the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

thoughts on how we atheists close our minds to the possibility of a god

During our last telephone conversation, Daddy inspired this post. He didn't phrase it quite like that (as a bias against the supernatural), but the idea is the same. He asked how scientists could explore every possibility if they didn't acknowledge the possibility of the supernatural at work.

My first response was this: science leaves no room for the supernatural. He responded that real scientists do.

So...this post is my attempt to address his question and explain my position in the medium of my choice. (I'm notably better at expressing myself literarily than I am verbally). I will do my best to explain briefly how science works (at the risk of insulting my audience as well as showing my own lack of education in this area--indeed, my understanding of this has arisen through hobby readings; I have no formal education in science).

While I have some thoughts on this myself, I find this argument difficult to counter because the answer strikes me as self-evident. Thus, I'm reading other sites as I go. The first is this: Why Skeptics have an Anti-supernatural Bias. Here, John Loftus points out that most of us grew up with a pro-supernatural but anti-superstitious bias. He has a good writeup; I urge you to read it.

My thoughts...

Loftus describes superstition (from Encarta) as follows:

Superstition is “a belief or practice generally regarded as irrational and as resulting from ignorance or from fear of the unknown. It implies a belief in unseen and unknown forces that can be influenced by objects and rituals. Examples of common superstitions include the belief that bad luck will strike the person in front of whom a black cat passes or that some tragedy will befall a person who walks under a ladder. Good luck charms, such as horseshoes, rabbits' feet, coins, lockets, and religious medals, are commonly kept or worn to ward off evil or to bring good fortune.”

Now, here are some of the definitions I found for "supernatural":

not of natural world: relating to or attributed to phenomena that cannot be explained by natural laws

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

used about things that seem to come from a power such as magic and do not have a natural or scientific explanation

the divine, the miraculous

of or relating to a deity

The last two depend upon the the rest; we only call something "miraculous" or "supernatural" if we cannot otherwise (naturally) explain it. Thus, "supernatural" can be summed up as follows: "a belief in magic which is not regarded as irrational [or resulting from ignorance or fear of the unknown]" (My paraphrase and my emphasis). I put the last bit in brackets because those who believe in the supernatural probably don't think of their belief as springing from ignorance or fear, but when pressed, both of these motivations become painfully clear.

In short, belief in the supernatural is just socially-acceptable superstition.

Now. Consider the implications. What's the difference between an anti-superstitious bias and an anti-supernatural bias? In my view, an anti-supernatural bias is simply an all-inclusive anti-superstitious bias. The similarities you (the supernaturalist) and I have are that we have both roundly dismissed the supernatural claims of other religions; the difference between us is that I haven't given your holy beliefs a bye, while you have. I don't feel this is something I must explain or defend, frankly. The onus is on you to explain why your supernatural beliefs deserve deference (if not acceptance) while all the others do not. Indeed...the theist himself has an "anti-supernatural bias" when it comes to evaluating other religions, as well as an odd "anti-naturalist" bias when it comes to evaluating his own religion.

On to science, and what it does, doesn't, should, and shouldn't do....

Here a good quote which addresses the issue of religion and science from Arthur Strahler:

Supernatural forces, if they exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science - that's simply what the word "supernatural" means. There can be no limit to the kinds and shapes of supernatural forces and forms the human mind is capable of conjuring up from "nowhere." Scientists therefore have no alternative but to ignore "claims" of the existence of supernatural forces and causes. This exclusion is a basic position that must be stoutly adhered to by scientists or their entire system of processing information will collapse. To put it another way, if science must include a supernatural realm, it will be forced into a game where there are no rules. Without rules, no scientific observation, explanation, or prediction can enjoy a high probability of being a correct picture of the real world.

I drew that from this paper by Mark Vuletic: Methodological Naturalism and the Supernatural, which I also urge you to read. He argues, in essence, that the supernatural will be a plausible explanation as soon as science finds evidence which cannot be explained through natural means. It's an interesting paper, albeit obviously written for presentation at a conference* (and in that spirit, is more "academic" than most people care to read).

* He also notes that it is a work in progress. I accept this, but find the comment unnecessary. All of my writings are works in progress, but only because I am a work in progress. I do change my mind from time to time, but what I wrote at any given time reflects my thoughts and feelings of that time.

I'm intrigued by the assertion that real scientists wouldn't rule out the possibility of the supernatural, because from my admittedly limited understanding of science, the two are mutually exclusive.

When Daddy made this objection, I began a thread to discuss it and myself posed--to the best of my ability--as the dissenter. From this thread comes much food for thought, but I thought this response from BigEvil among the best:

natural vs supernatural....what's the difference. Specifically, what is the supernatural? How would one recognize it? If we were able to show telepathy exists or clairvoyance, would that be natural or supernatural? Is gravity natural or supernatural?

I think that the word supernatural is just a leftover semantic that has no specific meaning but is used to cover the vagueness of a thought. The substanceless of the term makes it inappropriate for scientific use. A synonym for magic which is another substanceless term unless its being used to mean "I don't know what it is". Even then, you are still better off at just saying that you don't know.

One can fool oneself into thinking that they are talking about something because it has a name...like supernatural. "It's supernatural." which means what exactly? Its not natural, but that is what it isn't not what it is. What is it?

In my understanding, this sums up the problem with including the "supernatural" among one's hypotheses: if it can be explained, it is no longer "supernatural." If it cannot, how is a fancy word for "it cannot be explained" an aid to science? And how can it be tested and provide predictability?

Science is a process through which a hypothesis is formed regarding observed phenomena (such as in evolution). The hypothesis is then tested using the hypothesis' predictability. If the prediction is confirmed, further tests are conducted to rule out, as much as possible, alternate possibilities. If the prediction is not confirmed, another hypothesis is formed--a hypothesis which can be tested.

So we see...two important components to the scientific process are predictability and falsifiability. If a hypothesis cannot be falsified, if is not scientific. If a hypothesis does not provide reliable predictability, it is also unscientific.

Where is there room here for the supernatural?

d