Supernaturalism: Does It Work?

We hear a lot how the 'religion of naturalism' is unquestionably accepted, favored by school textbooks and popular science literature, and subsidized by billions of dollars of research grants. Scientific bias, creationists say, is the only thing keeping their 'theory' from being recognized as a valid scientific alternative to standard materialistic scientific methodology.As many have pointed out, however, the mere fact you are reading this on a computer is testament to the success of standard naturalistic scientific progress. Creationists have to prove that their methodology has produced significant successes in scientific research to accuse naturalists of bias.Are there any examples of supernatural factors being discovered by science? Has the assumption that extramaterial forces exist ever been successful in guiding research into the causes of natural phenomena?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I'll bite, but a question first: How are you defining "supernatural?"------------------
God is a comedian playing for an audience afraid to laugh ~ Voltaire

I ask because it seems you are under the impression that the "natural" order of the world does not opperate with what you call "extralmaterial forces" built into the system.

It's not a trick question. I'm asserting that science has discovered material, natural, testable, verifiable mechanisms responsible for such things as heredity, fermentation, embryology, the weather, movement of celestial bodies, adaptation of organisms to their environment, etc. Perhaps science is only capable of discovering material mechanisms for natural phenomena. This is the point of methodological naturalism, that only verifiable, testable mechanisms have ever proved relevant to science. Some have voiced their opinion that this is 'dogma,' despite the demonstrable success of this methodology.That said, I want anyone who accuses scientists of a 'naturalistic bias' to tell us whether supernatural mechanisms exist, and whether science has ever benefitted from acknowledging them.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Ok, I think you misunderstand what I am asking, so I'll just get to my point. I wholly agree with all that you have said science has observed, documented, and (in some cases) recreates. However, what I was asking is whether or not you have considered that those observation and documentations are nothing more than what you would call supernatural. What I mean is, why do you, and most christians even, dismiss the notion that the created world functions with direct actions from God consistantly, instead of the deist idea of the divine watchmaker who buggered off after completing winding it up?In other words, the supernatural mechanisms you are looking for simply would not exist in the way you may invision them, because they are the same as the naturalistic ones you observe.Put in a Sunday school version, the Bible talks about "the heavens declaring the glory of God;" the mechanisms of nature therefore conform to the mechanisms of God, because that is how He created them. And no, this is not some Paley Naturalitic theology here. (I'm not talking about seeing the glory of the Heavenly Father by looking at the wing of an earwig.) I am saying that it seems the question is lacking, because the presupposition is flawed. That being the "supernatural" idea that God is outside of creation and the natural order and has to interrupt it in order to do anything.------------------
God is a comedian playing for an audience afraid to laugh ~ Voltaire

The problem with anything "supernatural" (as I understand its meaning) is that it refuses to conform to any sort of repetitively testable behavior.Say we observe some supernatural behavior in reality. We cannot predict that we will observe the same behavior again given identical circumstances. The behavior might be completely different the next time around. So any claims to knowledge about supernatural forces is purely speculative and without observational grounding since we cannot reliably predict future observations from our present ones.If this supposedly supernatural behavior were consistent and repetitively testable, it would enter the domain of naturalism and cease to be supernatural.In addition, supernatural behavior is almost always associated with the intentional activity of a supernaturally able entity. To suppose that our observations accurately reflect what actually transpired in reality begs the question of the honesty of the supernatural entity. Since our observations are dependant upon naturalistic processes, to suppose that our observations of some supernatural phenomena accurately reflect reality arbitrarily supposes that none of the naturalistic processes that connect our observational faculties with reality were altered unbeknownst to us. To illustrate:Suppose we believe we have observed water transformed into wine. The reliability of that observation requires that none of the photons that traveled from the water-wine into our visual cortex were altered mid-way so as to merely create the illusion of a water-to-wine transformation. All of the multitude of interactions that link our visual processing centers to the supposed event are presupposed to be absent of supernatural interference.If we think we have observed some supernatural event, we cannot rule out that any of those interactions were the one(s) altered, so any claim to knowledge about a specific supernatural event begs the question. All we might possibly say is that we have observed some supernatural event, but we are not certain what that event was.

Has anyone even codified a supernaturalist methodology? I see a lot of after-the-fact reasoning, a lot of "God could have done something totally different than the completely reasonable explanation from natural phenomena, and I will insist that he did because my faith requires it." I've heard of the occasional field trip by creationists, but nothing I would call an actual methodology.Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? What is the creationist "method," apart from reading the Bible and searching for verification?I know I'm sorta conflating supernaturalism and Christian creationism here, but given the likely participants, it seems like a reasonable approximation....

Okay let me get this straight. Science can observe the "natural order," document their obs, try to verify their obs by experimentation and repetition, and then attempt to use this knowledge for the betterment of humanity, the earth, a huge grant, or simple pride and fame, however, when a "christian" attempts something similar there is a intellectual gulf to be crossed?So if a literal creationist or a theistic evoltionist looks to the natural order, makes their observations, documention, etc, and adds to that a paradigm that includes an intelligent designer that is still in intimate contact with nature, there is a problem?You asked for a methodology. Fine. Couple this post with my previous one and you have the same one "naturalistic science" uses. And don;t think for a second that the lack of acknowledging an intelligent designer, a god, or whatever, as not a cognitive paradigm all its own that the available data is being interpreted through.------------------
God is a comedian playing for an audience afraid to laugh ~ Voltaire

I'm not saying that science's insistence on including only verifiable, testable mechanisms isn't an assumption. But is it a valid assumption? Has it proved successful in expanding our knowledge?On the other hand, you seem to want the supernatural included in scientific methodology for no good reason. Does your methodology work? If I can point to a natural, material mechanism for a natural phenomenon, isn't your proposed supernatural mechanism simply unnecessary?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I never advocated the exclusion of anyone from the practice of good science simply because they hold particular views, nor did I suppose any intellectual gulf between theists and non-theists or any other division. There are plenty of good scientists who are Christians, Moslems, Jews, and followers of many other religions. They still happen to use methodological naturalism to get good results.I asked what a supernaturalist methodology would look like if you codified it. I mean, the scientific method I learned in school is pretty cut-and-dried. If you claim you're doing objective science, then you'll need to show your version. I don't see anything nearly so specific and well-founded in what you wrote.Your last sentence is a grammatical disaster. I can only guess what you're trying to say. Would you care to rephrase it?

