Supernaturalism and Metaphysics
Offline I had engaged in a conversation with todangst some time ago, and have since lost the original thread. The thrust eventually became a call for a definition of "supernatural," which I used without realizing that it was seen as an incoherent word. Since then, I've had time to begin reading some of todangst's writings on this site, and some of his other posts. It may be possible to render a positive ontology for "supernatural," although I don't believe I can just yet.
For the time being, I've noted todangst's frequent use of the term "metaphysics." On some preliminary research, the meaning seems to conflict with his use of the word. I was hoping someone here (possibly todangst himself) might be able to offer a definition of metaphysics, and explain how it is proof of universal constancy. I'm sure it's clear my education on the subject is limited, but I should hope an atheist community would be capable of educating a similarly under-educated athiest, and would therefore be able to educate me.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
- Login to post comments
You seem to be diving into all my favourite topics today!
Metaphysics is studying the nature of reality.
If physics is studying what the facts are, metaphysics is establishing the nature of these facts.
e.g. Physics finds out what the natural laws are.
Metaphysics discusses what it is for something to be a natural law.
Physics works out what event caused event A.
Metaphysics looks at the nature of causality in general.
That's my understanding of metaphysics anyway.
I don't think he said that it's proof of universal constancy.
I think that it's just a necessary assumption for us to have any knowledge whatsoever. Some assumptions are necessary in knowledge. Sometimes we call them transcendental truths.
For instance, what reason do we have to believe that language is meaningful? Well, you have to have a language to reason in. So given that we are using language to reason with, it doesn't make sense to question the meaningfulness of language. The meaningfulness is transcendentally necessary to any use of reason.
(A 'transcendental' proof is one that takes something we take for granted and show that something else is a necessary condition for it to be so. So we necessarily need language to be meaningful if we want to reason. If we are thinking then we must necessarily be conscious beings)
(For information on Philosophical topics, Wikipedia can generally give you a nice over-view of the topic while the Stanford Encyclopedia can give you a more thorough introduction to the topic at hand.)
Go for it. Who knows, you might surprise us all!
(and pigs might fly...
Well mannered curiosity is always appreciated.
It may be possible to render a positive ontology for "supernatural," although I don't believe I can just yet.
That would be impossible in much the same way that joining two North magnets is impossible. It's a definitional hang-up. The term "supernatural" has meaning which is set outside every epistemilogical paramater for the ontology of anything. If we could establish a positive ontology for supernatural, it wouldn't be called supernatural, it would be called natural. This is thus what I mean when I say it is impossible. The word supernatural is in direct contradiction to "positive ontology", and because there is no deduction or even induction reasoning chain attached to the rationalization of supernatural (again, because if that were possible, it would no longer be supernatural QED) the concept has no coherency. It's an absurd deus ex machina.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I'm quoting this because it gives a fine answer to the question.
The only thing I would add are specifics:
Metaphysics includes Ontology - the study of the nature of "being" itself and Epistemology, the study of how we know what we know.
I don't think I said so either, but I might have said that "all we need to create an a priori system is a basic metaphysic, i.e. the existence of sentient brains"
That sounds similar. It would be a 'justification for universal constancy" for deduction, I suppose.
But the important thing to remember is that this really isn't saying all that much.... the fact that we know that valid deductive conclusions are necessary true isn't all that amazing when you realize that any valid deduction is simply a tautology!
Yes. We do not first see, then define. We first define, and then see. - Walter Lippmann (1978)
And please remember my standing request: mention my name during your Nobel prize award acceptance speech.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Well said. All I'd add is this: it wasn't an atheist who first noticed, or commented on that dilemma - the problem was brought to our attention by theologians.
I discuss how terms like 'supernatural' are broken concepts, here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Yes, this was my understanding. It's a classification of philosophical study.
The particular instance that idea was triggered by was from another thread:
There is context to consider of course, as he is referring to previous statements. I was initially confused as to how metaphysics themselves were an answer to universal constancy, especially since there are many contradictory subschools within metaphysics. It would be like me claiming the Christian Trinity were proved by Christian theology, since not all Christian theology agrees on the Trinity.
