![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This discussion was the talk page for Supernaturalization, a title that now redirects to Supernatural.
I deleted the contents of the article because it was essentially a personal essay about a non-topic, or rather two. The two non-topics are 1) that many people believe in the supernatural and use this to explain natural events -- this is an ispusue currently discussed on other pages, and contributors to this page ought to add to those other articles. 2) that many people take the Bible literally or metaphorically to be the word of God, but that many people also study it critically. Again, there are other obvious articles where this is already discussed and more effectively I might add. Both of these points have been addressed by philosophers, theologians, historians, anthropologists, and so on, and all articles on these topics should reflect current scholarship and not the author's personal opinion. Slrubenstein
Look, maybe this could become a real article. But the current text is misleading. here it is, with comments:
Supernaturalization, from the neologism supernaturalize, meaning "to make supernatural", has several possible meanings. Two of these possible meanings can be defined like this:
The above definitions assume that an event of phenomena reall is "natural." Events and phenomena really are perceived, and then people classify them in various ways. I think very few if any people who are "supernaturalists" would say that they are claiming that they are interpreting "natural" events as supernatural;
they are asserting that certain events really are supernatural.
If anything, they would accuse others (e.g. evolutionists) of interpreting a supernatural event as "natural." In short, the definitions above are hopelessly POV.
Examples of the first kind of supernaturalization are extremely common:
You can reject the Biblical account -- fine -- but then reject the claim that the plagues occured at all.
If you accept the Biblical claim that the plagues occured, you might as well accept the claim that they were supernatural. There is no scientific (natural) evidence for the plagues even having happened.
Examples of the second kind of supernaturalization can be seen in the
New Testament in passages like this:
The earliest manuscripts of John do not include the words from "waiting for the moving..." through "...of whatsoever disease he had". In other words, the angel, a supernatural being, has been added to a story about a presumably natural phenomenon, the moving of the water, and the natural phenomenon as a whole has been reinterpreted as supernatural.
Very well said, SR. For what it's worth, the POV itself that the article appears to reflect appears to be described under philosophical naturalism rather well. Haven't looked recently, but there's probably some related info under epistemology. Some related articles that some of the content might be appropriate for include: Spanish Armada, Bible, Tanach, Old Testament, New Testament, Biblical canon, Religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Prayer, Revelation, Mysticism and Miracle. Check the links from those articles to related ones; hope this helps identify some of the places where this sort of material has been discussed. Wesley 20:06 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
I wish to register my agreement with Slrubenstein and Wesley. The article needs to go; not because there is anything wrong with discussing such subjects, but because it was a mishmosh of many different topics, put together with no apparent logical organization, and with a title that was a made-up word. The author of the original article is invited - nay, ecouraged! - to continue contributing. We are glad to gave you with us. However, it is important to first define precisely which topic you wish to write about, and write about them in the already extant entries on this subject. RK
Response to J:
You misunderstand my point, which is pretty widely accepted -- just read Kant for a philosopher's view, or Berger and Luckman's The Social Construction of Reality for sociologists' view. People fall down, that is a sensate experience. That we call this an effect of gravity, and describe gravity as a "natural force" which obeys, or can be described in terms of, laws, is a social construction.
That we take gravity and put it alongside all osrts of other stuff and call them "nature" is also a social construction. You do not have to agree with this: some people just naively think "nature" is out there,
and other people think "nature" has nothing to do with it, it is the hand of God or gods. That is fine, these are all different points of view. But for you to assert that one of these points of view is "true" because you believe it is arrogant, and certainly has no place in this encyclopedia.
This is a very good point, and a good example of the real contribution I think you can make to this project -- but as I have explained, this point belongs in some other article (see Wesley's list)
This is not about Occam's razor, it is about how to read texts.
I read a book called Red Planet about the colonization of Mars. As far as I could tell, all of the science within it was correct. But I do not seriously believe that there is a functioning colony on Mars.
