I wrote in a previous article that any belief in the supernatural must be justified by a step by step linkage between natural phenomena and its alleged supernatural cause. I feel that this is a concept that should be explained in more detail. It is important that we skeptics should not reject supernaturalism on a priori basis. Instead, we should accept or reject supernatural explanations based on their ability to explain natural phenomena and provide evidence for their assertions. While we should not be quick to reject modern science's reliance on natural explanations without gathering sufficient evidence that justifies a paradigm shift, science's insistence on methodological naturalism should not blind itself to the possibility (not matter how remote it may be) that there may be something beyond the matter and energy and strings(?) that make up the natural world.
Let's first define the word supernatural. When I refer to the supernatural, I am referring to those entities and phenomena which operate according to laws different from the natural laws that govern our universe. This does not necessarily have to lead to infinitely powerful deities as found in Judeo-Christian thought. Just as natural phenomena is subject to limits imposed by the laws of nature, the laws that govern the supernatural most likely would limit the capabilities of supernatural entities as well. For example, ghosts do not have to be omniscient to be considered supernatural. They would just able to do things that the natural laws of the universe do not allow matter and energy to do.
How do we establish the existence of supernatural forces and their possible influence on the natural world? This may not be easy to do. The very nature of supernatural entities may not allow them to be directly observed. If these entities operate on different principles than what drives our universe, even the most precise scientific instruments may not detect or measure them. This is not an insurmountable obstacle since science can often ferret out a surprising amount of information about natural phenomena that cannot be directly observed. This can include the inside of an atom, planets invisible to our telescopes or the evolution of our species. The only requirement is that the unobservable supernatural entity interacts with the natural universe in a way that allows the the nature of the entity and its interaction with nature to be understood from its effects on natural entities within the universe.
Let us suppose that we have found what we believe is an interaction between some natural phenomena and a causal supernatural entity. Presumably, we have not found any candidates within nature for the causal agent of this natural phenomena. Is this enough to prove the existence of a supernatural entity? Clearly not. Even if we cannot find a natural explanation, it does not mean that such an explanation does not exist. We may have a poor understanding of the natural phenomena that does not allow any explanatory theory to be constructed at this time. Given enough time and money, a natural explanation could be forthcoming. Supernatural explanations are not the default explanation when a competing natural explanation is not available.
Is there anything that we can observe about the phenomena that can distinguish its cause as supernatural? Here is a couple of things which may identify the cause of a phenomena as supernatural. This list of criteria is hardly exhaustive. I am sure that others could add more criteria to this list:
Once that we are able to identify a phenomena as supernatural in origin, we can then use the phenomena to learn about the supernatural entity or entities. This would require that the interaction of the supernatural entity and the natural world not be arbitrary and can be understood through careful observation and experimentation. This is the same expectation that we have of natural phenomena. If the law of gravity alternately holds one person on the ground and then send another person floating into space in an arbitrary manner, it would be difficult to learn anything about gravity. In the same way, if God cannot fit into a test tube, then God should stay out of the realm of science.
What we need is a bottoms up approach to formulating ideas about supernaturalism. Religion tends to rely on a top down approach which extols divine revelation and endless speculation about God. When religion comes down to earth and tries to explain how the natural world works, it tries to fit the natural world into its already preconceived celestial speculations. Actually, understanding how these speculations about God apply to world around them seems almost an afterthought. Of course, religion proponents will claim that their beliefs are a rational explanation of the origin and workings of the universe, i.e. how could something as complex as the eye been created by random chance? However, this worldview does not derive from careful observations and rigorous testing as found in science. I believe that the top down approach is the wrong approach for evaluating the claims of supernaturalism.
Instead, the search for the supernatural should start from the bottom - a meticulous and scientific study of the natural world. As we observe the universe, we look for understanding of its origin and inner workings. If supernatural entities exists and interact with the natural world, there should be clues throughout nature that point to this supernatural interaction. As we learn more about nature, these clues could lead to hypotheses about the nature of entities that lie outside of the natural world. As with any hypothesis, it must be tested and the testing results subject to peer review. In my opinion, any supernatural claim that does not submit itself to the scientific process is useless.
