Remember how we discussed how the God vs. Science debate seems to be simply a question of convenience (albeit psychological) rather than a question of truth? Well, recently blogger Star Larvae had an interesting email exchange that highlighted this:
People I encounter who have an interest in speculative cosmology, or whatever we might call our endeavor, tend toward extremes of scientific rigidity or New Age wooliness. At least, that is my observation. I try to keep my thoughts on these matters somewhere in the middle. The scientific types tend to be preoccupied with establishing scientific credentials for their ideas. While I have bolstered my speculations with scientific references, where I am able, I have grown less concerned with receiving blessings from science. My project is philosophical, theological, political, psychological and has many other dimensions, including the scientific. I don’t feel a compunction to position all other dimensions subordinate to the scientific. I think that humankind can be served by conceptual breakthroughs in philosophy, theology, etc., as much as by breakthroughs in science. (Of course science has a certain privileged veto power, and if any idea I propose is scientifically disproven, I will have to abandon or reformulate that idea.)
The context of this exchange was that Star Larvae was denied membership in an online forum that dealt with evolution and scientific development of man, simply because Star Larvae’s work left an opening to consider theological arguments.
I also notice either an outright rejection of God or a tendency to avoid the God question altogether in many science forums–and I think this is as limiting as the outright rejection of science and reason by religious discourse. This can be called “theophobia” and this kind of compartamentalized thinking is not conducive to critical thought and truth-seeking.
I do agree with Star Larvae that the scientific method is a robust one–and is used as the backbone of critical thought. To cement the point, in statistical inference there are two general kinds of errors: Type 1: rejecting a statement when in fact it is true, Type 2: failing to reject a statement when in fact it false. These two errors result from a failure to appreciate evidence, or even a lack of sufficient evidence. However outright blind rejection of possibilities without adequate evidence is NOT scientific by any definition.
The lesson we keep harping: face all possibilities squarely and in light of not just existing evidence, but potential evidence. And more than this: be brave enough to make an assertion and a judgment, and be willing to change your assertion as more possibilities emerge. Static thinking and passive thinking have no place in critical thought.
Between settling for convenience and pursuing truth, choose truth.
Well, I have no problem with that. In fact, I presently correspond with atheists ( even one academician who prides himself on being a pagan ) without any animosity.
Like what you imply, we just have to be civil and open-minded.
I have a simple explanation that you may not agree with: the supernatural has no place in science because it is not applicable to science—that is, the scientific method cannot be applied to the supernatural. The existence of the supernatural can neither be affirmed nor denied by science and for this reason it has no place in science. I don’t think I’d want to run a science forum with members throwing around unverifiable claims left and right either.
^ Maybe what you mean is “throwing around unverifiable claims” AS fact. (i.e. no proof needed).
Other than this, I think any phenomena is fair game–even supernatural phenomena.
Also be careful not to confuse: (1) no current evidence with (2) absolutely no evidence, noting at the same time that even within the realm of scientific theory–not all things are currently supportable by evidence, although the inferences may be sound from a scientific point of view. (e.g. evolution is still a theory, not a law, so is the big bang hypothesis).
“Supernatural” by its very definition means outside of, or above, or beyond the laws of nature. Science is bound to the laws of nature, would you agree?
Under what circumstances—or, to put it another way, what kind of evidence do you predict, personally—would you foresee evidence of the supernatural being applicable to the scientific method? Since science is bound to the laws of nature it seems right to assume that all being tested by science would have to be in the natural realm as well, thus rendering the supernatural less than super—just natural.
Would you agree?
What if we substitute the word supernatural with ‘paranormal’ or ‘meta-physical’? Would that change the argument or outcome?
Science should try to investigate more on paranormal or supernatural. What was mysterious, supernatural, and not normal centuries ago are now easily understood, like lightning, thunder, even rain. We can probably learn more about the concept of “Chi”. It definitely has connection to the paranormal.
Ahh… now the issue expands.
