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
Inter-Religious, Deep Down
… instead of an inter-religious ‘dialogue’ that conglomerates only at the surface, while depth is safely kept out of the picture. Because that is of course no dialogue in the first place. It’s rubbing-each-other in order to elicit good feelings and putting a nice image to outside. Hidden agendas remain unchanged. Sorry. No dialogue. Even Read the full article…
No Rationality without Poetry
Rationality without poetry (‘depth’) is meaningless. Moreover: it’s not even rational. Thus, better call it ‘rationality’ (between brackets). [see: ‘AURELIS USP: ‘100% Rationality, 100% Depth’] Rationality is not only about concepts Of course, conceptual thinking is of huge importance. No doubt. However, through correct conceptual thinking, one can arrive at its own limits: 100% conceptual Read the full article…
Religion of Anxiety versus Religion of Compassion
It seems to me that anxiety and Compassion are the two main – and mutually opposed – deep drivers of religiosity. All secondary drivers build on these. This goes beyond a God-fearing stance and any concretely conceptual belief. FYI, I am not an adherent to any denomination on the planet nor the universe. Nevertheless, I Read the full article…