Is it that the metaphyics in reference are materialistic monism? I mean "materialistic" as opposed to idealistic, so the universe is real apart from perception rather than a mental construct.
Also axioms or axiomatic truths, yes? This is necessary both for coherent discourse and general survival, I believe.
Well put!
Well, yes and no. Supernatural is generally defined it as "extra"-natural, which is ontologically negative. This was what I hadn't previously understood. I disbelieve that premise fundamentally (insofar as the connotative meaning of supernatural, referring to extraordinary anomolous phenomena), but accept the nature of its definition defies both demonstration that can be irrefutably shared as well as articulatable ontology.
I prefer the theory that it is not beyond nature, but is very possibly beyond human conceptual limits. This would mean that while "supernatural" may be ontologically positive, it remains an incoherent subject without an established axiom as a point of reference.
Of course, all this begs the question of defining "nature" and "natural." Is there an accepted definition amongst this community?
This is a more likely meaning of what I quoted and referred to. Thank you.
I've read it, but thank you. It's actually part of what spurred this thread. The etymology of the words "supernatural" and "immaterial" clearly imply negative ontology. I think what they attempt to describe, however, has a positive ontology. Of course, I wouldn't be a Christian any other way. It may be possible to demonstrate either of these things, although positive ontology is another animal entirely if I understand the difference of the two.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
Extra natural, , above natural, beyond natural, and a dollar bill get you a cup of coffee.
Unless you're at starbucks.
In other words, they are all ontologically identical to 'not natural'
Yes, we can use the term 'supernatural' to refer to 'something spooky'. There is no question that people use terms like 'immaterial' and 'supernatural' and 'god' in coherent fashions... however, to do so, they must expressly denote something that is actually not immaterial, supernatural or 'god-like'. They must violate the actual meaning of the term and steal from naturalism.
It can be articulated if and only if one actually does not really refer to immateriality, supernaturalism or god.. i.e. if and only if one steals the concept of naturalism.
One can say "god' and actually mean:
I don't know!
I'm amazed!
Or even
You give good blow jobs!
"god" talk is necessarily anthropomorphized talk.... I think Augustine says it best:
What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.
This is precisely why atheists use the term 'god' as much as any theist... because we both mean the same things, and none of us are ever actually refering to a 'god'... the closest any of us can come to that is by refering to a father figure, the classic white guy with a beard..... an anthropomorphism... A = Not A
I'm sure it's a compelling thought to a theist, but I don't see any grounds for holding to it other than ad hoc motivations.
An accepted common definition? Don't know.... but a key point here is that we don't want to fall into a black hole... and seeing as both sides accept that there is a nature, and that matter/energy are likely the key components (dark matter anyone?) I'm not sure how important this side issue is.
Cool.
I don't know about the term 'negative ontology"...
Negative theology is the actual source for my claim, and of course, there are many christian negative theologians. Catholocism has a richhistory of church fathers who were negative theologians.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Yes, precisely.
This seems a disconnect. How could I steal from the definition of naturalism without first defining it? It begins to address what I perceive as the underlying problem in defining "supernatural." More on that later, though.
Did I use it incorrectly? I took it that because "supernatural" can be etymologically reduced down to "not natural" that it was a negative ontology - it would be a tautology, if I understand the word, as a negative ontology specifically refers to something defined as not something else.
Very well put. Any definition of God defeats itself, since part of the definition must be that God is beyond total human comprehension, and thus beyond human definition. This is a large part of why I choose to seek a definition of "supernatural" rather than God.
There is one fundamental problem I perceive, though it will take some explanation to get to. I expect it is not a new idea, so please let me know of existing discussions on it. As I have said, articulation seems like the greatest block against a positive ontology, not the truth of the thing itself. Let me explain why I think this is so.
All human comprehension is rooted in language. We think in language, and share our thoughts likewise. Unfortunately, all language at its root reveals negative ontological definition. All things are ultimately defined as seperate from all other things. The reason seems simple. We are creatures of judgement. We learn by division, classification, and association - gestalt learning. It is arguably necessary for earthly survival, and so is understandable. As said, it is an accepted axiom out of necessity for further learning.