I read a book called Pride and Prejudice and it all seemed pretty realistic to me. But I really don't think Mr. Darcy ever existed or did the things he does in that book.
I read a book called the Bible that describes ten plagues. Yes, of course I know "plagues" can and have happened. But why should I believe that those ten plagues happened, happened where and when they happened, and happened for the reasons they happened? There is no external evidence that "the ten plagues" happened. Why are you so committed to saying they happened?
Just because you believe the Bible? But you don't -- you explicitly reject the Bible's protagonist (God) and his actions!
To me this is like saying "Moby Dick was a great book, except it's misleading because the whale wasn't really white." That is not a very interesting way to talk about Moby Dick! I find your way of talking about the Bible equally silly. Slrubenstein
This is a valid article, and I find the above arguments to be weak and inconsistent. "Supernaturalization", "supernaturalized", "supernaturalizing" etc. are valid terms and they are indeed used in the sense described herein. I certainly strongly object to the outright blanking of an article before at least a minimum of discussion has taken place.
However, let's not turn this into a flamewar. I think the main objection is that the article was written a bit too matter-of-factly, as if the perspective regarding supernaturalization was the only correct one.
I have rewritten it a bit and attributed the perspective to skeptical readers of religious texts, which is accurate. Well known critics of religion such as Deschner and Russell have certainly used this line of reasoning in the past. It also seems to be popular among defenders of religion who seek to retain a certain belief in biblical stories, while doubting the occurence of the supernatural.
We do of course need to follow NPOV and separate this perspective from others, such as belief by faith. Arguments against the perspective of supernaturalization can of course be included. But the article itself is completely within the scope of Wikipedia. -- Eloquence 16:25 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
1) the article mischaracterizes a debate about whether events are natural or supernatural, as a debate about whether natural events have supernatural causes.
2) the contents needs specific attribution. Eloquence finally mentions some real people, e.g. Russell -- but please place the name and citation in the article in the appropraite place
3) most of the contents is more appropriate to other articles.
I want to point out that only comment 1 is critical of the content per se. I see my other two comments as touching on more general issues that should be concern to all wikipedians, namely: should we have articles on neologisms when there are other articles that cover the topics, and should articles present positions without ascription? Slrubenstein
The article refers to a specific process which, I think, we can agree exists: People ascribe supernatural causes to natural events, and they may increasingly do so over time. This process is distinct from another process which we may posit exists, namely that supernatural events are sometimes simply invented entirely. Supernaturalization refers to events which have occurred in one form or another, but which are increasingly muddled with mysticism. I believe it is important to keep in mind that these are separate discussions, and you will find documented evidence for both in the literature.
For example, the process of supernaturalization is frequently cited as one origin of formalized, organized religions, e.g. by von Corvin in his anti-religious tract Der Pfaffenspiegel ("Wie die Pfaffen entstanden sind" - "How the priests came into the world" -- he argues that Jesus' miracles were actually healing techniques learned by Buddhists or from other sources), probably by many other anti-religious 19th century writers, certainly by Deschner, and probably by many progressive pro-religious writers who argue that religion is essentially metaphorical.
On the other hand, virtually all critics of religion claim that most "miracles" have been invented entirely, or were deliberate trickery (in both cases supernaturalization does not apply), that many biblical stories are plainly false etc. This is what Deschner writes about a lot in Der gefälschte Glaube (The forged belief), where he also documents how pagan beliefs seeped into Christianity etc. But this is not what we are talking about here.
Yes, we need attributed quotes, more perspectives etc. The article is hardly perfect in its current form (which 'pedia article is?), and may even be better placed in a different context -- suggest one and we can talk about it. However, I think it can be expanded usefully, and that it is currently already in line with Wikipedia policy. -- Eloquence 19:19 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Given these facts from history and philosophy, I think it would be wrong to assume some ontological or epistemological priority to nature and to claim that that assumption is NPOV.
In this context, the debate between skeptics and theists is not whether "natural" events "have" supernatural causes, but whether there are events that are not natural. Slrubenstein
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This discussion was the talk page for Supernaturalization, a title that now redirects to Supernatural.