I believe that the book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe represents this kind of approach. The author claims that many biological systems are irreducibly complex. In other words, a biological system is irreducibly complex if all or most of its interacting parts are needed for the biological system to function correctly. Remove one part and the biological system cannot function. This allegedly could not happen through small evolutionary changes. Whether this concept is valid and there are those who argue that it is not, the author found biological systems in the natural world that he believes could not have been created by anything other than an intelligent designer. The first two criteria listed above appear to apply to the concept of irreducible complexity. If irreducible complexity is valid, it seems like a good candidate for shedding light on the supernatural entity that created these irredeemably complex biological systems. It would certainly tell us more about the supernatural than any reading of the Bible or the Koran.
However, this will require a rethinking of methodological naturalism by scientists. If supernatural explanations are rejected a priori by science, then there would be no reason to submit any supernatural claim to science. It will be rejected before it even gets out of the starting gate! In rejecting supernatural explanations a priori, we may miss a key component of understanding the universe leaving us an unsolved mystery that has no naturalistic answer.
While many skeptics may deride intelligent design and parapsychology, I believe that there is an advantage to keeping discussions on the supernatural in scientific circles. If I speak in German and you speak in French, we will have a very short conversation. This is the same for proponents of science conversing with proponents of religion. If there is not an agreement on the ground rules of settling their differences, then it is a waste of time to start the conversation in the first place. One side will talk about hypotheses and rigorous testing and the other side will talk about divine revelation and faith. There will be no common ground for them to argue their points of views. However, if psi is subjected to scientific study, parapsychologists will have to adhere to the scientific method - a methodology that would be unnecessary in a faith based inquiry. This will allow scientists to critique the degree to which they comply with this methodology and the strength of their evidence. Unlike the less scientifically sophisticated public, most scientists will not be fooled by the specious arguments and suspect evidence often found in pseudoscience.
Many scientists will object to giving any consideration to supernatural explanations. They believe that pseudoscience will be given credibility by allowing supernatural explanations to enter the scientific realm. However, I would respond by asking these scientists to open their eyes and look around. Supernatural beliefs are already prevalent in society today. Most people base these beliefs on so little evidence that they might as well use the flip of a coin to determine their worldview. Does anyone believe that any perceived scientific credibility of supernatural beliefs is really going to make any difference on the willingness of people to believe them? If science is willing to consider supernatural hypotheses, paranormal believers will rejoice. If science is unwilling to even consider the possibility of the supernatural, paranormal believers will dismiss science as being close minded and incapable of perceiving the true essence of our existence. In other word, they will believe no matter what science does.
In conclusion, I believe that science should reconsider its requirement of methodological naturalism. Instead of limiting the possible answers to the question of how the universe works to only naturalistic answers, we should instead emphasize the methodology of discovering those answers. If we believe in the scientific method, we should allow it to separate the chaff of bad ideas from the wheat of good ideas without biasing its decision making options from the beginning. However, this will require the paranormal researcher to present supernatural ideas in ways that can be elucidated by science. Any supernatural belief should derive from a careful study of nature. The decision to seek a supernatural explanation should be based on an set of criteria agreed upon in advance that justifies the jump from the natural to the supernatural. As with all scientific hypotheses, the supernatural hypothesis must be falsifiable and be subjected to testing. Finally, the results of testing should be presented to scientist peer review which of course will require scientific publications to open their pages to scientific articles with supernatural overtones. Needless to say, this will be a culture shock to both sides of the aisle. Scientists will feel uncomfortable discussing the supernatural with other scientists. New age believers will find it difficult to express their ideas in ways that allow rigorous testing of their claims (No more new age psychobabble you often find in paranormal books!).
I know that those who have read the rest of this website will be surprised by my perspective on this subject. However, I believe that the scientific method is mankind's greatest achievement and does not need protection from supernaturalism. Quite frankly, if science demonstrates the reality of life after death, will the lives of skeptics really come to an end? I do not think so. Granted, we will have to rewrite our science books, but we will come to accept the new reality in time. I firmly believe that if the supernatural exists and that is a big if, it will discovered and understood by science. Neither religion nor mysticism is fit for the job.
The main point that I will try to pass along to everyone who reads my website is that gaining reliable knowledge about the nature of the reality that we live in is not and should not be easy. Any claim, natural or supernatural, has to marshal the required evidence to justify our belief in it. Anything less will lead to self delusion. We have enriched our lives greatly over the last two hundred years by getting it right and using the knowledge to better the world. We owe it to future generations to continue on this course.
|
|
© 2004 Curtis Wolf