The Problem With The Supernatural

[JayT]

The problem with the supernatural is that it can NEVER in any way be proven.

Consequently, no attempt to do so is any more than a waste of time in 100 percent of all cases, no exceptions.

Here is the point:

Be it religion or any other beliefs, what test could any scientist design to PROVE that an observed mystery phenomenon is truly supernatural or simply the result of a perfectly natural process we do not yet understand? In other words, how can we distinctly differentiate between an as yet unknown natural explanation for a mystery phenomena as opposed to a genuinely supernatural cause of that same phenomena?

Think carefully about it. It is a critical question worthy of serious scientific consideration.

Long-term experience has proven repeatedly for thousands of years that just because we cannot explain something at the moment, does not qualify the assumption that it is obviously supernatural in origin or character based on that fact.

Anthropologic studies demonstrate this in the documented beliefs of primitive peoples, many of whom still believe in supernatural causes of things we now know the scientific explanation of beyond doubt.

Those who want to believe in religious miracles or other supposed supernatural mysteries take solace in the fact that no scientist can disprove them and thus often feel smug, pompous, arrogant and firmly secure in their beliefs. Such individuals seem entirely clueless to the obvious fact that this in no way justifies anything whatsoever in which they believe.

The supernatural cannot be proved simply by the fact that you cannot find another more rational explanation at the moment.

This is the general law derived from my own observations:
You can prove that a supernatural belief is false in some cases, but you can never prove that any supernatural belief is true in any cases.

It's that simple.

The challenge, "How else can you explain it?", just isn't a valid challenge anymore.

The natural and supernatural cannot be differentiated by any kind of scientific test that anyone can devise, now or forever.

I would like to hear some thoughts on this subject from other skeptics of the supernatural, whether or not they agree.

 

[tsg]

Falsifiable hypothesis, in other words. Yes. "It's not impossible" != "true"

 

[jimtron]

I don't see why some things considered supernatural or paranormal couldn't be scientifically verified. Then they would no longer be supernatural or paranormal--maybe that's what you're saying?

The problem with the supernatural is that it can NEVER in any way be proven.

I don't think you've supported the above argument. Why not? If someone can really read minds, that would be pretty easy to prove, right? Or are you saying these things can never be proven because they're all bogus?

I wouldn't be surprised if one or more things presently considered supernatural turn out to be scientifically validated. Or at least I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

 

[tsg]

Once science understands a thing, it becomes natural. If psychic abilities could not only be verified, but the mechanism behind them discovered, they would no longer be supernatural.

But, in the absence of a falsifiable hypothesis, supernatural is where they stay.

 

[scratchy]

If it exists and manifest itself in any way it will be proven. If not, it wont. Its just that simple.

 

[streamlet]

A while back I had this mind blowing revelation, in this order:

-magic would be much better if it could work repeatably
-witches study to make their magic work repeatably
-when it can be repeated, it's no longer supernatural
-thus, the highest ambition of a magic user is to destroy magic!
-
-...this is going to make a great plot point in a fantasy novel someday!

Is this sort of what you mean, JayT?

 

[Explorer]

"Be it religion or any other beliefs, what test could any scientist design to PROVE that an observed mystery phenomenon is truly supernatural"

Beliefs in a god, based on faith alone can never be proven scientifically.

 

[TjW]

A while back I had this mind blowing revelation, in this order:

-magic would be much better if it could work repeatably
-witches study to make their magic work repeatably
-when it can be repeated, it's no longer supernatural
-thus, the highest ambition of a magic user is to destroy magic!
-
-...this is going to make a great plot point in a fantasy novel someday!

Is this sort of what you mean, JayT?

It's the flip side of Arthur C. Clarke's "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology.