I deleted the contents of the article because it was essentially a personal essay about a non-topic, or rather two. The two non-topics are 1) that many people believe in the supernatural and use this to explain natural events -- this is an ispusue currently discussed on other pages, and contributors to this page ought to add to those other articles. 2) that many people take the Bible literally or metaphorically to be the word of God, but that many people also study it critically. Again, there are other obvious articles where this is already discussed and more effectively I might add. Both of these points have been addressed by philosophers, theologians, historians, anthropologists, and so on, and all articles on these topics should reflect current scholarship and not the author's personal opinion. Slrubenstein
Look, maybe this could become a real article. But the current text is misleading. here it is, with comments:
Supernaturalization, from the neologism supernaturalize, meaning "to make supernatural", has several possible meanings. Two of these possible meanings can be defined like this:
The above definitions assume that an event of phenomena reall is "natural." Events and phenomena really are perceived, and then people classify them in various ways. I think very few if any people who are "supernaturalists" would say that they are claiming that they are interpreting "natural" events as supernatural;
they are asserting that certain events really are supernatural.
If anything, they would accuse others (e.g. evolutionists) of interpreting a supernatural event as "natural." In short, the definitions above are hopelessly POV.
Examples of the first kind of supernaturalization are extremely common:
You can reject the Biblical account -- fine -- but then reject the claim that the plagues occured at all.
If you accept the Biblical claim that the plagues occured, you might as well accept the claim that they were supernatural. There is no scientific (natural) evidence for the plagues even having happened.
Examples of the second kind of supernaturalization can be seen in the
New Testament in passages like this:
The earliest manuscripts of John do not include the words from "waiting for the moving..." through "...of whatsoever disease he had". In other words, the angel, a supernatural being, has been added to a story about a presumably natural phenomenon, the moving of the water, and the natural phenomenon as a whole has been reinterpreted as supernatural.
Very well said, SR. For what it's worth, the POV itself that the article appears to reflect appears to be described under philosophical naturalism rather well. Haven't looked recently, but there's probably some related info under epistemology. Some related articles that some of the content might be appropriate for include: Spanish Armada, Bible, Tanach, Old Testament, New Testament, Biblical canon, Religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Prayer, Revelation, Mysticism and Miracle. Check the links from those articles to related ones; hope this helps identify some of the places where this sort of material has been discussed. Wesley 20:06 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
I wish to register my agreement with Slrubenstein and Wesley. The article needs to go; not because there is anything wrong with discussing such subjects, but because it was a mishmosh of many different topics, put together with no apparent logical organization, and with a title that was a made-up word. The author of the original article is invited - nay, ecouraged! - to continue contributing. We are glad to gave you with us. However, it is important to first define precisely which topic you wish to write about, and write about them in the already extant entries on this subject. RK
Response to J:
You misunderstand my point, which is pretty widely accepted -- just read Kant for a philosopher's view, or Berger and Luckman's The Social Construction of Reality for sociologists' view. People fall down, that is a sensate experience. That we call this an effect of gravity, and describe gravity as a "natural force" which obeys, or can be described in terms of, laws, is a social construction.
That we take gravity and put it alongside all osrts of other stuff and call them "nature" is also a social construction. You do not have to agree with this: some people just naively think "nature" is out there,
and other people think "nature" has nothing to do with it, it is the hand of God or gods. That is fine, these are all different points of view. But for you to assert that one of these points of view is "true" because you believe it is arrogant, and certainly has no place in this encyclopedia.
This is a very good point, and a good example of the real contribution I think you can make to this project -- but as I have explained, this point belongs in some other article (see Wesley's list)
This is not about Occam's razor, it is about how to read texts.
I read a book called Red Planet about the colonization of Mars. As far as I could tell, all of the science within it was correct. But I do not seriously believe that there is a functioning colony on Mars.
