Is it possible to study supernaturalism without accepting at least some aspects
of this-world empiricism?
From further class discussions and re-thinking the concept it would seem as though if someone were to study pure supernaturalism it would be very difficult to not accept aspects of real-world empiricism. However, there are some of those who do purely rely on supernaturalism and deny all aspects of real-world empiricism. By doing so, there are severely limiting their ability to see something from all angles. The idea of leaving the answers to a spiritual or higher being without considering the stable constructs around one is very difficult to consider legitimate. I believe that you cannot properly study supernaturalism without seriously considering the logical aspects of empiricism. Without the this-world empiricism considered it would be difficult to say that "a higher being created this beautiful ocean," as you cannot consider the fact that this ocean does or does not exist without considering the this-world empiricist aspect. To say that a higher being exists and only a higher being, that there is nothing else, is illogical.
I, too, thought about this in class. I think I referred to it with the made up word "antinaturalism." Belief in only supernaturalism is largely impractical. I think that all people believe in at least some aspects of the empirically observable universe. They believe in and use the doors that allow them to travel from room to room; they do not walk into walls and doors. They believe in height difference between ground level and the second story of a building; they do not break their feet from jumping/walking out the second floor.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if George Berkley's idealism where every object is held in existence by the awareness of God's omniscient mind is a sort of all encompassing super-naturalism.
Delete