Evidence for God from Science

Re the Catholic church.
I think the church reserves the right to "re-interpret" human doctrines in light of better understanding of scripture, not the other way around.

I think the point about "re-interpreting" scripture was getting at the fact that throughout Christianity, the church has repeatedly changed their interpretation scripture in response to great social changes and understandings. And at every point along the way, the church was adamant that "clearly, now we have it right", even if a century later they had to "re-interpret" again. All kinds of moral and ethical and scientific issues have been repeatedly re-evaluated once the church got to the point where they were the only ones not accepting whatever it happened to be.

What I think was being said was that, just like with past issues, the church feels adamant that homosexuality is wrong, but if society and science advance enough, the church will risk being left behind by the newer generation if they don't ease up a bit. Most of the time, the church has opted to "re-interpret" to not appear backward. Now, catholics have been more reluctant in the past hundred years or so as far as women's rights and birth control and the like, so they might be more rigid. But I could definitely see many protestant denominations following the societal views. Some already have loosened the condemnation of homosexuality.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Hmmm, even IF one was to accept a sinful behavior as being what is best for a person's mental health ( and in doing so it would no longer be sinful per say), that is still a LONG way from legitimizing something like marriage under the orthodox church.
You can't make the comment that "almost all current priests are gay", that just makes any argument you may have, lose credibility.

I know, I don't have any evidence to back the claim up, and I don't want to come off as ignorant - apolgies. But I know that about half the pastors I had as a kid were gay (and I even talked to some of them about it). This seems to be common, in my experience. For the church to demand that homosexual men must both suppress their urge, but not allow them to become priests (where they, I think the term is, marry the church and Jesus.. isn't that a little gay?) just seems ridiculous and disrespectful. It seems like the perfect alternative to homosexuality and yet the church wants them to stay out.

I am not sure if you are serious or not...
The church issue with homosexuality is that it is incorrect (deviant or abnormal, whichever you prefer) behavior. They can't condone it because it is wrong.
If a thief is still stealing, then he is still doing what is wrong.
If a thief stops stealing, no matter how much he wants to, no matter how much he HAS to, then he is doing what is right.
Since for some, stealing is a mental illness that they are born with and they can surpress it, then, according to some, so can a homosexual.
It may well be that because of our fallen state, many are born with various "mental differences" that cause them to steal, kill, lie, cheat, be addicted to sex, be homosexual, be transgendered, etc.
But if people can control the most powerful of urges such as anger and homicidal tendencies, then surely a purely "biological" one can be controlled to, yes?

I'll try and explain.

You may have a biological urge to eat. If you allow yourself to eat, you become healthy and nourished.
You may have a biolgoical urge to kill. If you allow yourself to kill, you will have ended a person's life, causing much harm to their well-being (the most possible harm, really).

Clearly, suppressing biological urges is not always correct, but does seem to always be difficult - we can consider this a cost. When should this cost be incurred? When the result will outweigh the harm of the cost. In these cases, stealing, murdering, etc. all cause harm to other people. What harm then does loving someone of the same sex cause? What I mean is: They can't condone it because it is not wrong. They think it is now, but many people within the church disagree.

Re the Catholic church.
I think the church reserves the right to "re-interpret" human doctrines in light of better understanding of scripture, not the other way around.

That would be the official way of describing it, but it doesn't change anything. Was was obvious and literal beforehand must be reinterpreted in light of new evidence. The best example I can give was when the church abandoned the geocentric model.

Byblos wrote:Seriously man, where on earth do you come up with your claims and so-called statistics? Care to provide some evidence for your claim that almost all current priests are gay? That is such an insulting and defamatory statement I can't even begin to tell you how offensive it is. I am challenging you right here and now, you either provide evidence for it or you retract your statement.

You think it is offensive because you think being gay is deplorable. I assure you, what I said is in no way insulting or defamatory. You think that it is because you think that being gay is defamatory. Perhaps you equate homosexuality to pedophilia? In either case, there should be nothing wrong with being either so long as you don't act on these tendencies (in your eyes).

All I have to offer is anecdotal evidence. There is a book called The Changing Face of the Priesthood by Fr. Donald Cozzens which estimates the amount of homosexual priests to be in the range of 23–58%, but I can't speak as to how accurate the survey is, it's a hard thing to measure. I had a pastor who was gay who I talked to as well (and he said several of the other pastors were also gay).