^ tonyisnt, my sense would be similar to what intsik siomai said: what we currently consider “super” natural or beyond nature–is dependent on what we understand about nature, which is not by any means static.
Further upon reflection, we might not necessarily confine it to a “lack” of evidence per se, but we can also include a “reexamination” or “reinterpretation” of existing evidence.
Take for example the whole idea of geo-centric (earth-centered) vs. heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system, or even the concept that the earth is in fact a sphere, not a flat surface that the solar orb orbits: the evidence was available to everyone since the ancient times, e.g. sight of the sunrise/sunset, shadows, etc. However this evidence was interpreted by ancient societies incorrectly.
It wasn’t until further scientific experimentation and finally more advanced observations confirmed alternate theories and finally the truth. Now we know that the earth is a sphere and it orbits the sun, but the sunrise and sunset appears today EXACTLY how it appeared in ancient times.
Slightly related to this, there’s a compelling quote by Arthur C. Clarke regarding the “laws of prediction”:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I would relate #1 to the idea of “imperfect information”. We can only be open to possibilities, but once evidence to the contrary presents, we can immediately rule out what the evidence contradicts. We also want to avoid “confirmation bias” — or meaning, finding evidence that supports our claim, but downplaying evidence that doesn’t support it. Take the whole idea of “black swans” for instance, until the first one was spotted in Australia, the statement “all swans are white” was accepted as correct.
On #3, a thought experiment is that if we brought anything we take for granted now (e.g. computers, IPhones, modern medicine) back into the past–they would be considered “super”natural. This does not imply in any way that present technology violates the laws of nature–only that ancient societies never had any inkling such were possible.
Lastly and more succinctly:
I agree–however to the extent that I would not presume to know all the laws of nature at present, I can’t exactly say if something “supernatural” is such, or simply a function of my lack of knowledge/understanding (i.e. my previous two comments above).
Cool thoughts everyone…
@ phochp: Maybe. Paranormal is perhaps a word we could use, although most definitions point directly to supernatural. The definitions also generally say “without scientific explanation,” or something similar. That’s not to say that there could be no explanation, and it doesn’t ban it from scientific study. Well, there is one problematic wording: “not in accordance with scientific laws.” Meta-physical, on the other hand, is right there with supernatural, in some sense (in another it’s very much just another name for philosophy). Definitions also point to other words like immaterial and supernatural. Meta, like super, means “beyond.”
I didn’t mean to turn this into an argument of semantics.
@ intsik: How would you suggest scientists go about it? The way the scientific method works, although I probably don’t need to summarize it, is as follows: make hypotheses, design experiment to test hypothesis, make conclusions from experiment(s), and often, repeat. If data collection on paranormal/supernatural isn’t possible, at least currently, how could the scientists study the subjects? Do you see what I’m getting at?
@ Mark: The ancients didn’t understand our place in the universe or even our own planet, this is true. However, these are not supernatural topics; the universe and our own planet can be studied extensively. I understand what you’re getting at, but I don’t think the observation fits.
The problem I’m having is that I can’t imagine any way scientists could ever test such hypotheses. As far as I can see these things still, and for the foreseeable future, lie outside of the realm of science. There are many other ways to study these topics that would provide much more usable information. Science isn’t one of them.
Excuse me if I seem rash, but it seems like it’s being put forth as if scientists need to reexamine their personal thoughts on God. Doing so is an unscientific matter. I’m not saying that evidence for the supernatural could never exist, it’s just that I don’t ever see it having a place in science because the very nature of what it is.
For more on what I’m saying read about falsifiability. The second paragraph of that page states: “Some philosophers and scientists, most notably Karl Popper, have asserted that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable.”
^ Indeed, semantics. To be clear, it wasn’t my intention to force anyone to reexamine their personal thoughts on God or the supernatural–but to say that these ideas are simply fair game for any critical thought or inquiry.
For me what stands in the way of science enroaching on that territory–is the compartamentalized approach. Simply ruling out God or the supernatural as “outside” the boundaries of science might just be a convenient way of giving polite respect to those ideas, when we should really be critical of them as well. Note that religion is of the opposite mode: the respectful, uncritical one.