>If I can point to a natural, material mechanism for a natural >phenomenon, isn't your proposed supernatural mechanism simply >unnecessary?Therein is the rub. The answer to that is the assumption on the front end as to whether or not someone believes in an intelligent designer and sustainer. I could ask your question in reverse without feeling intellectually dishonest. "Since I believe that the natural mechanism of the universe are governed by a "supernatural being," why would I accept the proposition that their is in fact not a super natural being?" The conversation turns quickly to one of universal design, purpose, and ultimately faith, for theists and non-theists alike. I assume that is not where we want to take this, for it generally ends in a bad form of Pascal's Wager more often than not.In response to your first question, I grant that the scientific method has done much for expanding knowledge. The method in an of itself is fine. As a point of fact, this Bible speaks in a similar vein in relation to trying to figure out the Will of God. Again, the method is fine in and of itself, however the assumptions under which it is employed are at issue. I would argue that the scientific method employed without considering "supernatural elements" (whatever that means) or a "supernatural being" of some sort limits the expanse of knowledge. This is not to say that all scientists need to conform to a specific religion. As Zephyr so eloquently and free of all human errors pointed out, there are theistic scientists the world over from varying religions.I would submit that not limiting science to a paradigm which limits how far they can consider an option in the universe preferable to one that removes anything "supernatural" from the equation, or even being hog tied to one religions point of view. Do I believe one religion is "more right than others?" Sure, but only by degree, therefore, we can all learn something from keeping an open mind, including science.Oh and please excuse me for any errors in typing or grammar. Apparently I'm human. Who knew?------------------
God is a comedian playing for an audience afraid to laugh ~ Voltaire[This message has been edited by MEH, 12-01-2003]

MEH states:

quote:

---

I would submit that not limiting science to a paradigm which limits how far they can consider an option in the universe preferable to one that removes anything "supernatural" from the equation

---

Quit avoiding the question. I know you feel science has been limited and constrained by its inability to use supernatural mechanisms, and I've already pointed out that science (through research conducted by people of various philosophical or religious backgrounds) seems to have done quite well despite the stranglehold of methodological naturalism.You have yet to give me one example of scientific progress resulting from the use of supernatural factors, or by scrapping its reliance on verifiable and testable mechanisms. Once again, does your methodology work?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I think the issue is not the question of a personal faith in an underlying supernatural reality. The issues are whether such a belief is testable and if it adds anything to the enquiry.

Forgive me if I was overly harsh. I simply want to know what exactly you're claiming. All I really got was something like "methodological naturalism is a paradigm," which is really pretty obvious. But you seem to assume that impartiality to the existence of the supernatural is the same as denying and excluding it. That's not how MN guides science. It merely says that anything that can't be quantified and repeated is unreliable as an answer to an inquiry. Such phenomena may exist but will not aid our attempts to inform ourselves and advance human knowledge.Personally, I think the division between natural and supernatural is artificial as conceived by most people. Over time, countless forces and occurrences have crossed the line from supernatural (beyond our comprehension and therefore subject to speculation and supposed revelations to the chosen) to natural - like human reproduction, diseases, electricity, and magnetism. In the process we have discovered the supposed revelations were pretty much dead wrong.There could be all kinds of forces beyond our current understanding, and whose details we currently lack the technology (and maybe even methods) to discover. However, this is no good reason to suppose a supernatural realm. The very concept of such a realm quite possibly owes its very existence to now-known phenomena and our past ignorance about them. The more we advance, the more we need to ask ourselves whether that mysterious "other side" really exists, when all the things that used to populate it keep migrating to the domain of repeatable experiments.

I'm not avoiding the question, I'm respectfully rejecting it.First of all I am saying that the whole concept of taking about "supernatural factors" is completely wrong in the way you are using it. There is nothing supernatural to be observed in the natural world because it is by designer completely natural. The interaction between the created order and a non-created designer is not a series of "supernatural" interruptions into the natural order. It is all natural.Second, my point is that scientific progress by the use of "supernatural factors" is seen all the time, by nature of the fact that it is the same as "natural factors."When I said before that the supernatural mechanisms you are looking for simply would not exist in the way you may envision them, because they are the same as the naturalistic ones you observe what I meant was there is no difference between the two. The scientifically verified, documented, etc, factors that do so much for the progress of the world is itself the supernatural factors you ask me for. Maybe you see why I am so specific on the word usage. If an intelligent designer creates in a certain way, that way is the natural way. NOT a supernatural way. The laws of the universe that can be verified are the natural laws, even if they are created by a supernatural being. I think this is where Paulk’s statements come into play. The argument turns to whether or not the laws that govern the universe can be attributed to a creator or not, which seem to me to be an a prioi assumption.------------------
God is a comedian playing for an audience afraid to laugh ~ Voltaire