I will take a moment here to emphasize: I am not trying to be offensive with anything I am saying here. Please don't interpret my comments in this way as I have tried my best to be as non-offensive as I can. I am being sincere in my belief that homosexuality should not constitute a sin - I hope to persuade you of this, of course, and am doing my best to defend my position. I apologize if I make sweeping or ignorant statements here.

Much thanks to Ivellious, that is much of what I am trying to say.

Ivellious wrote:I think the point about "re-interpreting" scripture was getting at the fact that throughout Christianity, the church has repeatedly changed their interpretation scripture in response to great social changes and understandings. And at every point along the way, the church was adamant that "clearly, now we have it right", even if a century later they had to "re-interpret" again. All kinds of moral and ethical and scientific issues have been repeatedly re-evaluated once the church got to the point where they were the only ones not accepting whatever it happened to be.

What I think was being said was that, just like with past issues, the church feels adamant that homosexuality is wrong, but if society and science advance enough, the church will risk being left behind by the newer generation if they don't ease up a bit. Most of the time, the church has opted to "re-interpret" to not appear backward. Now, catholics have been more reluctant in the past hundred years or so as far as women's rights and birth control and the like, so they might be more rigid. But I could definitely see many protestant denominations following the societal views. Some already have loosened the condemnation of homosexuality.

I know exactly what the point was. I will ask you the same question then, please give me a single example, only one, of an officially declared Catholic dogma that was later revised or re-interpreted in light of new scriptural understanding.

I personally wouldn't go so far as to most priests/pastors are gay, but I think it's silly when my friend's Catholic school says that none of them are. That would be like saying no priest has ever been a pedophile or a drug addict or something like that. I mean, the church would certainly like it if none of them were those things, but you're lying to yourself if you think becoming a priest is impossible if you are gay.

Now, what that says about the church (especially Catholicism, where priests are supposed to be of a higher moral standard than pretty much everybody) is debatable. A critic might say that when priests abuse children and the Vatican covers it up, it means that the whole religion is founded on the leadership of evil people, as defined by the religion itself. A supporter might say that the individuals in power are corrupt, but that the religion stands alone, above the Pope and the cardinals and the priests. I'd say it certainly is somewhere in between.

Beanybag wrote:

Byblos wrote:Seriously man, where on earth do you come up with your claims and so-called statistics? Care to provide some evidence for your claim that almost all current priests are gay? That is such an insulting and defamatory statement I can't even begin to tell you how offensive it is. I am challenging you right here and now, you either provide evidence for it or you retract your statement.

You think it is offensive because you think being gay is deplorable. I assure you, what I said is in no way insulting or defamatory. You think that it is because you think that being gay is defamatory. Perhaps you equate homosexuality to pedophilia? In either case, there should be nothing wrong with being either so long as you don't act on these tendencies (in your eyes).

All I have to offer is anecdotal evidence. There is a book called The Changing Face of the Priesthood by Fr. Donald Cozzens which estimates the amount of homosexual priests to be in the range of 23–58%, but I can't speak as to how accurate the survey is, it's a hard thing to measure. I had a pastor who was gay who I talked to as well (and he said several of the other pastors were also gay).

I will take a moment here to emphasize: I am not trying to be offensive with anything I am saying here. Please don't interpret my comments in this way as I have tried my best to be as non-offensive as I can. I am being sincere in my belief that homosexuality should not constitute a sin - I hope to persuade you of this, of course, and am doing my best to defend my position. I apologize if I make sweeping or ignorant statements here.

Much thanks to Ivellious, that is much of what I am trying to say.

And now you even take liberty in assuming my motives as to why I found your statement offensive. Where did I even IMPLY that it was offensive because you said most priests were gay? Can you please point me to where I said that? If you can't then I would presume that was an assumption on your part and yet again, I ask you to retract it.

I take offense, sir, at your sweeping generalizations. The same type of sweeping generalizations I deal with every day because I'm Lebanese, therefore I must be Muslim and a terrorist. I take offense at making false statements that cannot be attributed to a hint of evidence anywhere, that, sir, is what I take offense to and what I am asking you either provide evidence for or retract, which I note that you did not even bother addressing.

For the record, you have no idea what my stance is vis-a-vis homosexuality so please refrain from making assumptions.

I'll try and explain.

