praying for peace..
The prerequisite for prayer is somebody or something who hears the prayer.
I have a problem with calling anything "magic" or "supernatural." If something is "magical", meaning outside the laws of nature, then "the laws of nature" does not have any meaning. If a yogi floating in the air breaks the laws of nature, then extreme magic, like turning off gravity across the universe, would be just as possible. Distinguishing between minor magic, like floating, and turning off gravity only makes sense if there is some kind of "law of nature" to separate the two. There can be no such thing as only sort-of breaking the laws of nature.
The reality is "magical" things lie just beyond our comprehension, or at least beyond the comprehension of some people. But once comprehension is gained, then the appropriate "laws of nature" also become at least partially understood. 200 years ago it would be "magic" for a person to fly, but now it is a simple matter of understanding the laws of nature regarding air density and aerodynamics. Humans may not fully understand how the laws of nature apply to any given situation but it is guaranteed some form of "laws of nature" applies.
Science is the practice of experimentation and testing in order to comprehend the "laws of nature" to the extent possible. But of course science cannot answer all questions since some things, like the nature and/or existence of God, are beyond human ability to test. I am totally comfortable with the idea of not knowing certain things, but it seems lots of people cling to a "supernatural" explanation for things beyond comprehension even though there is no such thing as "supernatural."
The definitions of these terms are notoriously tricky; I don’t think there’s anything wrong, per-se with construing things as you do. But I think a pretty common alternative way of conceiving things is specifying that there is some class of causes that are non-natural. So, for example, if after death a ghost continues to exist that can interact with the world but doesn’t seem to follow the laws of physics as we understand them, I don’t see why we can’t call that supernatural.
I also don’t see why you think that there being any exception to the laws of nature means they have no meaning. Who says the laws of nature have to be exceptionless? Most ‘laws of nature’ we use in science have exceptions because they are not fundamental laws, they are regularities that are held in place by deeper patterns. Just because there are certain circumstances we know a law is violated, doesn’t mean it’s a useless law and anything goes all the time.
I guess the tricky part is defining the "laws of nature." For me this means things that, as far as we know, cannot be altered, like the mass of an electron or the relationship of mass and gravity (assuming we humans have a complete understanding of these things). They are fundamental. I don't see "regularities that are held in place by deeper patterns" as "laws." They are just regularities.
If a natural law can be broken, is it really a law? If something like a ghost continues to exist beyond what we believe is "natural", it just shows that we don't have a complete understanding of what goes on with ghosts. A "broken" natural law shows an incomplete understanding of natural law rather than something "supernatural." It used to be thought that one element, like lead, cannot be turned into another element, like gold. This was thought to be "natural law." But now, through a greater understanding of physics, we know that radioactivity and nuclear decay can turn one element into another.
Imagine a star that suddenly vanishes. It may be tempting to call that a supernatural event. But I can guarantee astrophysicists would try very hard to come up with some kind of natural explanation, even if that means tossing all we think we know about physics to come up with a new theory of everything, a new understanding of "natural law."
Sure, maybe, but it’s a semantic question. Back in the Renaissance there were Magi who practiced ‘Natural Magic’. They understood it as using their understanding of nature to cause effects. Natural magic was distinguished from magic that called on the powers of angels or demons. Natural magic included astrological influences and what we call ‘sympathetic magic’ which relied on the belief that similar objects had a causal connection. You’re basically saying ‘none of those are magic, if it’s systematic and grounded in fundamental causes we can study it and be scientists of it.’ Which, fair, there’s nothing contradictory in talking in thinking this way. If there was a science of demon binding and it was grounded in fundamental laws then we could investigate it scientifically and uncover and quantify how it worked.
But I personally prefer to distinguish certain kinds of causes as supernatural. I think that if it were possible to bind demons to cause strange effects, even if that practice has various regularities and can be investigated empirically, I would call it magic, and the abilities of the demons as supernatural. Similarly if nature worked the way the natural magicians thought it did.
Ultimately I think it’s a semantic preference.
Beyond that, there is the question of whether one can imagine natural laws that hold except when certain ‘exceptions’ operate. If those exceptions are under the conscious control of noncorporeal beings (that is, intelligences that don’t have a body made out of matter, or something like that), I think that’s a kind of ‘metaphysical miracles are real’ situation. If mind is not supervenient on physics, we can imagine will and thought being able to override nature and not being subject to nature. I don’t think this is the way things work, but I think it’s a coherent worldview that doesn’t fit your way of thinking.
Yes, there are always semantic preferences. I prefer to define magic as "something a human does that appears to defy the laws of nature" and miracles as "something happens that appears to be impossible without some kind of 'supernatural' influence." Then the question becomes, appears to be supernatural by whom? And of course we all have different opinions on what exactly is impossible. Who's opinion counts the most? Do we decide if something is really supernatural by consensus or some kind of democratic process?
I heard about a guy today who had just survived 20 days stranded in the wilderness, and attributed his rescue to divine intervention. Okay, fine for him, but is that something that should be studied as an example of the supernatural? I don't think so.
I agree with your point in the original post, that "we'll figure it out eventually" is the best approach to take. Even if will and thought are able to override nature, I would sure like to know how that works. And how that works would become another "law of nature."
Belief in God is like belief in the Big Bang theory. Proof will never be found to substantiate either belief. Same thing with magic and miracles.
Something more relevant and much easier to substantiate is the power of prayer. It is very evident that the children who witnessed the miracle of Fatima, where very devote Christians, and in the middle of the first world war would be very reasonable for them to be praying for peace..
The prerequisite for prayer is somebody or something who hears the prayer.