Theologically, I think this is well exemplified in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The capacity for judgement is the first sin, and the barrier between God and us. The reason seems simple, that the primary commandment of the Old Testament is faith in God - faith meaning confidence and trust here. If we did not have judgement, we would have no recourse but to trust God's judgement.
Without theology, the problem persists. Our knowledge is rooted in and grows out of language. Unfortunately, the universe does not define itself in language. We come closest to good definitions during direct experience, I think. We rely upon these experiences being shared, so that language is merely referrential to discriminate one aspect of experience from another.
Here is the crux of my problem. I do not base my faith in God on the witness of others. Paul tells us in I Corinthians to worship with our minds, which I believe includes questioning all we are told. The Bible makes clear that humans are too fallible to put faith in. It could be argued that the Bible discounts itself as adequate witness! I must base my faith instead on experience of God, and can thus only communicate God to those with shared experience.
Fortunately, I'm only trying to define "supernatural." The problem stated of God is likewise true for this: reliance on shared experience. I would like further clarification of the notion of "stealing from naturalism" before going on, though. If "nature" includes all things that exist, than "supernatural" must fall within this realm. This does not trouble me etymologically, as plenty of "super-" things fall within their ordinary counterparts. The German "ubermench" or "superman" was still a man, so the construction of the word itself does not discount "supernatural" to also be natural.
I will seek independent reference, and welcome any comments that can be made here.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
The definition of natural is certainly key to the debate.
I don't have an exact definition in my mind but I have rough criteria as follows:
Natural refers to all things within space-time.
Space-time is the nature of nature so to speak.
Anything outside space-time is non-natural and anything non-natural is outside space-time. Given that space-time is as we understand it (this is the most fundamental base of physics) the laws of conservation follow a priori.
This means that God either:
a) Is bound by the laws of energy conservation and the other natural laws of the universe, thus losing many Godly powers.
b) Contradicts our most fundamental knowledge of the world and we have to choose between believe in God and scientific knowledge.
c) Outside the domain of science and outside natural law altogether which requires 'him' to be outside space-time.
So God is supernatural, meaning that he is not within nature/space-time. The first problem here is that everything that is comprehensible is within space-time. If God is not natural then God it not <insert any comprehensible concept here> either.
The second problem is that the laws of conservation appear to entail that physical events must have physical causes. Divine intervention requires a contradiction of the most fundamental laws in physics again.
Interesting. So if God is incomprehensible and indefinable, do you have any idea what you are talking about when you use the word?
(To be fair, you did address this further on. It seems to depend on your notion of having an 'experience' of God. Perhaps we should ask you about your experiences and what it was about them that made you attribute them to God?)
Very well. We often define things by what they are not because what is left unsaid (the things we haven't ruled out) silently define the thing positively.
"Good weather is when it's not raining or windy"
The silence on sunshine declares it to be good weather.
The problem with non-natural is it rules out everything so nothing is left to be silently positive. For instance, say I claimed to have an infinite number of tomatoes. Infinite is negative - it is saying non-finite. However, there is a positive element to it as well. I am saying that I have tomatoes (positive claim) just that there's no end to them, that there's no last tomato. (negative claim) No matter how many you eat there will always be atleast one more.
Sorry I've been away from this thread for a while. Who'd have figured life could keep a person so pre-occupied?
I've always really liked defining the time part of the equation as the fourth dimension. It often makes things easier to describe and discuss, especially for folks not familiar with it. There's an analogy made to discuss dimensions by starting at (n - 1) dimensions to explain (n) dimensions, and then hopefully (n + 1) dimensions. An example is given using the third dimension as our (n). I'll quote from Wikipedia's example, taken from Edwin Abbott's book Flatland.
C. S. Lewis made the analogy that if time were drawn as a line, God would be the paper it was drawn on. The implication, especially in light of spacetime, would be that God operates on higher dimensions than the fourth.