 

[portlandatheist]

Michael Shermer talks about this. Given an unexplained phenomenon, we can assume a naturalistic cause which increases inquiry or accept a supernatural causation ending any further inquiry. Once the phenomenon previously thought of as “woo” is understood in naturalistic terms, it is no longer woo but is part of the body of science. God, astrology, or physic ability if true, would simply become part of the body of science if tested and understood. Claiming the supernatural is equivalent to saying “I don’t understand why this happens and I don’t want to understand why this happens”

 

[yairhol]

I understand what JayT is saying.
She/he is saying that for example in the early 1800's if someone would have said that you can transmit information over vast distances without having a direct link with those distant places, then that would be considered supernatural. Of course it's not supernatural only that Hertz and his scientist friends (Maxwell anyone?) have not discovered wireless communications yet. So JayT is correct by saying that what is supernatural at a given time could be science which has yet to be discovered.
On the other hand, there are some absolute scientific laws which cannot be broken. They are inherent properties of nature. For example the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). If someone (Steorn?) could show that this law does not hold then that would be supernatural because our whole science which prooves itself over and over again each second of our lives and builds up this law would not be correct (but how can it not be correct if everything in science depends on it and science has been proven to be correct?).

As Jeff Wagg (responsible for the million dollar challenge) has said in some recent thread, it is possible that someone with a so called paranormal claim would win the million dollars if he proves a claim which turns out to be scientific but has not been discovered yet. But that's fine as the JREF will be the first to have propmoted this new scientific discovery.

Regards,
Yair

 

[drkitten]

I understand what JayT is saying.
She/he is saying that for example in the early 1800's if someone would have said that you can transmit information over vast distances without having a direct link with those distant places, then that would be considered supernatural. Of course it's not supernatural only that Hertz and his scientist friends (Maxwell anyone?) have not discovered wireless communications yet.

That's either a better or a worse example than you realize. Because, of course, semaphore, heliograph, smoke signals and signal beacons were all well-known in the early 1800's. Radio is "really" just a heliograph or a signal beacon that uses an invisible fire, if you think about it.

And no one in 1800 would have thought a heliograph was supernatural.

One of the problems with this "magic is just technology we don't understand yet" is that most of the "magic" that is proposed doesn't just extend what we know about the real world, but it actively contradicts it. The classic example of that is divination -- if you can really see unpredictable events in the future, then there's something deeply wrong with our understanding of cause and effect. If you can violate the law of conservation of energy, then there's something deeply wrong with our understanding of -- darn it, was
it "space" that Emmy Noether linked to energy?

Bigfoot isn't that wierd, really. Just another large primate. But laws of physics are not just observations any more. They're deeply tied to the fundamental regularities of the universe.

 

[yairhol]

That's either a better or a worse example than you realize. Because, of course, semaphore, heliograph, smoke signals and signal beacons were all well-known in the early 1800's. Radio is "really" just a heliograph or a signal beacon that uses an invisible fire, if you think about it.

And no one in 1800 would have thought a heliograph was supernatural.

smarty pants...I was talking about EM radiation like radio waves and the ability to transmit and detect that radiation.
saying that:

Radio is "really" just a heliograph or a signal beacon that uses an invisible fire, if you think about it.

is like saying that talking to myself (without actually talking and using air to make sound) is the same as regular talking but "really" only using brain waves instead of sound waves.
in the early 1800's saying that you could transmit invisible radiation which can be detected beyond the curvature of the earth would have been considered supernatural.

Regards,
Yair

 

[drkitten]

smarty pants...I was talking about EM radiation like radio waves

As opposed to EM radiation like visible light?

How do you think semaphores and signal bonfires work, anyway? They are huge sources (or reflectors) of EM radiation that is transmitted and detected by human eyes.

in the early 1800's saying that you could transmit invisible radiation which can be detected beyond the curvature of the earth would have been considered supernatural.

Actually, it would have been considered "gibberish"; the word "radiation" wasn't known. But the idea of bouncing light off a huge mirror in the sky -- which is what radio does -- wouldn't have been considered supernatural. My point still stands that radio would have been an extension of what was already known, not a violation of it. And more generally, that's the problem with the "paranormal"; unknown potential aspects of reality that are compatible with what we already understand are called "science." Things only become "paranormal," for the most part, when they actively contradict what we know.

