Supernaturalism: Does It Work?

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.

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

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

>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]

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

Zephyr, No problem.And for the record I agree completely with just about everything you said. I find that one should not take the unexplained an posit a higher power or otherly realm. These are not things to completely build faith upon. This is why I spoke of the issue being an a prioi assumption in the realm of science and theistic endeavors.My main point is that the supposed supernatural is verified methodically, because it is the same science, and natural factors that have been discussed. This in no way proves the existence of a higher power (again rejecting Palely), however it does answer the question, while requiring a revisiting of what is supernatural and natural.

Z,Sigh. Yes, but this is where it gets tricky. There are two areas where this question has to be answered: the issue of the natural order, and that of . . .other stuff. I’ll explain.In the areas of the natural order, the methodology you have outlined works just fine even in a world which is created by a supernatural being. Like Mr.Hombre has stated, the observations made in the world do not have to be attributed to a higher power, however this doesn’t mean that there isn’t a higher power behind it all. The science itself will not really prove either way. (I get the feeling you have spent time shaking your head at people in either camp who will argue that science will prove/disprove god.) In other words, the methodology works just fine as it is, in most cases.However, the problem arises with those things that are outside the area of Science and move into theology. Theology means words about God, and any theologian worth his/her salt will tell you that there are strict rules of hermeneutics, doctrine, practice, etc that are applied to their understanding of their particular faith. Those standards are a methodology all their own which intersects with science from time to time, but in no way must be at odds with them. Yes I know, poor Galileo and even to an extent poor Descartes, but don’t forget Descartes was highly religious, and was pursuing science as a form of worship. As was Newton and that French monk that first posited the Big Bang Theory whose name I always blank on.Theology properly applied is a retraceable methodology but obviously it gets messy since one is no longer dealing with the uncaring hand of fate or time or gravity. Most religions have a personal aspect to ultimate reality. Either as a personal god who cares about human concerns, or a collective conscious, or oneness, etc. You get the idea. When the individual (or corporate body) and his/her/our concerns come into play, it gets messy exploring flow charts for how God/the cosmos/the force will act in any given situation, however each religion still have those who can outline who their religion does just that, much better than I.Makes sense?

I am not saying that supernaturalism adds nothing to science inquiry. I believe it does, however that addition is clearly in the mind of the scientist. That is to say an addition of motivation, purpose, and a validation of (yes) a priori beliefs. Are these additions important? I believe so, but I wont waste time arguing about them here.Second, I never said that there is no evidence of the supernatural. I did say however that the evidence that is present is up to interpretation. I can propose a hypothesis that the natural order is the result of a creator, that the existence of the famed "divine proportion" PHI (1.618) for example, is a result of intelligent design, and wherever one sees this in nature, it is a verifiable example of the divine. However, why should anyone accept that if they are predisposed to reject it? THAT is what I was talking about when aligning "supernatural" and "natural." The a priori assumption one takes into the scientific enquiry decides whether an intelligent designer is a viable inclusion or not.And yes I understand that MN as stated excludes such before the fact assumptions, and I accept that, despite popular belief. Hence the respectful rejection of the question. My point is, that I disagree with the view that intelligent design is unobservable unverifiable etc. Again, if an intelligent designer creates anything, that which is created is observable, and points back to that designer. As conceded by both sides (at least I think) earlier in this post, the assumptions that one goes in with determines the outcome of those observations.In other words, you go into it saying that MN cannot point to intelligent design because it excludes that which is unobservable. On the surface that sounds like, MN does not exclude their being an intelligent designer, but it just won’t point to one. However, that statement contains within it the idea that intelligent design is unobservable in nature, BECAUSE there is no intelligent designer. I.e. MN as you propose it excludes intelligent design not because the evidence won’t point to it, but because of the a priori assumption that there is no intelligent design. It is nowhere as unbiased as you would have us believe.But I also notice no one responded to theology or the scientists I mentioned being a form of MN employed. Oh right, because that would be an MN that accepts an a priori assumption of their being an intelligent designer. But of course even I will admit you can dismiss God from Newton’s Laws or Descartes philosophy and come to relatively the same ends. At least that’s how they handle it in many schools.

Paul I do see your point, but I'm at a loss of how to describe that the contradiction you see is not truly a contradiction at all. It's one of those, it's clear in my mind, but hard to express to someone else (esp if they really don't want to hear it).Also I am not trying to evade anything. I think I've been rather forthright in my responses. I feel that our positions are at odds because our interpretations of each others starting places are confused. Lack of seeing eye to eye on definitions generally causes problems.However I am confused, because you said in your last post that MN does not exculde intelligent design, but Mammuthus says that it does. That is what I was responding to.I shouldn’t have responded to his statement to you. My bad. Obviously people have varying views, even if theirs is opposed to mine.

"You are saying there is evidence for the "supernatural" and that evidence is everything that the creator created. I think this is a pretty normal theistic position."Sure that is somewhat close to what I am saying, in terms of the "supernatural factors" being observed in science, by being the same as "natural factors." blah blah blah.And from this light it sounds as if the end result of this debate is the question of whether the aforementioned a priori beliefs that science must take into account are viable.What I mean is the question about whether the thought of an intelligent designer "adds anything" to scientific inquiry AT ALL is different from whether or not it adds anything to MN specifically. I can see why it is said that it adds nothing to MN, and will just leave that alone.

As a friend recently reminded me after reading this whole interchange, "pick your battles wisely my son." I do see what you are talking about, esp. in terms of how the word "Supernatural" is being employed and veiwed. I can live with that and I depart from this debate with my pride in tact. "God" will simply crush you heathens. That was a joke. No offense.------------------
God is a comedian playing for an audience afraid to laugh ~ Voltaire[This message has been edited by MEH, 12-03-2003]