How do you separate religion and the supernatural?

[Lotan]

This question was originally brought up by RevJP on the "Why Attack Christianity?" thread. Is there a religion that doesn't include supernatural elements? Could there be, or would it be considered a 'philosophy' or something else?

And, while we're at it...

Some of you may be familiar with the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge offered by magician and professional skeptic James Randi. In my opinion though, real evidence for the supernatural shouldn't come cheap, so I am prepared to offer...{doing my best Dr. Evil impression}... One BILLION Dollars (!!!!!) for incontrovertible, hard evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Don't worry, I'm good for it!
Now for a billion bucks you'll have to come up with something pretty choice. Never mind your uncle's NDE or a cheesy shaped like Benny Hinn. I want something good, like a staff that turns into a snake, or maybe a live demon. Also please avoid any quantum physics weirdness or arguments about strange events or coincidences that must be supernatural unless they are presented by a talking donkey. Best of luck to all!

[BeHereNow]

Is there a religion that doesn't include supernatural elements? Could there be, or would it be considered a 'philosophy' or something else?

The simple definition of religion requires the supernatural. I would think we can agree all of the more involved, stricter definitions would also require at least this element.
We use the term “belief system” to encompass religions, philosophies and those belief systems which do not fit the proper definitions of either philosophy or religion.
Zen is a belief system which has no belief in the supernatural and fails most strict definitions of philosophy.

[otseng]

In my opinion though, real evidence for the supernatural shouldn't come cheap, so I am prepared to offer...{doing my best Dr. Evil impression}... One BILLION Dollars (!!!!!) for incontrovertible, hard evidence for the existence of the supernatural.

Oo, oo, I've always wanted one billion dollars!

Hmm... I've got one. The fact that we are all here demonstrates evidence for the supernatural. Though I'm not allowed to mention quantum physics, I hope I'm allowed to mention the first law of thermo. That is, energy/matter can neither be destroyed nor created. The universe couldn't have just spontaneously popped into existence. That would violate the first law of thermo. So, it must've had a source outside the scope of our natural world. Therefore, the supernatural exists.

OK, I'm willing to take the money as a cash payout of $20,000,000 per year over the next 50 years.

[Nyril]

Hmm... I've got one. The fact that we are all here demonstrates evidence for the supernatural. Though I'm not allowed to mention quantum physics, I hope I'm allowed to mention the first law of thermo. That is, energy/matter can neither be destroyed nor created.

However, the existence of anti-matter would allow the creation of the Universe. The net balance of the universe is 0, such as 17 = 1 + 6 + 10 eventually boils down into 0 = 0. Although on each side of the equation there is most certainly not 0 to start with, it works out that they are.

Secondly, the laws only account for our present understanding of the Universe. The law is well established, but it's entirely likely that 100 years down the line our children will look back at us and laugh for hours at end because we didn't know the trick to making matter come into existence by abusing quantum physics. Just because we don't know how it works now, doesn't mean we won't.

[otseng]

However, the existence of anti-matter would allow the creation of the Universe. The net balance of the universe is 0, such as 17 = 1 + 6 + 10 eventually boils down into 0 = 0. Although on each side of the equation there is most certainly not 0 to start with, it works out that they are.

If matter and anti-matter both spontaneously appeared, they would also just as quickly disappear since they would nullify each other. And so the universe would not even be here. Like you mention, it would just be 0.

But even if they did not annihilate each other, where is the equivalent anti-matter for our universe? Perhaps somewhere outside of our universe? A supernatural realm?

Secondly, the laws only account for our present understanding of the Universe. The law is well established, but it's entirely likely that 100 years down the line our children will look back at us and laugh for hours at end because we didn't know the trick to making matter come into existence by abusing quantum physics. Just because we don't know how it works now, doesn't mean we won't.

I would dare say your counter argument is an appeal to faith.

Our present understanding is all we can presently go by. So, based on our present understanding, it can be logically argued that the supernatural world exists. It cannot be argued that in the future the laws of thermo might not be true, therefore the current use of the law might not be valid. There is no factual basis that the laws of thermo will be disproven, even 100 years from now.

[Amphigorey]

Is there a religion that doesn't include supernatural elements? Could there be, or would it be considered a 'philosophy' or something else?

Yes, the WPM or <a href="http://www.pantheism.net/">World Pantheism Movement</a>.

Or by "Super Natural" did you only mean that which is above the "natural plane"? "Above" here being a relic of the earth centric Aristotelian world view and "super natural" refering to anything apart from the earth. In that case, I would agree that outer space is out there.

[Nyril]

This isn't just my crazy theory.
http://www.space.com/news/spacestation/ ... 91015.html

Antimatter galaxies populated with anti-stars producing anti-particles should populate half the known universe, according to the most popular interpretation of the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang predicts that equal quantities of matter and antimatter should have been produced when the universe was created -- but nobody has ever detected signs of such huge amounts of antimatter.

But even if they did not annihilate each other, where is the equivalent anti-matter for our universe? Perhaps somewhere outside of our universe? A supernatural realm?

No. We can make antimatter if we're so inclined. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 030929.htm

Antimatter has tremendous energy potential, if it could ever be harnessed. A solar flare in July 2002 created about a pound of antimatter, or half a kilo, according to new NASA-led research. That's enough to power the United States for two days.

Laboratory particle accelerators can produce high-energy antimatter particles, too, but only in tiny quantities. Something on the order of a billionth of a gram or less is produced every year.

[Amphigorey]

But even if they did not annihilate each other, where is the equivalent anti-matter for our universe? Perhaps somewhere outside of our universe? A supernatural realm?

"Why does the universe apparently contain only matter, and no antimatter? If we go back to the initial instants of the big bang, when the universe was extremely hot, theory predicts that equal abundances of matter and antimatter were present. However, as the universe cooled, and with CP violation, some relic ultraheavy matter particles could have decayed slightly differently from their antiparticle counterparts. This asymmetry could have favored, at the end of the decay sequence, the production of a slight excess of the normal matter over antimatter. Then, as the universe cooled further, and much of the remaining matter and all of the antimatter annihilated each other, the slight excess of matter remained. This mismatched excess has since developed into us and everything we see in the universe."

--Leon Lederman "Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe"

[Lotan]

The universe couldn't have just spontaneously popped into existence.

Oh, so close!
Unfortunately, the Big Bang (that's probably not what you're referring to is it?) would qualify as one of those events that some think must be a result of supernatural forces. Even I used to say that God lives on the other side. The fact is that we don't know if the FLoT was violated. Maybe everything has always been here and continually expands and contracts. The best hypothesis that I've heard comes from string theory. Whatever is the correct answer, there is no reason to assume that it violates any laws of nature. It could very well involve natural phenomena that we are not aware of yet. Thank you for playing though, and please accept this consolation prize...

Or by "Super Natural" did you only mean that which is above the "natural plane"?

I think "outside" of the "natural plane" might be a more correct description. Got any seraphim?

[RevJP]

What's the definition of 'super natural' for the purposes of this discussion?