Recently in Kansas, supporters of Intelligent Design have changed the definition of science, as it is to be taught in classrooms there, to a more vague one which plays down the search for "natural" explanations for phenomena. This event reminded me of a discussion I had about a year ago in which someone criticized my confidence in science because it fails to take supernatural intervention into account. This response puzzled me and to this day I don't understand why any reasonable person would accept a supernatural explanation for anything when an explanation based on evidence and logic exists. It makes more sense if that person is ignorant of the natural explanation, but the person I was addressing was more well versed in scientific matters than the average person, though he tended to lean towards fringe theories rather than the mainstream ones, for no reason I could figure out.
As of today I've never seen or experienced anything that I am convinced was supernatural, to my knowledge. I've met people who claim to have various supernatural powers, and I've met people who claim to see ghosts and demons and other supernatural things. One of them even heard a ghost calling his name while I was right there, and he became extremely agitated because of it. None of those people seemed to be doing anything that couldn't be faked. I'm inclined to think, that supernatural events are all in the heads of the people experiencing them, the product of imagination, and in some cases, mental disorders. If that is the case, that they are all made up by the imagination, why should I accept supernatural explanations over explanations based at least somewhat on evidence? If I am wrong, and supernatural forces exist outside of the human mind, how can a supernatural phenomenon be identified? If it can be identified, is it no longer supernatural? If it is no longer supernatural after identification, what quality does a supernatural phenomenon have in the first place, to separate it from the natural world?