If you had an effect that was considered supernatural,
and discovered an underlying mechanism that was measurable
etc. but did not fit with any current theory of the way
things work -- would it automatically become 'natural'
(i.e. drop the 'super')?
I have often argued precisely that. Science is about finding out how the world works. If 'how it works' were to include occasional violations of (what seem otherwise to be inviolable) laws of nature -- ie 'supernatural' events -- then science would have to take that into account. Our view of, and explanation for, the world would be incomplete if we didn't.
But science would only need to take these things on board if these violations could be demonstrated to be real!
So gods, for instance, would be just as 'natural' -- that is, part of 'how the world is' -- as anything else.
Therefore, there is no such thing as the supernatural... or rather, the only 'supernatural' things are unreal, imaginary, illusory... (pick your own derogatory adjective
) things.
Hence the saying: kindly demonstrate that there
is a god,
then we can talk about its doings, motivations and intentions.
Cheers, DT
[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 12-09-2003]