Remove God from the equation and there's still examples in quantum theory. There's a particle that's been observed (and for the life of me I can't recall the name of it) that always comes in a pair, but the pair have no spatial restrictions. They are polarized, always of opposite polarity, and occasionally swap poles simultaneously. What causality could possibly exist for these particles to do this simultaneously, regardless of distance? It violates the law of conservation of energy, but there it is.
My underlying point here is that if the fourth dimension isn't the last dimension, how would we know? Empirically, we couldn't. And if there were a fifth dimension we were somehow able to understand - possibly through observing its effects on our four dimensions - it would be natural. Because nature must include the possibility of a fifth (or further) dimensions, spacetime cannot be its summation.
I have to apologize at this point, because I'm not offering a definition of my own. I intend to - I take all discussion here as collaborative, since I think we're all interested in "capital-tee" Truth - I'm just not prepared to offer one at the moment.
Correct. I had mentioned seeking a more "connotative" definition of "supernatural," which todangst demonstrated is ill-defined on its own. My belief is that things which are referred to as "supernatural" are of a finite group, and that those things are actually natural but appear not so because they are in harsh contrast to our human existence.
This requires a great deal of explanation, though. My time and attention aren't up to it right now. As soon as I'm able I'll compile a brief list of things that should be described as "supernatural" (ghosts and psychokinesis, for instance), and also a handful of similar things that I feel should be excluded (such as UFOs). Supernatural would be a property - or more accurately a collection of properties - of these things.
God will undoubtedly come up throughout the discussion. That's what this board is here for, and therefore what everyone here has come to talk about. One final 'thing' to be included on the supernatural list would be a soul. I believe in the existence of a soul, as described Biblically. This would make each person partly "supernatural," which is why I think the discussion may be vital to discussing experiences of God. The soul would be the conduit for the experience, so to speak.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
Lol! It's good to see you back either way!
Before you go on, perhaps a mathematical explanation of what dimensions are? String theory, as far as I'm aware, tries to use eleven dimensions to explain the universe.
A vector is an ordered set of numbers, it's dimension being how many. e.g. (2,3) is a 2 dimensional vector and (4,6,6,8,9) is a 5 dimensional one. What the numbers stand for depend upon on what they are describing, so we can use 3 dimensions for 3 dimensional space and a fourth one for time. I'm not sure what they use the others for, but presumably they have names for the other variable.
So this suggests that God's presence would be to do with another dimension. It seems intuitively plausible and I can't see any ontological problems with it for now. Having said that, Metaphysics and cosmology is something I need to read up on a bit more at some point. I'm looking forward to Todangst's comments.
I think the common objection to a 'naturalized' God like this is:
a) That this God is limited in some way, but I don't see why this is necessarily a problem.
b) Even with the ontology, the claim is epistemologically bankrupt - there seems to be no possible way to have any evidence of such a claim, let alone prove it.
I'm glad you agree. If all these terms rule out nature, then you agree that the term 'supernatural' has no ontological status.
I don't think there's a need for a precise defintion of 'natural' in the sense of giving a complete account of physics. I am merely looking at this metaphysically in the simplest sense: as per the axioms of existence and identity anything with an ontological status would be natural by definition.
Well your question concerned a universally accepted definition of what is nature. I don't need a universally agreed upon definition of 'naturalism' (i.e. what the precise components of the universe are) so long as 'supernaturalism', by definition, rules out 'naturalism' qua 'anything at all with an identity'. In other words, we are discussing this in an a priori fashion and therefore, the specific things in the universe that have an identity is ... pardon the pun... immaterial. What matters is if something exists, whatever it is, it has an identity, and it is therefore natural.
In that sense, 'supernatural' is, and must continue to be a broken concept.
I don't think you are using it wrong, I just think that, while some may use the term, to me, the term makes no sense. Either something exists, and it has an ontology, or not.
So "negative ontology' appears oxymornic.
"Positive ontology" appears redundant.
We can and do use negative descriptions, but they can only make sense when combined with a universe of discourse, a set of elements left over. A negative description, devoid of such a universe of discourse is meaningless. So this is why the term 'negative ontology' strikes me as odd.... either we have that universe of discourse left over, and thus, a 'positive' ontology, or we do not have the universe and we have no ontology at all.