I read a book called Pride and Prejudice and it all seemed pretty realistic to me. But I really don't think Mr. Darcy ever existed or did the things he does in that book.
I read a book called the Bible that describes ten plagues. Yes, of course I know "plagues" can and have happened. But why should I believe that those ten plagues happened, happened where and when they happened, and happened for the reasons they happened? There is no external evidence that "the ten plagues" happened. Why are you so committed to saying they happened?
Just because you believe the Bible? But you don't -- you explicitly reject the Bible's protagonist (God) and his actions!
To me this is like saying "Moby Dick was a great book, except it's misleading because the whale wasn't really white." That is not a very interesting way to talk about Moby Dick! I find your way of talking about the Bible equally silly. Slrubenstein
This is a valid article, and I find the above arguments to be weak and inconsistent. "Supernaturalization", "supernaturalized", "supernaturalizing" etc. are valid terms and they are indeed used in the sense described herein. I certainly strongly object to the outright blanking of an article before at least a minimum of discussion has taken place.
However, let's not turn this into a flamewar. I think the main objection is that the article was written a bit too matter-of-factly, as if the perspective regarding supernaturalization was the only correct one.
I have rewritten it a bit and attributed the perspective to skeptical readers of religious texts, which is accurate. Well known critics of religion such as Deschner and Russell have certainly used this line of reasoning in the past. It also seems to be popular among defenders of religion who seek to retain a certain belief in biblical stories, while doubting the occurence of the supernatural.
We do of course need to follow NPOV and separate this perspective from others, such as belief by faith. Arguments against the perspective of supernaturalization can of course be included. But the article itself is completely within the scope of Wikipedia. -- Eloquence 16:25 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
1) the article mischaracterizes a debate about whether events are natural or supernatural, as a debate about whether natural events have supernatural causes.
2) the contents needs specific attribution. Eloquence finally mentions some real people, e.g. Russell -- but please place the name and citation in the article in the appropraite place
3) most of the contents is more appropriate to other articles.
I want to point out that only comment 1 is critical of the content per se. I see my other two comments as touching on more general issues that should be concern to all wikipedians, namely: should we have articles on neologisms when there are other articles that cover the topics, and should articles present positions without ascription? Slrubenstein
The article refers to a specific process which, I think, we can agree exists: People ascribe supernatural causes to natural events, and they may increasingly do so over time. This process is distinct from another process which we may posit exists, namely that supernatural events are sometimes simply invented entirely. Supernaturalization refers to events which have occurred in one form or another, but which are increasingly muddled with mysticism. I believe it is important to keep in mind that these are separate discussions, and you will find documented evidence for both in the literature.
For example, the process of supernaturalization is frequently cited as one origin of formalized, organized religions, e.g. by von Corvin in his anti-religious tract Der Pfaffenspiegel ("Wie die Pfaffen entstanden sind" - "How the priests came into the world" -- he argues that Jesus' miracles were actually healing techniques learned by Buddhists or from other sources), probably by many other anti-religious 19th century writers, certainly by Deschner, and probably by many progressive pro-religious writers who argue that religion is essentially metaphorical.
On the other hand, virtually all critics of religion claim that most "miracles" have been invented entirely, or were deliberate trickery (in both cases supernaturalization does not apply), that many biblical stories are plainly false etc. This is what Deschner writes about a lot in Der gefälschte Glaube (The forged belief), where he also documents how pagan beliefs seeped into Christianity etc. But this is not what we are talking about here.
Yes, we need attributed quotes, more perspectives etc. The article is hardly perfect in its current form (which 'pedia article is?), and may even be better placed in a different context -- suggest one and we can talk about it. However, I think it can be expanded usefully, and that it is currently already in line with Wikipedia policy. -- Eloquence 19:19 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Given these facts from history and philosophy, I think it would be wrong to assume some ontological or epistemological priority to nature and to claim that that assumption is NPOV.
In this context, the debate between skeptics and theists is not whether "natural" events "have" supernatural causes, but whether there are events that are not natural. Slrubenstein