You may have a biological urge to eat. If you allow yourself to eat, you become healthy and nourished.
You may have a biolgoical urge to kill. If you allow yourself to kill, you will have ended a person's life, causing much harm to their well-being (the most possible harm, really).

Clearly, suppressing biological urges is not always correct, but does seem to always be difficult - we can consider this a cost. When should this cost be incurred? When the result will outweigh the harm of the cost. In these cases, stealing, murdering, etc. all cause harm to other people. What harm then does loving someone of the same sex cause? What I mean is: They can't condone it because it is not wrong. They think it is now, but many people within the church disagree.

We can't equate sexual urges with the "urge" to eat or drink - you don't eat you die, you don't have sex, you don't have sex.
Now, to the issue, THE issue really, of "who does it hurt? that is the key isn't it?
Two consenting adults decide to have a homosexual relation, who does it hurt, right?
THAT is really the issue and I am glad we finally got there because that IS the issue.
In a pedophilic relationship, a child is being harmed ( according to society now, it wasn't always the case of course.)
Well, lets see, first of we are NOT talking about love, anyone can love another, gender is irrelevent.
We are talking about sex, unnatural sex since humans evolved/were created to have sex in a male+ female interaction.
Is there any physcial danger to homosexual sex?
Yes, of course there is BUT not anything that can be overcome of course and no danger for women.
So the danger/physical health issue is not a concern per say.
That leaves us with mental health and there some will argue that NOT indulging in sexual urges is more harmful than indulging them BUT we KNOW that is not true ( case of pedophilia or necrophila, etc).
With all honesty I do NOT know what (if any) mental health issues can come from a homosexual lifestyle and I don't know of any studies that have been done over a long enough period of time, to know one way or another.
So where does that leave us?
Back to the beginning and advocating an unnatual sexual relationship because, in short, why not?

Byblos, I didn't mean to assert that the point was totally valid. If anything, non-Catholic branches of Christianity have been far more open to changing with the times, as I noted. I would never say that the Vatican has officially changed doctrine (aside from adding some things to the Bible later at Vatican II). If anything it has changed disciplines, that is, removing strict bans on meat on Fridays, or removing the ban on married/un-virgin priests. Other traditions have changed, been added, or abolished. As of late, while I don't know if it was predicated by a doctrinal re-evaluation, Catholic women have been allowed to take a larger role in church, whereas for a long time women were rather strictly restrained by Catholicism as an institution. These are all changes that were mostly a result of social change.

I never wanted to insinuate a doctrinal change within Catholicism, just pointing out that, yes, even Catholics have changed their attitudes and customs to become a little more relaxed in certain areas. Do they fundamentally change the religion. No. Are they signs of society having a direct impact on the beliefs/views of the church? Of course.

Byblos wrote:And now you even take liberty in assuming my motives as to why I found your statement offensive. Where did I even IMPLY that it was offensive because you said most priests were gay? Can you please point me to where I said that? If you can't then I would presume that was an assumption on your part and yet again, I ask you to retract it.

I take offense, sir, at your sweeping generalizations. The same type of sweeping generalizations I deal with every day because I'm Lebanese, therefore I must be Muslim and a terrorist. I take offense at making false statements that cannot be attributed to a hint of evidence anywhere, that, sir, is what I take offense to and what I am asking you either provide evidence for or retract, which I note that you did not even bother addressing.

For the record, you have no idea what my stance is vis-a-vis homosexuality so please refrain from making assumptions.

Sorry, I'll retract that, I don't mean to make these assumptions and I do try to avoid them. I would like to hear your opinion on these issues, if you'll offer them. I also disagree with people who stereotype people based on race, no one likes to be judged quickly and wrongly by other people. I don't want to cause any bad blood among us here.

As for my comment on the homosexuality on priests.. I still don't see why it would be offensive even if it were or weren't true - sweeping generalizations by themselves aren't offensive, things that aren't true aren't offensive. For the record, I offered my tentative evidence, and certainly it is true that some priests are gay. Why is it, then, that my statement was offensive?

Ivellious wrote:I personally wouldn't go so far as to most priests/pastors are gay, but I think it's silly when my friend's Catholic school says that none of them are. That would be like saying no priest has ever been a pedophile or a drug addict or something like that. I mean, the church would certainly like it if none of them were those things, but you're lying to yourself if you think becoming a priest is impossible if you are gay.

