It
is something of an irony that materialists claim to rely on natural
science, considering the origin of nature as a term in humanity comes
from the Egyptian word (transliterated) neter, which was their term
for a god. The use of natural science in the modern materialist sense
becomes somewhat like an oxymoron. Suppose that could be reason for why
they choose to be defined as physicists to avoid such a contradiction of
terms.
However, there is a question of how many in
the sciences are indeed atheist or agnostic, and whether it's more a
matter of a loud minority drowning out a silent majority. If that were
the case, it is unfortunate how much of the youth is improperly formed
because so many that ought to be teaching and professing even the basic
truths and facts are hiding in fear in order to keep tenure. Maybe it's
time for an alternative to college and the university system?
Anyways,
back to the matter of, well, matter, as it were. I still wonder about what
could possibly be considered subnature. The main reason I would avoid
unnatural is because if something can exist, or manifest itself in a
natural world, then there is something about it that is natural in some
way. It may not follow the general terms and understanding of nature,
but there is something that causes it to exist in nature. For a while, I
followed along the materialist notion, which puts the unknown and
misunderstood phenomenon in praeternatural. Or, I should say, I
followed along the modern notion in preternatural that considers all
things that we don't understand an unsolved mystery. This shouldn't be
confused with the religious or spiritual notion of mystery, since
mysteries may or may not be easily explainable, but one can perceive a
reason or logic - at least a wisdom from the mysteries that can be
grasped in some fashion, if one is willing to go about grappling at
the subject of the mystery. The modern notion of mystery is, more or
less, it's not able to be explained at this moment, or we can't solve it
as of yet, but eventually we'll find a natural explanation or proof. If
not, then it's not real, and thus an illusion or delusion in the mind.
The former notion would then see praeternatural as being things that
happen to happen in nature, though it could be because of some
manipulation that is either man made or demonic trickery that is done in
a manner that appears to defy nature. The latter, modern interpretation
sees all things of preternatural phenomenon as mere illusion, and if
it's not done by man, then it's aliens. Or, as in the case of ghosts,
they are either a naturally recorded projection of history that keeps
repeating itself, or there is some sort of time shift or portal to a
parallel universe that periodically opens for a few moments and produces
a haunting effect.
I wouldn't say that the two
notions of praeternatural/preternatural are completely diametrically
opposed, but I would say that both have their failings in explaining the
phenomenon. For, as it was, and can still be today by superstition, one
might consider all things praeternatural, and even supernatural, as
being demonic. The Gospels give a case in point when the religious
authorities at the time accused Jesus of exorcising demons through use
of demons. The modern preternatural notion just seems lazy in some
regards, because, while they claim to want to get at the truth, most of
the time they file what they can't explain away as mystery and don't care to really
investigate, but rather assume they're right in considering all things
above and beyond nature as being mere illusions and fairy tales.
But
that's what's stated and argued regarding praeternatural and
supernatural. So far, it's hard to say what would be the discourse for
anything that would be considered subnatural. Exactly what things could
be put in this realm? I can only suppose for the moment that it would
lead toward the ways that we conceptualize atomic and subatomic
material. Maybe in theological or mythological ideas, it might be
regarding the demiurge. And yes, I know that can lead into the realm of
the gnostics. However, even in orthodox Christianity, there has always been a
keen interest on the first cause and principality of the world. The
Gospel of John hearkens back to the beginning, and claims Christ as the Eternal Word, or Divine Logos, was there in the beginning. Even in
science, the whole notion of smashing particles together is an attempt
to simulate the world as it was at the beginning, at the time of the Big
Bang, of which some would claim is an attempt to find the god particle.
Needless to say, these sorts of things have a lot of interest between
those who believe in God, and those that believe in science about what, I
suppose could be considered subnatural, yet I'm hesitant to even call
it that, save maybe in a manner that we call particles smaller than the
atom subatomic. It is difficult to perceive any other way to see
subnatural to be categorized as anything other than that, and yet, it
would seem improper to rule out other possible ways to see it as well for the time being.
No comments:
Post a Comment