Science and the Supernatural

[jason_m]

Somewhere along the way, I remember writing that it does not make sense that science not be willing to include notions of the supernatural. I could not understand why something that can't be incorporated in our notions of everyday reality be automatically excluded from scientific study because it is "not provable physically." To see why such an approach is flawed, consider the following arguments:

1. It is logically possible that supernatural events could exist.

2. If they exist, they can (in principle) some day be studied scientifically.

3. It could also come to a point that they do exist and are studied scientifically, and studying these events could benefit our society.

4. If, however, science takes the approach that anything that doesn't have a realistic physical basis is unscientific, then science automatically precludes itself from studying the supernatural and therefore precludes any of these scientific benefits.

5. Therefore, it is, in fact, unscientific to not at least allow for the possibility of the existence of the supernatural.

(I also don't want to hear that the supernatural is by definition beyond our scientific study, because the word is only applied to the conditions at this point in time; things could change such that what is called "supernatural" today belongs to reality tomorrow - and that's why we can't automatically reject such notions because we disallow the possibility of tomorrow ever coming - my point here.)

[Azeroffs]

What sorts of supernatural things did you have in mind?

[Azeroffs]

I just finished a class in philosophy of science. Pretty good stuff.

[krieger]

the question is what distinguishes the supernatural from physical processes that have simply not yet being explained, i.e. incorporated in the definition of what the physical encompasses.

[jason_m]

the question is what distinguishes the supernatural from physical processes that have simply not yet being explained, i.e. incorporated in the definition of what the physical encompasses.

Exactly.

[Brilliand]

People who support the idea of the supernatural most often seem to be treating it as exempt, or separate, from science. On the other hand, in my opinion science does not dismiss the supernatural by avoiding anything labeled supernatural - rather, it dismisses the supernatural by not respecting it, and simply treating anything that happens as part of reality, giving no quarter to inexplicability.

Both the treatment of science from a supernatural perspective and the treatment of the supernatural from a scientific perspective will vary from person to person, but those are mine.

[Creepy-Snaps]

I'd just like to say very simply that it is illogical to believe God doesn't exist. I took a few astronomy courses in university, one including the Big Bang Theory, all quite interesting. But it doesn't explain how the first black hole got there. How did the first star get there?

There has to be a creator of the universe. Until atheists can explain how the first star, black hole, element, or whatever got there, I think it is smarter/more logical to believe God exists. Even Einstein believed in God.

Second, I'd just like to point out that it wasn't until *relatively* recently that science and religion were in opposition. My pastor says before Darwin came along and challenged religious beliefs of creationism, science was viewed as 'exploring God's creation'; and science and the supernatural were viewed as being together, going hand-in-hand perfectly.

[Enters Laughing]

If something is observable, it is a natural phenomenon as far as I am concerned. If there is no clear understanding of how something is caused, it does not make that thing supernatural (i.e. outside the laws of nature). I think to believe in a supernatural supposition rather than a natural explanation based on evidence is unwise.

[Gilly]

Yesssss I've been waiting for a chance to rip you up

I'd just like to say very simply that it is illogical to believe God doesn't exist.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAH AHAHAHAIHAFISHDFJDFVKSfposdfjgerhpfcbdspqwe

I took a few astronomy courses in university, one including the Big Bang Theory, all quite interesting. But it doesn't explain how the first black hole got there. How did the first star get there?

How did God get there? Why can matter, or its building blocks, not have existed before they formed their present organized state, the universe that exists today? What makes you so certain that it had to be an external, conscious force?

And, before we go any further, please clarify your definition of "God." Are you a Christian? What kind of Christian? What ontological or existential traits to you ascribe to your idea of "God?"

There has to be a creator of the universe. Until atheists can explain how the first star, black hole, element, or whatever got there, I think it is smarter/more logical to believe God exists. Even Einstein believed in God.

Nice argument from authority. Einstein has been proven to have been wrong about plenty. The "smartest man in the world," Christopher Langan, also suffers from this disease. I have read his ontology; it is full of holes and is most likely geared towards some attempt to accrue power or attention using his limited media exposure. None of this makes God a more reasonable idea or explanation for the way in which our universe functions.

Second, I'd just like to point out that it wasn't until *relatively* recently that science and religion were in opposition. My pastor says before Darwin came along and challenged religious beliefs of creationism, science was viewed as 'exploring God's creation'; and science and the supernatural were viewed as being together, going hand-in-hand perfectly.

Science and "the supernatural" (a gross misnomer, btw) are hardly incompatible. People are brought up, not through any specific instruction, but through general osmosis of seeing the world around them explained and understood, with the assumption that the world can be thoroughly comprehended throug ha scientific framework or perspective. This is untrue. There are still countless phenomena and facets of our reality that remain unexplained by science.

So it is not science, but rather the culture of science, that has people believing such foolish things. Any human with a rational mind can look at what we have done, and, if he sees clearly, be awed by what we understand and what we have discovered as an incredible accomplishment in apprehending the nature of our world in a comprehensible manner; the fools are those who take science for granted and give it Big Brother status in their minds. No distinction need be made; science is simply the space we have filled in with our knowledge, and there is vastly more space to uncover, some of which people choose to fill with beliefs in "supernatural" phenomena.

I realize we are in agreement here but I hope you will appreciate my elaboration. Please respond so that I may convert you, assuming you are still victim to reason.

[Brilliand]

Even Einstein believed in God.

I would say rather that he referred to the universe as God. Hmm, but I'm not exactly right either. Read this (it has some actual quotes by him on the issue):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_...eligious_views

In summary... he mostly seemed to dislike being quoted in support of either side.

[consentingadult]

Somewhere along the way, I remember writing that it does not make sense that science not be willing to include notions of the supernatural. I could not understand why something that can't be incorporated in our notions of everyday reality be automatically excluded from scientific study because it is "not provable physically." To see why such an approach is flawed, consider the following arguments:

1. It is logically possible that supernatural events could exist.

2. If they exist, they can (in principle) some day be studied scientifically.

3. It could also come to a point that they do exist and are studied scientifically, and studying these events could benefit our society.

4. If, however, science takes the approach that anything that doesn't have a realistic physical basis is unscientific, then science automatically precludes itself from studying the supernatural and therefore precludes any of these scientific benefits.

5. Therefore, it is, in fact, unscientific to not at least allow for the possibility of the existence of the supernatural.

(I also don't want to hear that the supernatural is by definition beyond our scientific study, because the word is only applied to the conditions at this point in time; things could change such that what is called "supernatural" today belongs to reality tomorrow - and that's why we can't automatically reject such notions because we disallow the possibility of tomorrow ever coming - my point here.)

This is assuming science isn't interested in the supernatural, which isn't true. Lots of universities investigate supernatural claims as well as the advocates of the supernatural. Only the results, although very clarifying, are typically what the advocates don't want to hear, or to be publicly known. Fortunately for these advocates, the public at large doesn't want to know either.

[The Ineffable]

1. It is logically possible that supernatural events could exist.

What do you mean by this? That when a supernatural event happens it can be qualified as such?