Now, what that says about the church (especially Catholicism, where priests are supposed to be of a higher moral standard than pretty much everybody) is debatable. A critic might say that when priests abuse children and the Vatican covers it up, it means that the whole religion is founded on the leadership of evil people, as defined by the religion itself. A supporter might say that the individuals in power are corrupt, but that the religion stands alone, above the Pope and the cardinals and the priests. I'd say it certainly is somewhere in between.

Nothing I can really disagree with here. Thanks for your posts Ivellious.

PaulSacramento wrote:

I'll try and explain.

You may have a biological urge to eat. If you allow yourself to eat, you become healthy and nourished.
You may have a biolgoical urge to kill. If you allow yourself to kill, you will have ended a person's life, causing much harm to their well-being (the most possible harm, really).

Clearly, suppressing biological urges is not always correct, but does seem to always be difficult - we can consider this a cost. When should this cost be incurred? When the result will outweigh the harm of the cost. In these cases, stealing, murdering, etc. all cause harm to other people. What harm then does loving someone of the same sex cause? What I mean is: They can't condone it because it is not wrong. They think it is now, but many people within the church disagree.

We can't equate sexual urges with the "urge" to eat or drink - you don't eat you die, you don't have sex, you don't have sex.
Now, to the issue, THE issue really, of "who does it hurt? that is the key isn't it?
Two consenting adults decide to have a homosexual relation, who does it hurt, right?
THAT is really the issue and I am glad we finally got there because that IS the issue.
In a pedophilic relationship, a child is being harmed ( according to society now, it wasn't always the case of course.)
Well, lets see, first of we are NOT talking about love, anyone can love another, gender is irrelevent.
We are talking about sex, unnatural sex since humans evolved/were created to have sex in a male+ female interaction.
Is there any physcial danger to homosexual sex?
Yes, of course there is BUT not anything that can be overcome of course and no danger for women.
So the danger/physical health issue is not a concern per say.
That leaves us with mental health and there some will argue that NOT indulging in sexual urges is more harmful than indulging them BUT we KNOW that is not true ( case of pedophilia or necrophila, etc).
With all honesty I do NOT know what (if any) mental health issues can come from a homosexual lifestyle and I don't know of any studies that have been done over a long enough period of time, to know one way or another.
So where does that leave us?
Back to the beginning and advocating an unnatual sexual relationship because, in short, why not?

What do you mean by unnatural, though? I hear this argument a lot and it doesn't really hold weight with me - it just seems to be a formal demonstration of the naturalistic fallacy. Is it a problem if we do something that isn't natural? What does it mean to be natural? It's like I have said in other threads before, sex is far more meaningful and has many more uses than just reproduction. It's used to become extremely intimate and personal with another person, so there is a social aspect to it, not just a procreative one.

As with pedophilia and necrophilia, not indulging in sexual urges is harmful, but certainly not more harmful, so that doesn't make it entirely untrue. You have to weigh the harms and the benefits.

As for whether or not mental issues come from a homosexual lifestyle, studies have been done, longitudinal ones at that. I don't think ignorance is a reason to dismiss this here and go back to square one - we have the research available. It is the opinion of every respectable psychiatric authority that no mental harms are caused by having a homosexual relationship. Scientific research is a stronger point of mine, so I can provide sources in this case:

Here is a comprehensive report from the American Pschological Association looking at all the scientific literature, analyzing it, and arriving at this conclusion (it's not that hard to read, if you have the time, and you can usually cross-reference the sources through online bibliographic databases).
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/th ... sponse.pdf

Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and
orientations per se are normal and positive variants
of human sexuality—in other words, they do not
indicate either mental or developmental disorders.
• Homosexuality and bisexuality are stigmatized,
and this stigma can have a variety of negative
consequences (e.g., minority stress) throughout
the life span.
• Same-sex sexual attractions and behavior occur
in the context of a variety of sexual orientations
and sexual orientation identities, and for some,
sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group
membership and affiliation, self-labeling) is fluid or
has an indefinite outcome.
• Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form
stable, committed relationships and families that are
equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families
in essential respects.
• Some individuals choose to live their lives in
accordance with personal or religious values

You can cite bias, but the evidence against harmful claims is becoming quite large.