But you realize we know this after the fact. In ancient societies, the sun was actually worshipped as a god. Now we have successfully divorced the idea of the sun from the supernatural–as we gain knowledge.
By the way, good for you to point out Popper–I’m a great fan of him and his skeptical approach. You can find his essay on falsifiability as one of the links the “Critical Thinking” tab above or you can click here. He offers a criticism of some psuedo-scientific ideas masquerading as science. It’s an interesting read.
I almost missed this:
Then we do what theoretical physicists do–hypothesize and wait for evidence. Again: no current data doesn’t necessarily mean absolutely no data. We just haven’t asked the proper question. (Go back to the sun example).
What has probably not been discussed enough: is what kind of evidence would be needed to prove the supernatural? This is a failure of hypothesis, and notably for proponents of mystical/supernatural beliefs, the vaguer it is the better.
That is just the problem. Even though many physical / photographic evidences were already shown to some close-minded scientists, they still choose to remain blind.
@Mark: I’m glad to find out you’ve read about falsifiability; I hadn’t seen you had that essay linked. I’ve read it before, but I skimmed it over just now. Being familiar with it I would kind of expect you would see where I’m coming from. In the article Popper’s fourth conclusion says “A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.”
Let’s go back to the original post and the specific notion of God, and not the broad realm of the supernatural. What conceivable event would render God scientific? God is unseeable, unhearble—indeed, unknowable by any of our human senses; thus, we are unable to gather data on God to experiment with. I’ll take that one step further and be as bold to say that humans will never be able to observe God. This in itself is not evidence of non-existence, but rather evidence of being non-scientific.
Again, I understand your point: scientists and all critical thinkers should accept all possibilities. I don’t mean to potentially offend anyone’s religious sensibilities, but this is essentially what the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Russel’s Teapot are all about. Any of these things are possibilities, but should we realistically accept them as such, just because someone tells us we should? I don’t want to bring the existence or non-existence of God into this at all; I’m merely illustrating a point.
Divine intervention is not falsifiable and thereby it is unscientific. That is my assertion. If anyone disagrees I pose one simple question: How would the non-presence of divine intervention, or God, in human evolution (as is the topic of the OP) be demonstrated? Yes, science changes. Yes, what we know of the universe changes, but in my opinion to just say that we might, someday, be able to falsify God is a cop-out. As Popper says, there must be some conceivable event.
I might be off the mark, but again all I’m seeing here is a failure of hypothesis. If we hypothesize God as indeed unseeable, unhearble—indeed, unknowable by any of our human senses then you are correct, no evidence will be sufficient. Incidentally this is how religion would position God to keep the idea from any notion of scientific inquiry.
However your other statement is might be a better hypothesis, from a scientific point of view:
Just thinking out of the blue, if finally we were able to establish the non-divine origin of DNA on the planet–and even this is within the currenly conceivable boudaries of the laws of nature, then we’ve concluded the hypothesis. To use a cliche: A discovery of an alien origin of life on earth would be one (and science is open to the possibility of alien life, even if this has not been observed).
But whatever the possibilities are, one thing is within our domain: How we ask the God question is ultimately arbitrary on our parts. If we ask questions that are not intended to be answered by science–then science is off limits. But science is about asking those questions that allow for science to answer them.
To say God question and its long list of implications is outside the limits of science is quite frankly a “leap of faith” or an “assumption” which is, feel free to correct me, an arbitrary idea on our parts–and completely unjustified by anything other than pure belief. Furthermore this assumption belies a “knowledge of God” already (i.e. how do you know God can’t be seen, heard, felt, other than stating it?).
From a standpoint of imperfect knowledge, the possibility that God–or whatever we really end up finding in lieu of it (e.g. formerly the sun was God, now it’s a star) is the motivation for asking those questions properly.
