Science and origins

I view this topic in a slightly different light.Why can't we test for the supernatural in a reproducable way? As a matter of principle, I don't see why we couldn't. Instead, it is those who believe in the supernatural that have defined the supernatural as a "mystery". It is a problem of their own making.Just as an example of what I am talking about . . .Let's say that the deity Ubergod swooped down above the city of New York and told everyone at once that if they hopped on one leg and said "Ubergod" three times that a dollar bill would magically appear in their pocket. With a few minutes everyone in New York hops on one leg and says "Ubergod" three times and sure enough, a dollar bill appears in everyone's pocket. This is reproducible, empirical evidence of a supernatural deity.It's not that the supernatural can not be tested for. Rather, it is the believers in the supernatural who will not let any test shake their faith in the existence of the supernatural.

But is there any reason why we can't, as a rule, verify supernatural activities? I say no.Ned mentions methodological naturalism, but that only shifts the question to "what is natural?". If you define natural as anything that affects the natural world then supernatural actions, such as turning water to wine, are natural. Ubergod putting a dollar bill in everyone's pocket is part of the natural world.Let's look at this in reverse. I proclaim that gravity is supernatural. Does this mean that scientists must, as a rule, stop studying gravity because it is now supernatural? Of course not.It is this line of thought which led me to conclude that "supernatural" is a throw away term. It is nothing more than a collection of unevidenced beliefs that no one wants challenged. It is philosophical baggage, sophism, and wishful thinking. When we make a demarcation between the natural and supernatural we are doing nothing more than appeasing beliefs in the supernatural.

My first reaction to this is to look back through history and understand how the viewed the intersection of the supernatural and natural. I can't help but notice that the definition of supernatural has changed quite a bit.A couple of millenia ago no one really viewed the natural and supernatural as distinct realms. Rather, the world around us was awash with the supernatural. As Stephen Weinberg puts it, "Once nature seemed inexplicable without a nymph in every brook and a dryad in every tree."[1] Many scientific historians agree that the demystification of nature is what allowed science to flourish.As science has progressed the supernatural has been pushed back until those who believe in the supernatural are now forced to claim that the supernatural is a separate realm. I really don't think this is a matter of practice. It is a matter of keeping a belief alive through whatever means necessary, including a redefinition of what the supernatural is.If believers are going to push for the inclusion of the supernatural into a practical method then we must focus on the practical definition. In practice, the supernatural is equivalent to fantasy. They are indistinguishable. The answer is stellar paralax. Even Tycho Brahe agreed that such an observation would falsify a geocentric solar system, and with advances in telescope technology stellar paralax was observed.The problem with the supernatural, as it is defined in practice by believers, is that any and all observations can be consistent with the supernatural. There is no equivalent to stellar paralax when it comes to the supernatural. This is why I often ask pointed questions. This is why I always ask what observations, if made, would be inconsistent with the existence of ___ (insert deity here)____. When believers fail to address the question then the conclusion is all too obvious. Evidence doesn't matter. It never has.[1] Dreams of a Final Theory, Stephen Weinberg.