Ergo 'negative ontology' just strikes me as a problematic term.
Augustine was both capable of making excellent observations and illogical conclusions. Of course Augustine did go on to make many positive claims about 'god', and if memory serves me correctly, he even suggested improvements upon 'god's plan' which included putting two men in the garden of eden (women tempt men, two men would have gotten along better.)
Augustine felt justified in this because in his world, 'god' was pretty much a given, and it wast therefore accepted that a limited man had no choice but to make claims on faith - with the ungrouded hope that a divine providence would guide his mind to correct outcomes.
Well yes, which is why theologians themselves called negative theology the apophatic tradition. If you define "X" to be without any ontological status, then it follows that you cannot speak about, or even conceive of "X".
Have you read Heidegger? Or Ken Wilber? I don't want to get sidetracked, but they talk about how there is always a disconnect in learning and judging, between the individual and his universe... I'll say more below... but basically their point is that in order to know the universe, we have to artificially break it down into something small enough to grasp, thus altering the real universe for the sake of an inaccurate, but comprehendible one... very interesting points and I think prima facie true.
We learn by classification and division, but our classifications and divisions are false, in that the world is a continuum, not a set of discrete categories... this is the sort of point Wilber makes.
And Heidegger would go further, I think, in that he'd say our categories creates a language that keeps us apart from our true selves that exist prior to language...
Wordsworth says the same things, but I think he was a chowderhead.
It does seem you are saying something Heideggerian.
Right. Categories are false, they are approximations, but the universe is not a set of discrete categories.... but we have no choice because we cannot grasp the entire universe as a whole... we have no choice but to forcibly impose a set of categories on a continuum.
But in doing so, we separate ourselves from the universe in a false way.
Interesting.
A negative theologian would simply say that 'supernatural' is neither an existent nor a 'non existent'... neither term applies.... as it cannot be a referent in the first place. It's 'utterly beyond' and necessarily so, seeing as it is the very ground of 'being' itself, it cannot be any 'being' but 'Being itself'... Heideggerian philosophy... and he was a theologian.
Negative theolgians (The very ones who first held that 'god' must be defined solely negatively) are stating that there is nothing we can state about the nature of God's ontology. All existence that we know has a cause, dwells in time, by nature is limited and contained by boundaries. In fact, any identity statement at all provides a limit. No matter how we try to break out of our concept of existence, we will always fail. We cannot grasp God's ontology, to think we can is to create a false God.
That is very different from saying 'god' does not exist, or even that there are not things we cannot know about 'god' (i.e. the claim of revelation) but even those things are beyond our comprehension and have to be accepted on faith.
Ah, things were going so well, not sure why you wanted to end on this not. What you've said here is just a play on words. You remind me of a fellow who argued that since superconductors were real, then so was the supernatural.
But that's simply an equivocation fallacy. "Super' in the case of supernatural is simply indicative of 'not'. This leads to a 'god' that is without limits and is therefore indescribable.
I do not understand why theists both wish for such a mystery, the ungraspable groundness of Being itself, and yet, at the same time, desire to tear down this gloriously sweet enigma by making it something graspable.... and therefore something limited.
As is often the case, it is the role of the atheist to make sure that the theist continues to properly respect 'god'....
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
But that begs the question that naturalism requires an additional substratum to actualize it, or bring it into existence. Yet naturalism holds that there is no need to invoke any mechanism to ''sustain'' a physical system or to keep it going; it fact it would require an additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so
Quantum entanglement? Nonlocality?
It sounds weird, but it doesn't violate any laws of physics, seeing as no information can be transmitted through the process...
Wiki has some things to say about 'action at a distance':
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_at_a_distance_%28physics%29#Quantum_mechanics
But I'll look for a better reference.
There is.
This may be true.
Good. Hope to see you soon.
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
I don't want to entirely discount other discussion on the issue (especially because quantum and string theory are very interesting to me, even as I'm limitedly educated), but this is fair enough to my mind.
