Why does it seem like only those things with natural origin are legitimate or worthy of validation? I have noticed that the ideas we find worthy of existence are those things for which we can pinpoint a natural origin; this bothers me. It bothers me because, in this day in age, the number of seemingly "unnatural" objects or ideas or ways of living one's life now outnumber the one's we used to think of as "natural." But where does this idea of natural come from? Who gets to decide what is and is not natural? Historically it has been one's religious institution, but now that secularism is at its height, this method of validation seems less applicable (but not entirely useless) for the general population. How can we think about this from the perspective of the atheist existentialist? To bring it back to the original question, why does something feel more legitimate when we believe it has an identifiable point of origin?
Is this something you've thought about before, or am I asking a loaded question by assuming that this is something worth questioning at all? At the end of the day, does it matter whether or not something is valid or does it only matter if that thing or idea adds or subtracts from one's experience of life?
Bonus question: what does the word "natural" mean to you? Define it.
