OK, I won't get too caught up in the semantics of supernatural. Your broad definition of supernatural ("separate from our knowable reality") is fine with me, as long as you recognize that this definition covers lots more than just deities.
My problem with the intellect-from-intellect logic is that we have no evidence of intellect ever creating intellect. What we do have is a wide variety of intellect in biology, which suggests that small incremental changes could possibly build intellect over time.
Our differences are greatly philosophical, but I think there's also a gap between our acceptance of the authority of science. You rightly take issue with scientists who step into the realm of philosophy without checking their labcoat at the door. Yet, there's at least as large an issue with clergy and laymen who try to contradict accepted science with a priori arguments dressed up as empirical statements.
However, I, too, appreciate the challenges you present that force me to refine my understanding.
More clarity
OK, I won't get too caught up in the semantics of supernatural. Your broad definition of supernatural ("separate from our knowable reality") is fine with me, as long as you recognize that this definition covers lots more than just deities.
My problem with the intellect-from-intellect logic is that we have no evidence of intellect ever creating intellect. What we do have is a wide variety of intellect in biology, which suggests that small incremental changes could possibly build intellect over time.
Our differences are greatly philosophical, but I think there's also a gap between our acceptance of the authority of science. You rightly take issue with scientists who step into the realm of philosophy without checking their labcoat at the door. Yet, there's at least as large an issue with clergy and laymen who try to contradict accepted science with a priori arguments dressed up as empirical statements.
However, I, too, appreciate the challenges you present that force me to refine my understanding.