Natural And Unnatural

[cardero]

How do we define what is Natural and Unnatural?
Can we all agree on a definitive meaning?

[Lightkeeper]

Good question, cardero. Maybe natural would be anything that doesn't interfere with the process or cause harm. Unnatural would be like a splinter that causes a wound.

[Geshtinnanna]

Originally Posted by Lightkeeper

Good question, cardero. Maybe natural would be anything that doesn't interfere with the process or cause harm. Unnatural would be like a splinter that causes a wound.

I disagree. It's perfectly natural that if you come in contact with a splinter, it would cause a wound. I think unatural would be a dog peeing in a toilet. It can be done, but that's not the intended use or action of dog or toilet.

[cardero]

Originally Posted by Geshtinnanna

I disagree. It's perfectly natural that if you come in contact with a splinter, it would cause a wound. I think unatural would be a dog peeing in a toilet. It can be done, but that's not the intended use or action of dog or toilet.

Geshtinanna, I believe, has a piece of it.

The best analogy I heard for what is Natural or Unnatural is the example of traffic lights. Traffic lights were installed to maintain the order of traffic. It is a programmed device that was created because there was no other way to handle the large amounts of motorists short of having humans directing it. Traffics lights do not judge. They do not exact penalties or seek punishment. They have no other purpose than to function and direct traffic.

So for me, a Natural Law would be a program that was devised to handle something because there was no other way to handle short of somebody standing over to it to constantly watch it.

Something that is Unnatural would be the introduction of an outside influence effecting the way a Natural Law operates to the point that it would alter its original function or purpose.

Some Natural Laws leave room for improvisation and tampering, some laws don’t (as observed at the present time). Both Natural and Unnatural laws or neither wrong or right accept to the personal individual judging them.

[Lightkeeper]

Cardero, our original post didn't mention natural "law".

Something that is Unnatural would be the introduction of an outside influence effecting the way a Natural Law operates to the point that it would alter its original function or purpose.

Which is what a splinter would do if it causes a fester.

[cardero]

Lightkeeper writes: Cardero, our original post didn't mention natural "law".

My apologies Lightkeeper, I should have indicated that in my original OP. Just curious but does this new meaning change the way you observe or perceive what is Natural and Unnatural?

Lightkeeper writes: Which is what a splinter would do if it causes a fester.

The example of something entering the eye and causing it to redden and tear and possibly puff up is a Natural way for the eye to look or react until it tries to deal or remove the foreign object. Contact lenses may be considered a way to fool or improvise Nature. In other words it may not be common for us to come in contact with splinters but if we do, that infected sore may just be naturally how our body would be designed to react…………………………………I think.

[Jaiket]

Natural is what makes up the material, observable universe/multiverse/whatever it is.

Unnatural is a word commonly used to describe things that appear anomalous or distasteful and in that usage it is not proper to contrast it to the idea of 'natural' as above.

[Travis Clementsmith]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Natural is what makes up the material, observable universe/multiverse/whatever it is.

Unnatural is a word commonly used to describe things that appear anomalous or distasteful and in that usage it is not proper to contrast it to the idea of 'natural' as above.

Natural is also often used to designate a difference between organic and constructed. So technology is often seen as "unnatural" whereas anything biological or physical is seen as natural.

Of course, to me, anything that exists is natural or it wouldn't exist. In this sense we could say winged horses biologically unnatural while at the same time intellectually natural, if we include literature and symbology as outputs of the intellectual.

-TC

[evangelicalhumanist]

My preferred definition for natural would have to do with whether something is present in or produced by nature, not acquired by means other than what nature can provide (i.e. without agency), and proceeding according to the laws of nature.

Thus, while it is natural to die of a bullet wound to the head, this would not be a natural death.

The opposite of natural is unnatural, which, by my definition would mean present or produced by means other than natural, by some agency, or proceeding in a manner not consistent with the processes of nature.


One of the big problems with the word "unnatural" is that we frequently use it to means things that have unpleasant associations, or which deviate from social norms. The word is frequently used to describe things that are uncommon, but are -- by the usual definition -- perfectly natural. This would include genetic birth defects (not those caused by drug use, etc.), left-handedness, albinism, homosexuality, etc.

[modus_tollens]

This is just how I define things and there isn't much point in arguing about definitions.

I have a rather liberal definition of natural. Natural is anything that occurs in nature and unnatural is anything that does not. We are a part of nature; it seems too often we forget that. I also have a liberal definition of nature: it is all encompassing; so the unnatural does not exist for if it did exist, it would be beyond that which is all encompasing. The same goes for the super-natural. As nature as I define it is all encompasing, the super-natural does not exist; God itself certainly isn't super-natural.