This topic has been at the fringe, and sometimes the focus, of a number of debates here. Apologies to those who are weary of it, as acknowledgement of this fact I have attempted to tie things in with the EvC theme this forum is intended for. If preferred, I'll add this to an open thread.
Can science even investigate the supernatural?
There are of course two broad possible answers to the question posed by this debate. There are others, I'll leave those as an exercise for the student.
- Intrinsically, no
Science studies the natural and so by definition can not investigate the supernatural. This seems like a reasonable position enough to take, Stephen J. Gould formulated famously as Non-Overlapping MAgisteria.
quote:
But I also know that souls represent a subject outside the magisterium of science. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, and the concept of souls cannot threaten or impact my domain.
This is certainly a valid way of defining things. Science studies a set domain and if something existed out of this domain then science cannot study it.
Of course, it may be true that such a domain exists, but that is only so because it has been defined that evidence and reason cannot be employed in ruling it out...and that's the only way we know how to reliably rule things out.
The problem with this - if it weren't apparent - is that, if it were true that the scientific method cannot be applied, then how can anyone know anything about the supernatural? One can invoke alternative ways of knowing than the scientific method such as through appeals to personal experience, of course, and this has been done considerably in other threads.
For instance, I know I own a cat. This isn't because science has studied the cat and confirmed its existence. And the argument goes that I know I own a cat because I experience the cat personally. Even if I lived alone and had no visitors I could still say I know I own a cat.
So surely then, if I can know I have a cat - with no evidence but my own personal experiences of the cat, we can know a god with no evidence but our own personal experiences of the god.
So goes the argument, to boil it down.
- Yes, of course
Here I find myself allying with creationists. What joyous times!
The thing is, science investigates what can detected. It doesn't care whether the thing being detected is metaphysically natural or metaphysically supernatural. Science is a methodology for investigations.
Our ancestors may survive in some supernatural realm detectable only to spirit mediums. If that is so, then by definition science can say nothing except that people lie, or can be delusional and that such theories are evidentially supported.
On the other hand, ghosts may exist. And these are detectable. Whether it be by sight, sound, or maybe vibrating at frequencies above visible light. Whatever, if they can be detected science can confirm their existence.
Most people would be happy to call a ghost supernatural, but if the Intrinsically, no people insist then it must be that ghosts are actually natural phenomena in this setup.
And this is where creationists and I agree. After all, most of them believe that science will ultimately vindicate everything they've said. To them, science is still the study of God's creation and through it, we can prove God's imminent existence. Where we disagree is the current status of that situation: They think we're getting there, some even think we're there now.
Since the large part of the creationist position is premised on the notion that a set of supernatural events occurred that can be evidenced in a scientific context, we should not adhere to the strict non-overlapping understanding of the supernatural in the context of EvC.
In conclusion
If debate is to be meaningful we have to grant that it is possible to infer some information about the supernatural based on its natural effects. There are some supernatural propositions which have very subtle or no natural effects. These maybe impossible, or impractically difficult for science to study, indeed they are as impossible as those that construct them intend for them to be.
But not all constructs that are deemed 'supernatural' are necessarily closed to science to study. For all we know, the supernatural realm may follow certain regularities or laws that can be inferred from the natural. In which case, science will expand its borders without worrying about the philosophical objections people might throw up.
And herein lies my final argument: If the 'Intrinsically, no' people are right - there is no way they can know they are right. Their only source of information about this realm is via a detection system that we know is prone to false positives (the human mind), with little to no capacity for corroboration. Furthermore, if they are right, they have no way of knowing if gods, ghosts, djinn or domovoi are in fact supernatural beings.
Science studies experienced phenomena (whether direct or indirect experience). If the supernatural can be experienced, science can study it. Even if it means paradigm shifting upheavals. If the supernatural cannot be experienced, science can still study entities that are commonly called supernatural - but the Intrinsically, no people will just insist they are natural.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
