Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Experience, Rational Debate & Science Depend On The Supernatural

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I’m going to lay out three basic arguments for belief in the supernatural. First, science itself would not be possible were it not for the effects of unseen, higher-order supernatural causes. Second, science and rational debate would not be possible unless we all have faith in the supernatural – unseen spirits not bound to material causes. Third, each of us has direct personal experience of the supernatural every waking second of every day.

Let’s first define what “supernatural” means. From Merriam-Webster:

of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.
unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)

1: Science depends on measuring supernatural effects

We call these observable, reliable and measurable effects physical laws, forces and universal constants, but those terms are misleading, much like referring to “chance” as a causal agency. Those terms do not represent causal objects or energies we can point at, but are rather descriptions (or models) of observed patterns of behavior of matter and energy for which there is no known or observable cause. The names of these patterns and models are used as if they apply to causal things, but this is a conceptual error. When we say “gravity causes X to fall”, it is not gravity causing it because gravity is the description of the physics of the event. Something “causes it to fall”, but it is not gravity; it is whatever causes the pattern of behavior we call “gravity”.

What is the “natural world”?

The natural world is the set of phenomena that can be described and predicted according to behavioral and interactive constants. However, those laws and constants do not describe where or how such laws and constants exist in the first place, or what they are, or even how they are affecting physical phenomena. These invisible and mysterious causes are supernatural both by definition and logically because they: (1) necessarily relate to an order of existence beyond the observable natural world (since they cause the behavior that defines what we call “the natural world”, (2) are unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature (since science depends upon observing behavioral patterns, and behavioral patterns cannot explain what causes such patterns in the first place), and  (3) these patterns are attributed to invisible, unknown agents (which we erroneously refer to with objectifying terminology –  forces, constants and laws).

The science of the natural world depends upon an unknown, unseen superset of mysterious agencies causing the predictable, reliable, rationally understandable patterns of behavior we observe and describe as the set of natural-occurring phenomena.

2: Science & rational debate depend upon faith in the supernatural

Conducting science requires one to accept that humans have a free will capacity to identify objective facts about the universe and integrate them into theoretical systems that can be properly verified or disproved via true/false statements about experimental outcomes according to abstract principles assumed to be universally valid.  Logically, this means humans must have a capacity that transcends thought as the mere product of happenstance chemical interactions.  IOW, scientists must have faith that humans have the capacity to override whatever thoughts interacting chemicals happen to produce and instead force them down correct, truthful paths from an assumed objective viewpoint. Such a transcendent observational and willful capacity is necessarily supernatural, as the natural is only capable of producing whatever happenstance thoughts and “wilfulness” interacting chemicals happen to produce.

Rational debate depends upon the same assumption; that humans have some kind of non-physical agency which can supervise and override physical thought processes down paths which are correct according to abstract principles which are considered objectively binding. Such an agency is unseen and would necessarily have the power to intervene in the natural patterns producing thoughts and generating conclusions.

It is only by faith in such a supernatural agency and in the supernatural authority of abstract principles accepted as objectively valid that we can expect to be able to overcome the happenstance course of physical cause and effect in the course of our rational and scientific endeavors.

3: Everyone directly experiences the supernatural daily

Each of us experience ourselves as a seat of consciousness with direct, top-down, intentional, prescriptive control (to varying degrees) over the behaviors of many elements of our bodies and thinking processes.  We don’t know how to make various cellular or chemical reactions occur that are necessary for motion and thought. Somehow, without any technical or mechanical knowledge at all, with no understanding of how to initiate or control any of the various chemical and mechanical resources, simple intention can operate what is probably the most highly advanced and complex piece of equipment in the universe with amazing precision. Like a ghost inhabiting a doll out of a movie, our will alone can set physical forces in motion, control them, and stop them on command – no physics, chemistry or mechanical knowledge required whatsoever.  It is precisely like magic.

Furthermore, our will can instantly access any of virtually countless memories without any understanding whatsoever of how the memory process works or how the data retrieval process works.  We can simply intend to write or say something on a subject and gain immediate access to a seemingly never-ending stream of information corresponding to our intent. We can imagine things that do not even exist in the real world, our minds effortlessly rendering a massive virtual reality for us to experience as we daydream or sleep-dream. We cannot see this agency; we cannot explain how it can immediately differentiate from innumerable, variant intents to magically set billions of cellular processes and chemical interactions on a precise course to find memories, find or generate thoughtful, relevant information, or direct our body to precisely achieve a limitless variance of actions.

We experience this self-will as transcending mere physical causation from a higher order of existence, being able to direct the matter and energy of our bodies at will.  We have power over our physical and mental nature exactly like a supernatural ghost in a machine, capable of the most wondrous and amazing feats of physical complexity, creativity and computation without any understanding of how any of it is physically initiated, maintained or controlled.

——————————

That all of these things are considered “mundane” hides their astounding, miraculous, supernatural nature.