What do you mean by unnatural, though? I hear this argument a lot and it doesn't really hold weight with me - it just seems to be a formal demonstration of the naturalistic fallacy. Is it a problem if we do something that isn't natural? What does it mean to be natural? It's like I have said in other threads before, sex is far more meaningful and has many more uses than just reproduction. It's used to become extremely intimate and personal with another person, so there is a social aspect to it, not just a procreative one.

The sex act is a procreative act, that it feels good is a plus.
The human species procreates via sex between male and female, that is the natural way we procreate and the natural way we are designed to have sex.
Homosexuality is not natural, neither is artificial insemination or any other method other than "penis in vagina" pardon my french.
That humans have made MORE of it is great but lets not lose sight of what sexual intercourse is about in terms of nature and that is procreation.
Biologically speaking, what would happen to a race of homosexuals? they would die out unless they started to have heterosexual sex for procreative sake.
Lets not make it more than it is and think that "unnatural" as in insult, for a lefty, using his right hand is unnatural.

As with pedophilia and necrophilia, not indulging in sexual urges is harmful, but certainly not more harmful, so that doesn't make it entirely untrue. You have the weigh the harms and the benefits.

Of course

As for whether or not mental issues come from a homosexual lifestyle, studies have been done, longitudinal ones at that. I don't think ignorance is a reason to dismiss this here and go back to square one - we have the research available. It is the opinion of every respectable psychiatric authority that no mental harms are caused by having a homosexual relationship. Scientific research is a stronger point of mine, so I can provide sources in this case:

Unless a study has been done over DECADES then it hasn't been done long enough.
One does not a small sample take and from that quantify the whole, even more so with human behavior.

PaulSacramento wrote:The sex act is a procreative act, that it feels good is a plus.
The human species procreates via sex between male and female, that is the natural way we procreate and the natural way we are designed to have sex.
Homosexuality is not natural, neither is artificial insemination or any other method other than "penis in vagina" pardon my french.
That humans have made MORE of it is great but lets not lose sight of what sexual intercourse is about in terms of nature and that is procreation.
Biologically speaking, what would happen to a race of homosexuals? they would die out unless they started to have heterosexual sex for procreative sake.
Lets not make it more than it is and think that "unnatural" as in insult, for a lefty, using his right hand is unnatural.

You're misunderstanding, there is much more biological significance to sex than just procreation. Bonobos very societies rest on social sex practices. Humans too form relationships through sex that become stronger, deeper, more meaningful because of it - psychologically, a lot happens during sex. This is not just an incidental effect, aspects of our species have evolved around the social benefits of sex. Sex forms a bond and strongly affects our consciousness.

Further, I don't really understand the analogy. What does it matter if homosexuality would cause our species to die off - so too would our species die off if everyone became priests and led a life of celibacy. Is priesthood immoral or unnatural? I'm just not sure what you mean when you say unnatural, your definition is strange. Clearly, homosexuality occurs in nature and in other species. Clearly, sexual orientation is an inelastic tendency that is in many ways innate and naturally caused (biologically speaking). Where then does the unnatural claim come from?

Unless a study has been done over DECADES then it hasn't been done long enough.
One does not a small sample take and from that quantify the whole, even more so with human behavior.

How many decades? Studies have been going on since the 70's.. that's 40+ years. Your shifting the burden of proof as well. If you claim that homosexuality is harmful, you must prove your claim. This hasn't been done.

Where's Dom? This would be the proper place to say naturalistic fallacy!

You're misunderstanding, there is much more biological significance to sex than just procreation. Bonobos very societies rest on social sex practices. Humans too form relationships through sex that become stronger, deeper, more meaningful because of it - psychologically, a lot happens during sex. This is not just an incidental effect, aspects of our species have evolved around the social benefits of sex. Sex forms a bond and strongly affects our consciousness.

Yes, and biologically speaking ( theology aside for now), it makes people want to stay together BUT society is also full of examples of raping and pilaging and force sex with no other motive but to HAVE sex, some antropologist believing that it was a form of "breeding out" the enemies.

Further, I don't really understand the analogy. What does it matter if homosexuality would cause our species to die off - so too would our species die off if everyone became priests and led a life of celibacy. Is priesthood immoral or unnatural? I'm just not sure what you mean when you say unnatural, your definition is strange. Clearly, homosexuality occurs in nature and in other species. Clearly, sexual orientation is an inelastic tendency that is in many ways innate and naturally caused (biologically speaking). Where then does the unnatural claim come from?