 

[yairhol]

Things only become "paranormal," for the most part, when they actively contradict what we know.

yes, and in the 1800's only visible light and soundwaves were thought to be transmitted through air. saying there were more frequencies that we could detect beyond the curvature of earth was quite in contradiction to what was known then thus could be termed paranormal.

Regards,
Yair

 

[yairhol]

Actually, it would have been considered "gibberish";

and saying today that one can speak with the dead is not gibberish? call it paranormal or gibberish they are the same.
Saying that you can create energy from nothing contradicts known science. What Steorn has declared it can do is also gibberish.

Regards,
Yair

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

My response to Clarke's addage is basically in line with what drkitten has been saying.

For myself, I differentiate between the supernatural and the paranormal with the former consisting of subjects which defy the laws of physics (deities, ghosts, demons, angels, etc.) and the latter being everything else which defies current knowledge, but could have a scientific explanation (UFOs, Cryptozoology, telekinesis, PSI, etc.)

Something paranormal, like bigfoot, is subject to testing via the scientific method and should have a naturalistic explanation. Because there shouldn't be any hominoids running around North America they would be paranormal meaning, simply outside the normal.

When it comes to the supernatural, we really don't have any way of reproducing or falsifying general claims (angels exist) although we can apply the scientific method - especially falsification - to individual claims (YECism, faith healing). The scientific method cannot address whether God exists, but it can determine whether a global flood occured about 4,000 years ago and killed all terrestrial life on Earth except 8 humans and 2 or 7 of all animals.

 

[yairhol]

For myself, I differentiate between the supernatural and the paranormal with the former consisting of subjects which defy the laws of physics (deities, ghosts, demons, angels, etc.) and the latter being everything else which defies current knowledge, but could have a scientific explanation (UFOs, Cryptozoology, telekinesis, PSI, etc.)

why would angels defy the laws of physics? which law exactly does it defy? And if it defies some of the laws of physics then it can be proven analytically to be false (for example it can be proven that Steorn's machine does not work. Take in all the parameters of energy put into the system and those opposing that energy and you have an equation of force which contradicts what the claimant is saying).

Regards,
Yair

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

why would angels defy the laws of physics? which law exactly does it defy?

Hyperdimensional beings with a naturalistic origin would be paranormal. Angels do not have a naturalistic origin and their actions (teleportation, pan-dimensionalism, self-powered flight, etc.) that defy the laws of physics put them in the realm of the supernatural.

And I snipped the rest because angels are not analagous to claims about free energy machines or homeopathy or bigfoot. All of those things can be falisified (or at least relegated to the area of not plausible). How do we falsify the claims about visitations by angels?

 

[yairhol]

Hyperdimensional beings with a naturalistic origin would be paranormal. Angels do not have a naturalistic origin and their actions (teleportation, pan-dimensionalism, self-powered flight, etc.) that defy the laws of physics put them in the realm of the supernatural.

How do you know angels are what you describe above? I believe that is your definition of them. We haven't seen them, haven't felt, haven't detected them and so on, so saying something about them is pure speculations. Also what do you mean in "self-powered flight" and "pan-dimensionalism"?

Regards,
Yair

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

How do you know angels are what you describe above? I believe that is your definition of them. We haven't seen them, haven't felt, haven't detected them and so on, so saying something about them is pure speculations. Also what do you mean in "self-powered flight" and "pan-dimensionalism"?

I don't like playing 20 questions. The definition of what an angel is is pretty well known. If we start making definitions elastic enough to where, say, an alien civilization resulting from an abiogenetic event and developed through evolution, came to Earth and teleport, appear in visions, heal people etc. and we were to define them as angels and not as aliens with technology, then words simply have no meaning.