Take this guy for instance:
http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2009/01/31/the-fallacy-of-scientific-naturalism/
Although the blog as a proponent of creationism is already a flag for its bias–one thing the author cites is interesting:
My reaction here is similar: if the supernatural is beyond natural science or knowledge–then that hypothesis will never be solved. And on a more practical level, it wouldn’t matter to us, because we live in the natural universe and subscribe to its laws.
However in any other sense, even a religious one–the supernatural or God supposedly meddles in nature–if so then we should look for evidence in nature. (There’s another argument which is what I would call a cop-out: God does influence the natural universe, but you can never see it. Isn’t that a contradiction?)
I’m not merely saying it, though. I’m trying to show that the scientific method does not apply to God and that God cannot be falsified.
This might be the flaw in my argument: I don’t know that God can’t be seen or heard, etc. It’s what I was raised to believe, and indeed, isn’t it something religious folks themselves say? See “God does influence the natural universe, but you can never see it.”
Maybe I need to be shown that God can be seen or heard; I guess until then I will be going on my assumption that he cannot. History and personal experience has suggested this is the truth. It’s also worth noticing that anecdotal evidence cannot be applied to scientific experimentation either.
Mark,
Though your anti-creationist comments are already a flag for your bias, I will optimistically cast a few pearls here:
Your suggestion that the supernatural would be irrelevant do not take into account the possibility of revelation, of answered prayer, of the Incarnation or any other miracle. In short, you seem confident that if God does exist, science has a nice little box for Him. All other territory is posted, “No God Allowed.” The basis of this territorialism is the game of naturalism, where we only look for natural explanations. This in turn is usually based on the assumption of materialism, though sometimes we get the explanation that begs that science cannot test or observe the supernatural directly, so it is outside the bounds of naturalism which they conflate with science; the supernatural is beyond the bounds of naturalism, but not beyond science’s ability to infer based on the available evidence. The ID guys call this “inference to the best explanation.”
Now Christendom, in addition to positing that God can be infered through nature also states that He has revealed Himself in His Word [the Bible] and the Incarnation [Jesus Christ]. Both have supernatural claims which can be tested: namely, the Bible has specific prophecies [many fulfilled centuries after being penned] and the evidence Resurrection itself. The latter can be viewed here: http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/resurrection-apologetics/
As to the statement [5c] at face value, it could be clarified with:
“4d[iii]. Ruling out the supernatural as a possible set of explanation without either omniscience or the completion of all scientific inquiry is simply a leap of faith or belief of bias and cannot be said to have been accomplished through proper scientific inquiry.”
–Sirius Knott
Thanks for your comment Sirius.
That “territorialism” is precisely the compartamentalism that I’ve been discussing with tonyisnt. The current convenience is to avoid the question in scientific inquiry, while I contend that if the question is scientific proof for God or the supernatural, then the evidence should satisfy science. Thus my contention that the term “super”natural is both a function of a failure to hypothesize (i.e. God cannot be seen, heard, felt in nature) or a lack of scientific knowledge/understanding about nature. This addresses the “leap of faith” issue you mentioned in your 4d[iii] above.
But again, science is about natural questions–and the search for natural explanations, which as far as I am aware, we have not sufficiently exhausted to the point of ruling out any possibility (if it can be exhausted). Regarding the idea of the supernatural or God, all I’m saying is that so far we have only failed to hypothesize it scientifically.
But you have mentioned testing prophecies–which is one starting point, and the historicity of the resurrected Jesus–which is another valid point of inquiry. tonyisnt also mentioned evolution in his comment–and we can hypothesize base on this as well.
However if we say that anything related to God is beyond the natural universe to explain–that’s tantamount to admitting that there will never be enough evidence to satisfy the question from a scientific perspective.
Meanwhile, this does not prevent us from tackling it from a philosophical standpoint (as many theologians and apologists have done). But let’s not call it scientific if we phrase the question to exclude the possibility of evidence completely.
Also, I have to clarify that I have not made any anti-creationist comments as you point out. Merely arguing that this is simply one kind of argument in a wide range of possibilities that are not yet sufficiently supported by evidence.