Comments
He is saying that whatever is behind the physical laws must be supernatural. No, the laws themselves are supernatural.Mung
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
StephenB, unless I am misreading WJM, that is not what he is saying. He is saying that whatever is behind the physical laws must be supernatural. I am just pointing out that throughout history there are many things that we attributed to the supernatural that we now know are not. It is possible that at the root of everything is the supernatural, but I think that it is premature to make this claim.Gordon Cunningham
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
I've been reading through Feyerabend's The Tyranny of Science. Recommended reading. Atheists often appeal to "science" without truly understanding just what it is they appealing to.Mung
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
If UD is going to be declared a troll-free zone I may have to leave. ;)Mung
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
Gordon Cunningham
My disagreement with this is all through history, the rhealm of the supernatural has gradually shrunk as we gain more knowledge.
That we gain more knowledge about how nature works is obvious. The point is that the only way nature can work at all is if a supernatural agent made it work in the first place and keeps it working. In simplest terms, every law requires a lawgiver (and a law sustainer). That logical principle doesn't "shrink" as we increase our knowledge about nature. It is the very thing that makes such knowledge possible.StephenB
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
WJM, this is a peripheral point, but the theme of your post also serves to expose the Darwinist/TE strategy for discrediting ID. As the story goes, it's acceptable for the archeologist to detect design in an ancient hunter's spear because the hunter, described as existing "in" nature, is alleged to be natural cause (as opposed to ID's designer which is "supernatural). On those grounds, they claim that we are not really using scientific methods similar to archeology. But as you point out, we certainly don't experience ourselves as natural causes, which means that, as causal agents, we don't exist in nature. Like our Creator, we can arrange matter for a purpose. Obviously, nature can't do that.StephenB
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
I apologize for my first comment. My only excuse is that I was on opioid pain killers for dental implants. With regard to your first point, is this not the same as saying that if the cause is not known that it must be supernatural? My disagreement with this is all through history, the rhealm of the supernatural has gradually shrunk as we gain more knowledge. Given this history, the most likely scenario is that this trend will continue. We may reach a point where we can no longer push back that knowledge barrier but that still doesn't mean that what remains is supernatural.Gordon Cunningham
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Origenes @5: Exactly. Science, rational debate, morality and indeed the self-aware operation of body and thought depend upon the assumption of a supernatural superstructure that provides detachment from and operational authority over the natural. Virtually every aspect of our lives relies upon the assumption (even if unrealized and unspoken) of some supernatural principle, ability or necessary component. Blithely ignoring this and repeating the mantra "it is all natural" is blissful ignorance, self-deception or an outright lie. Atheistic naturalism cannot produce a scientific method, morality, a reasoning system or personal responsibility; it can only adopt those concepts after religion/spirituality provides them and then insist they can be purchased via naturalism. No, no they cannot.William J Murray
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
Science attempts to restrict itself to what is intersubjectively verifiable; which means that introspection is off-limits. Seversky said it exactly right in another thread:
What science deals with is what we can observe, using “observe” in its broadest sense, .... We started with what was in front of us and have been working our way outward ever since. [my emphasis]
This jumped at me. The mind is left behind.
WJM: That all of these things are considered “mundane” hides their astounding, miraculous, supernatural nature.
Not only that. The demand that knowledge must be intersubjective, the implicit prohibition of introspection, lies at the foundation of naturalistic science. Cogito ergo sum is out. Science does not want to reflect on what is necessary to do science — the supernatural. WJM is perfectly right to point this out.Origenes
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
05:02 AM
5
05
02
AM
PDT
rvb8 said:
One sentance out of the whole and it leaves me wondering if the writer means ‘unknowable’ and ‘unseeable’ and ‘mystic’?
No, I meant "supernatural", which should be clear from the context. And, I defined the term in the post.
And if so, why bother?
In order to demonstrate the incorrect and absurd framing of a large portion of human experience by atheists/physicalists.
Again I have no problem with faith, however the question naturally arises; “In what way is this knowledge useful in the betterment of mankind, or the understanding of our universe?”
It's a good thing you have no problem with faith, seeing as every waking second of every human's life relies upon it. But, I don't expect you to see that any knowledge - useful or not, used for the betterment of mankind or not - ultimately rests upon proper faith and conceptual frameworks. If your question were to be posed more intelligibly, it might be: how would an appreciation for the supernatural aspects of our existence better mankind or increase our knowledge of the universe? Well, rvb8, the great thing here is that we don't have to imagine how such a conceptual framework might increase our knowledge or better mankind; we have about three hundred years of evidence to show what kind of difference such a perpsective makes in the world. It's called the Enlightenment, rvb8, and it has generated more betterment of mankind and acquisition of knowledge than any other conceptual framework in the known history of the world. Try properly grounding and establishing a working scientific method without fundamental principles understood to be objective and binding, transcending and enforceable in top-down authority over happenstance interactions of brain chemistries. Try using a framework of atheistic materialism to act as the basis for the idea of unalienable, metaphysical rights - you know, those pesky spiritual/supernatural (see definitions) assumptions that have served to greatly increase the betterment and knowledge of mankind. All of which is at risk of abandonment and destruction by the conceptually barren, science-destroying, morally numbing acid of atheistic physicalism. You cannot derive such ennobling and empowering concepts from a concept of humanity as chemistry-driven effects of interacting matter. It's a good thing atheists and physicalists live in a civilization built up from the recognition of the supernatural; otherwise, they'd still be leading brutish lives framed by the idea that we're just amoral, purposeless things doing whatever we do and thinking whatever we happen to think.William J Murray
June 18, 2016
June
06
Jun
18
18
2016
02:17 AM
2
02
17
AM
PDT
[No trolling will be allowed in this thread, evnfrdrcksn. - WJM] evnfrdrcksn
June 17, 2016
June
06
Jun
17
17
2016
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT
“The science of the natural world depends upon an unknown, unseen superset of mysterious agencies..." One sentance out of the whole and it leaves me wondering if the writer means 'unknowable' and 'unseeable' and 'mystic'? And if so, why bother? Again I have no problem with faith, however the question naturally arises; "In what way is this knowledge useful in the betterment of mankind, or the understanding of our universe?"rvb8
June 17, 2016
June
06
Jun
17
17
2016
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
[I'm not going to put up with any trolling in this thread, GC - WJM]Gordon Cunningham
June 17, 2016
June
06
Jun
17
17
2016
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply