Science and the Supernatural

Can Science consider and study Supernatural explanations?

This question is at the heart of the Creation / Evolution debate, because both sides answer the question differently. Since Evolution is based on absolute Naturalism, Evolutionists argue ether that the supernatural does not exist or that if it does it is outside the domain of science. So Evolutionist answer to this question is solidly no and they use their definition of science against all alternatives to Evolution. Creationists on the other hand would answer the question yes.

To answer the above question it is first necessary to define two terms Science, and Supernatural.

Discussion

Science involves use of the Scientific method and the construction of falsifiable theories. Since there is nothing in the Scientific method requires Natural causes or explanations then the only real issue is falsifiability. In general a Supernatural theory can be falsified by objectively showing that there is a natural cause for a given phenomenon.

As the above definition shows the Supernatural is not necessarily a mysterious, indescribable, and unknowable thing. The primary definition would fit any thing from outside the natural world, that is outside the space-time of our universe. Since General relativity shows us that there is an outside to the universe, it is not unreasonable to consider that events can occur inside our universe, that are cause by something outside it. While the second definition shows that Supernatural phenomenon need not obey our natural laws, it does not mean that they are not governed by their own laws. As shown by the last three definitions the Supernatural may involve intelligent agents such as God, while intelligent agents are hard to deal with, they can not be eliminated since human being are intelligent agents and ignoring our influence in the natural would produce large theoretical errors.

The supernatural is not the same as magic. Real magic would be supernatural but that does not equate the two. Supernatural events could; in theory; be mechanistic or the actions of the an intelligent agent, they simply do not operate by the same laws natural events do. Now natural causes should be used where they suffice, but naturalism assumes that they always suffice. While a supernatural cause should not be jumped to out of hand, it is equally wrong to eliminate them out of hand.

So there is nothing in the definition of ether Science or Supernatural that eliminates the Supernatural from scientific consideration. The claim by Evolutionist that Science can not consider the Supernatural a purely philosophical and essentially atheistic position.

Objections

• The Supernatural cannot be observed.
  • There are plenty of natural entities in science that can not be observed such as subatomic particles, dark mater, dark energy, but are theorized to exist based on what can be observed. Postulating a supernatural event based on what is observed would be no different.
  • Some times the supernatural can be observed. People so occasionally report seeing, hearing and other wise sensing the presence of ghosts, angles, demons and others. So apparently the supernatural can some times be observed.
• One supernatural explanation can not be distinguish from another.
  • This presupposes that all supernatural explanations are the same. It implies that invoking the supernatural is a blanket explanation.
  • While for a single event it may be impossible to distinguish between different supernatural explanations, the same thing is true of natural explanations. To distinguish between different explanations, natural or supernatural requires repeat events.
  • Supernatural explanations can produce predictions of about future similar events. Ghosts provides a good example, since there are two basic competing theories here.
    • Ghosts are spirits, in other words intelligent entities. This predicts different behaviors at each sightings but consistent with an individual. This may include unique interactions with viewers.
    • Ghosts are psychic recording of past events. This predicts repeat behavior at different sightings. This also predicts no interactions with viewers.

  Each theory makes predictions about how ghosts will behave. In this case there are different sightings that match each theory such that studying a ghosts behavior can distinguish between two different supernatural explanations for ghosts.

• It is impossible to generalize supernatural explanations.
  • This not true. The above theories on ghosts are generalizations. There are difficulties in generalizing supernatural explanations but that does not mean that it is impossible. Difficulties in generalizing supernatural explanations can result from several causes
    • Rarity of a supernatural event. Some supernatural events do not happen frequently enough; maybe only once; to make a generalization possible in that case, but the same thing could occur with natural events, if similar events do not occur frequently enough to observe more than a few occurrences.
    • Insufficient data on a supernatural event. If similar supernatural events are not adequately observed then generalizations may be impossible do to lack of information. The same thing could occur with natural events that are not adequately observed.
    • It is difficult to generalize intelligent activity. Many supernatural events clearly involve intelligent entities and the behavior of intelligent entities would be hard, but not necessarily impossible; to generalize, particularly when dealing with more than one non human intelligent entity. The is true of natural intelligent entities since even among humans, some people will always behave out side any generalization. If one is dealing with more than one type of natural non human intelligent entity, a generalization is impossible.
• Some events once thought to be supernatural are now known to be natural.
  • While this is true, it is a false analogy. Such events were deemed to be supernatural because nature was poorly understood by those who made such claims. However a scientific application of supernatural explanations concludes that natural process are inadequate, not do lack of knowledge but an actual inability of chance and natural law to suffice as an explanation.
  • It is possible that a supernatural explanation could be replaced by a natural one if more data becomes available, but the revere is also possible. In both cases, this is just one hypothesis replacing another and such is the nature of science.
  • This also shows that a supernatural hypothesis is falsifiable
• A supernatural explanation can only be postulated by eliminating all possible natural explanations.
  • This depends on what one means by eliminating all possible natural explanations.
    • Some times it is claimed to include natural explanations not yet conceived of. This is absurd since it impossible to eliminate a theory that does not yet exist.
    • It would have to be restricted to natural explanations that are consistent with the theoretical system under consideration, since any that is not consistent with it would be eliminated by definition.
    • Sometimes all possible natural explanations can be eliminated, by virtue of inconsistency with the laws of nature or being impossibly improbable.
• Supernatural explanations hinder science.
  • The same can be said of absolute naturalism since it eliminates a large class of phenomenon and possible explanations. This objection presupposes that supernatural explanations are magical as if simply invoking the Supernatural is and explanation; this is not the case. A proper supernatural explanation would explain how the event happened, but simply not be limited to the natural laws of our universe.
    • For example a scientists observes water running up hill, he eliminates water pressure or some other normal mechanism such as local a mass anomaly. He then concludes that the water behavior is consistent with space-time be bent to produce a gravitational field, but there is no mass to do the job. He might conclude since this behavior violates natural law that something from outside space time ( by definition supernatural ) is causing the space-time bend. This would be no different in principle than inventing some supposed natural object that is equally on seen; such as dark mater or energy.
  • If a supernatural event is studied long enough or multiple supernatural event were studied some details about the supernatural cause might be deduced as is done with natural unseen objects like subatomic particles.
  • This objection equates the supernatural to superstition and magic, but it is not equivalent to them. It is one thing to use natural cases where they suffice but it is quite another to assume that they always do suffice.

• Reference: CA301.1- CreationWiki

Conclusion

There is nothing in the definition of science that precludes a supernatural hypothesis . Furthermore a supernatural hypothesis can meet the qualifications of prediction and falsification. A supernatural hypothesis is not the same as superstition or magic, but are simply explanations that are from outside the universe and / or do not obey natural laws. Such explanations can but need not include God. The denial of the supernatural that is part of naturalism is a purely philosophical and essentially atheistic position. By excluding supernatural hypothesis from consideration it eliminates out of hand a large body of possible explanations for past, present and future phenomenon. In origins and historical research a total denial of the supernatural will cause grave error if indeed supernatural events have occurred, as such the supernatural needs be considered.