Supernatural is Natural

October 10, 2019 Open Religion No Comments

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.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Superficial Symbolism

There’s a lot of superficial symbolism around, especially in alternative medicines and New-Age spirituality, but also in old traditions such as freemasonry. Is ‘superficial symbolism’ possible? Not literally since symbolism itself is about depth. [see: “Symbolism: How-To”] But one can feign depth, or one can think to reach it by just putting stuff together that Read the full article…

The End of NOMA

‘Non-Overlapping MAgisteria’ (NOMA) is the traditional division between science and religion. Did it ever truly work as claimed? It still mainly seems to enable scientists to artificially keep their religion while knowing better. ‘Non-overlapping’ So, this used to be the pretension: that they don’t overlap at all — therefore, have nothing to say one about 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…

Translate »