Supernatural is Natural
If ‘everything that is’ is denoted as nature, then how can the supernatural be anything more than nature?
Oops, did I already say – within this question – everything that needs to be said?
Of course, it’s terminological.
I just equalized ‘nature’ with something of my own choice.
Indeed?
But what is another option for ‘nature’? Let’s look at some:
- nature = ‘organic nature.’ Then every stone is supernatural. Bullocks.
- nature = ‘everything except the supernatural.’ Perfect circular definition, thus worthless.
- nature = ‘everything but God.’ OK. I want to follow in this for a while, especially since it’s the last option I imagine.
Of course, you cannot point your finger at what is God.
Not only because it would be utterly impolite. It’s also impossible.
Quote the Bible: “You cannot look God into the face and live.”
You also cannot point your finger at God without looking him into the face. Thus, you perish.
Hm.
There’s some more semantic conundrum. Take for instance the simplistic train of thought:
“If God created everything, then who created God?”
Answer: “It’s a sacrilege to even ask this question.”
I see.
I’m a Spinozist in this respect: God = nature.
‘Deus sive Natura.’
What I recognize in religion, is that people want something more ‘special’ than the naturally natural. That may be because the natural is not enough… I don’t agree with this. It’s too easy.
It may also be because what people see in the natural, is not enough. That is: the seeing itself is not enough.
People should learn to better see.
If they don’t (want to) learn to better see, then the easy solution lies in a projection of what supposedly is to be seen.
That looks foremost like laziness to me. As you already know, I don’t like it.
I dismiss it.
What would God be but nature? What would nature be but God?
In other words:
It’s not a question of “to be or not to be” but “to see or not to see.”
The seeing makes the supernatural. What is seen then is the same thing yet it’s completely different.
Sure.
That’s nature.
Didn’t I say so at the beginning?
Seeing God is my responsibility
and it’s yours.
Related Posts
Rites and Vain Repetitions
In religious or other contexts, rites can be tokens of something special happening. On the other hand, they can be effective without meaning — as vain repetitions. See also: Rituals. Like stones around a campfire These stones denote the fire’s borders — a clear delineation of the campfire. This is useful and even helps the Read the full article…
One Sacredness for All
People from any religion can feel that sacredness transpires through their religion. Can they also feel sacredness transpire through other religions? Can you? Sacredness versus reductionism For the reductionist, the only ontologically real entities are particles in motion, to which any other complexity in the universe can be reduced and explained. Sacredness is the faith Read the full article…
Open Religion in Every Religion
Open Religion can be seen as a direction that can be taken from any conceptual religion. Alternatively, it can be seen as potentially present within the latter ― making Openness more easily accessible to many. I write of ‘religion’ here in a broad sense. For instance, Buddhism is another religion in which Open Religion can Read the full article…