[extropy-chat] John Wright finds God

[john-c-wright at sff.net]

Samantha Atkins writes:
>This is a rather limited and surprising tack to pull out of a much
>richer conversation.   BTW, please say precisely as you can what you
>do and do not mean by "supernatural".

>If you have read what I have written on this subject in particular  I
>don't think you can dismiss me as taking any conclusions "as articles
>of faith".

She is correct to upbraid me, for my reply was less sober than so profound a
topic requires, not to mention what courtesy requires. My apologies, for I meant
not to sound dismissive. My intent, since I have already been too prolix on a
topic where, honestly, I have nothing original to say, was to be brief; instead,
it seems I was short with her.

By supernatural, I mean what is meant in the ordinary sense of the world:
whatever is not of the natural world. My belief is that the natural world stands
to the supernatural as the mind to the body. No description of the body and its
motions, no matter how accurate, is sufficient to describe the meaning which the
mind puts upon it. As far as biologist is concerned, the determination of a man
to do a certain act, which he sets in motion his body to do, is supernatural to
the science of biology: it stands behind it, cannot be explained in terms of it,
and informs it with meaning. If a man is hallucinating because he is drunk,
there is a natural explanation for his visions; if he is seeing visions because
he is visited by a Spirit, there is no natural explanation.