You don't like the term unnatural, fine, would you prefer abnormal? deviant? all those define doing something outside the norm, what the majority of the specie does.
Celibacy is unnatural, of course.
I think YOUR definition of natural ( when it comes to humans) may need explaining...

How many decades? Studies have been going on since the 70's.. that's 40+ years. Your shifting the burden of proof as well. If you claim that homosexuality is harmful, you must prove your claim. This hasn't been done.

Homosexuality in terms of a family unit has NOT been going on for 40+ years, neither has homosexuality in terms of an acceptable lifestyle.
Physiologists have enough of a hard time evaluating things when they have a huge sample pool top work with, they do NOT have that with homosexuals.
Besides I never claimed it was harmful, I said we don't know enough as to whether it is or isn't.

PaulSacramento wrote:Yes, and biologically speaking ( theology aside for now), it makes people want to stay together BUT society is also full of examples of raping and pilaging and force sex with no other motive but to HAVE sex, some antropologist believing that it was a form of "breeding out" the enemies.

I'm not sure I understand what the relationship is. Rape is obviously bad - it takes away the freedom of the victim by ignoring their consent, causes psychological trauma and in many cases physical harm as well. There are also psychological reasons besides sex that people do this (assertion of power, humiliation, etc.). What does it have to do with loving, consenting homosexual relationships?

You don't like the term unnatural, fine, would you prefer abnormal? deviant? all those define doing something outside the norm, what the majority of the specie does.
Celibacy is unnatural, of course.
I think YOUR definition of natural ( when it comes to humans) may need explaining...

I don't really have a definition for what is natural. Natural as opposed to what? I don't see anything to distinguish as unnatural, and therefore see no point in defining it. It's difficult for me to understand your definition because of that. If natural is an antonym for artificial, do we mean anything that is exclusive to humans, anything made by humans? In that case, what is artificial is often times very moral (e.g. medicine). Now, if you mean deviant or abnormal, clearly we don't mean to imply all abnormal or deviant behavior is immoral (as you just said, celibacy is abnormal/deviant).

But, if you mean to say what is natural is what is intended by our Creator, I'd say that's a harder case to make. I'm not really convinced that homosexuality wasn't intended by God, and I can't see why he'd be opposed to it. That also pushes the morality of it away from any sort of consequentialism and takes away any empirical relevance. It begins to feel very 'Opus Dei', where suffering for morality is still good because you are following God's law, and it's generally a form of morality I oppose, it feels very Platonic in nature.

How many decades? Studies have been going on since the 70's.. that's 40+ years. Your shifting the burden of proof as well. If you claim that homosexuality is harmful, you must prove your claim. This hasn't been done.

Homosexuality in terms of a family unit has NOT been going on for 40+ years, neither has homosexuality in terms of an acceptable lifestyle.
Physiologists have enough of a hard time evaluating things when they have a huge sample pool top work with, they do NOT have that with homosexuals.
Besides I never claimed it was harmful, I said we don't know enough as to whether it is or isn't.

If we don't know whether or not it's harmful, then we can't say it is harmful, and would resort to the default position of it being neither harmful nor healthy (although there is still strong reason to believe it is healthy). If it isn't harmful, then it should be permissible until such time that it is shown to be harmful. And what standards are you even asking for? Many kids who have had same-sex parents are now growing up. Many couples that have been together in an accepting environment are getting older.

nat·u·ral
   [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
existing in or formed by nature ( opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2.
based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3.
of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4.
of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5.
in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.

nor·mal
   [nawr-muhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
2.
serving to establish a standard.
3.
Psychology .
a.
approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
b.
free from any mental disorder; sane.
4.
Biology, Medicine/Medical .
a.
free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
b.
of natural occurrence

un·nat·u·ral
   [uhn-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
contrary to the laws or course of nature.
2.
at variance with the character or nature of a person, animal, or plant.
3.
at variance with what is normal or to be expected: the unnatural atmosphere of the place.
4.
lacking human qualities or sympathies; monstrous; inhuman: an obsessive and unnatural hatred.
5.
not genuine or spontaneous; artificial or contrived: a stiff, unnatural manner.

ab·nor·mal
   [ab-nawr-muhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard: abnormal powers of concentration; an abnormal amount of snow; abnormal behavior.

de·vi·ant
   [dee-vee-uhnt] Show IPA
adjective
1.
deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.