I still would refute that "supernatural" must steal from "natural," only because I consider the point moot. I am necessarily arguing that the term "supernatural" can refer to something natural, so it would be as though its definition stole from itself. I will concede all synonymous terms are etymologically also negative, but it is only out of a lack of classification. Our language reflects our ignorance.
When it comes to God, he is reportedly self-defined as "I Am Who Am" - literally existence itself, the "to be" verb. By God's claim, if he is limited in some way it is only by existence, which is to say that no part of him does not exist. This functions theologically and ontologically, although it is unknowable so "epistomologically bankrupt," as you put it.
Okay, that makes much more sense. Thank you again for clarifying.
Oh, that wacky Augustine! First its suggesting better plans than God's, then sexism. What's next? (Oh wait, he's dead.)
This is a dangerous line of thought for any Christian. There's a story of Jesus from the book of John (chapter 5) I heard again recently where he heals one lame man out of many, many other disabled people by a healing spring. It's a story interpreted in many ways. Among them, I find it clear demonstration that we aren't owed anything from God, but he still chooses to grant more at times. Blessings are never guaranteed though. I only relate it to clarify my personal beliefs for the sake of discussion.
I may have, although I wouldn't realize it. I'm fascinated by the study of language and the whole language-as-knowledge-filter concept seems unavoidable. Your summary codifies it well. I'll take a look at those two at a more convenient time.
This sounds very similar to the direction my other post was leaning, although I don't think it's a perfect separation. Language is useful, and accurate enough for abstracts, but our ability to interpret language is solely based on experience. That is to say, language can limit our understanding if it we let our experiences to be filtered through it. I believe we are capable of the opposite as well, letting our language take on new dimensions based on our experiences. I would not have this conversation any other way.
It's worth expounding on, I suppose. There are two Biblical passages I had in mind when I said the Bible could discount itself as adequate witness. The first is an enounter between Nichodemus and Jesus where Jesus says "No one acn see the kingdom of God without being born from above." (John 3:3; one of many similar statements). The second is I Corinthians 13:12 which says "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known." The implication is that complete knowledge in this life is impossible. As the Bible is part of this world, i.e. this life, it cannot be a perfect witness to God. If it were, disbelief would be rather foolish.
I only meant to refer to the etymology, not to imply ontological corrolation. A large portion of my argument is that the etymology of the word "supernatural" implies a lack of ontology, it does not necessitate such. I think we mean a real property when we use this word, even if its inception is incoherent. Perhaps that is requiring a re-defining to prevent incoherency, but it is for the sake of discourse rather than the sake of the word. Justification? I don't honestly know.
It's the sin of judgement I mentioned earlier. Christians are no less prone to sin than anyone else. The only difference is recognition, and the development of that faculty is a very slow process anyway. Hardly enough to distinguish.
Meaning that there is no clear justification to say that existence must exist inside something? Fair enough. I'm about to go to bed unfortunately, so I don't think I can make an adequate statement about this one way or the other.
Yes, now I know it's time to stop. How can anyone argue that?
Thank you both for your patience and interest. Hopefully I can find time to assemble that list offline and post it once its matured a bit.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence
THE LIST
(This is basically verbatim from the Wikipedia article on anomalous phenonemon, which turned out to have exactly what I described.)
Mental phenomena: Unusual mental states or abilities such as telepathy, clairvoyance, or precognition.
Physical phenomena: Includes psychokinesis, poltergeists, stigmata, paranormal vanishing, reality shifts, or materializations.
Survival phenomena: Survival of consciousness after death such as ghosts, hauntings, out-of-body experiences, reincarnation, and near-death experiences.
NOT ON THE LIST
Alien abduction, and pretty much anything alien-related (crop circles, UFOs, etc.)
Cryptozoology (searching for animals that are either mythical or thought extinct)
Deja vu
Folie a deux
Spontaneous combustion
END LISTS
The stuff on "the List" is all classified as "paranormal." If it receives a valid scientific explanation it becomes "parinormal." The word "paranormal" doesn't have positive traits to my knowledge either, but it's at least a starting point.
"The map appears more real to us than the land." - Lawrence