Why can't Science detect the supernatural?

[QED]

If there really were any supernatural goings-on in our world we would expect scientists to be all over them like a badly fitting suit. Some people might point to the very fabric of the universe claiming it to be permeated by the supernatural, but this never seems to translate into anything that we would could identify as being paranormal landing before us.

Of course reports of supernatural events surface on a regular basis with many people claiming to have paranormal experiences, but no systematic investigation has ever uncovered phenomena that could not be accounted for in a naturalistic framework. There is no "open book" in which phenomenon of the world is documented pending scientific explanation. Such a thing would rapidly draw the attention of the scientific community who relish all opportunities to study any such inconsistencies.

So it seems that our world is very much a "What You See Is What You Get" kind of place where no matter how romantic people may be, not one atom is out of place on account of even our deepest of superstitions.

If this view is to be disputed, I suggest that it would require at least one bone-fide example of a paranormal situation that cannot be accounted for in a naturalistic way. Any examples from the Quantum domain are disqualified on account of Quantum Mechanics having no universally recognized interpretation as yet. The world has billions of observers and if there was anything mysterious going on at the macroscopic level we should have no shortage of contemporary reports to consider.

[Cathar1950]

I will try to find my book by SJ Case Science and the Supernatural and see what he comes up with. It has been awhile since I read it. Also Hans Kung's Eternal Life? (1984).
This should be an interesting topic. Because I am a non-dualist I think anything "supernatural" is natural. But I have an open mind.

[juliod]

Because I am a non-dualist I think anything "supernatural" is natural.

My view is that anything supernatural would be natural if it actually existed. And that things are only labeled "supernatural" after they have been soundly falsified.

It's not an issue that supernatural things can or can not be accounted for by natural explanations. The issue is that no supernatural thing has ever been shown to exist in the first place.

DanZ

[palmera]

Let's get some kind of working definition here for "supernatural." Depending on one's perspective, science has already uncovered supernatural phenomena. For example, before machines were invented to actually measure electromagnetic waves, the idea of an invisible forcefield was considered to be in the realm of the supernatural. A lot of what we call supernatural depends upon perspective, so for the sake of this debate perhaps QED would like to give us a working definition to go by.

Also, just because Quantum theory isn't understood by everyone in the scientific community doesn't mean it should be excluded from this debate. There is not definite consensus in the scientific community about much of anything ourside the realm of the easily observable, not to mention there's no consensus on the nature of the supernatural among lay folk either- it's a little convenient for your argument to dismiss a realm of theory and observation which turns our understanding of the world on its head. For instance, the fact (held in consensus) that it is impossible to know both the speed and location of an electron at any one point in time points to the supernatural because it defies the laws of physics. How can it be that an electron could be in one place, then accross the universe (or wherever it goes) and back in the blink of an eye?

[palmera]

hmmm...

[QED]

Here's a definition that sums it up for me

The supernatural refers to conscious magical, religious or unknown forces that cannot ordinarily be perceived except through their effects. This word is often used interchangeably with preternatural or paranormal. Unlike natural forces, these putative supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory.

A concept of the supernatural is generally identified with religion, or unorganised forms of belief, although there is much debate as to whether a conception of the supernatural is necessary for religion (see The nature of God in Western theology and Anthropology of religion).

The supernatural is also a topic in various genres of fiction, such as fantasy and horror. Some examples of supernatural phenomena are miracles and ghosts; psychic abilities like psychokinesis and telepathy are better classified as paranormal than supernatural.

Quantum Mechanical phenomena are not counted in my view as they are statistically predictable. We can reliably harness them for engineering purposes. Although the mechanisms and properties of the microwold seem unfamiliar to us in our macroworld, this is simply because we haven't got used to watching things behave in such a way.

Depending on one's perspective, science has already uncovered supernatural phenomena. For example, before machines were invented to actually measure electromagnetic waves, the idea of an invisible forcefield was considered to be in the realm of the supernatural.

Good example, now see if anyone can come up with another phenomenon like this that has yet to be explained.

[Bugmaster]

Well, they call it the supernatural for a reason. Science will never be able to detect it, by definition, because it only deals with natural things.

[QED]

Well, they call it the supernatural for a reason. Science will never be able to detect it, by definition, because it only deals with natural things.

Slippery isn't it But people go around with this stuff in their heads all day long. They think that there are unnatural things going on in the world. They think they're in a sea of supernaturality! I know what the feeling is like -- I'm sure we all get this feeling when we enter a Cathedral or graveyard at night. But this is a question of conditioning. We are definitely not tapping into some extant spiritual wavelength (supporting evidence available on request).

What I'm trying to bring out here is the huge gulf between peoples perceptions and the reality of the world. The amount of time and effort that goes into religious ceremony, the amount of time spent in prayer (particularly in the Eastern countries) and the extraordinary beliefs of those holding faith in Christianity (for instance) all suggest a world overflowing with miracles and divine grace. BUT study any part of it as closely as you like and with or without the superstition the world looks just the same. Like someone claiming to be able to perform phsychokinesis on demand, the matchbox simply refuses to budge.

[Bugmaster]

We are definitely not tapping into some extant spiritual wavelength (supporting evidence available on request).

Really ? Ok, let's see it :-) I don't see how you can have supporting evidence against the supernatural, which, in the end, amounts to faith. Evidence doesn't work on faith. Especially since your evidence is natural, and we're discussing the supernatural here.

BUT study any part of it as closely as you like and with or without the superstition the world looks just the same.

I'm not so sure. I think that theists really do see evidence of their gods everywhere they look... their mindset is basically alien to ours. Well, it depends on which brand of theist we're talking about, I suppose.

[juliod]

Science will never be able to detect it, by definition, because it only deals with natural things.

No no no!

This is one of the most bogus claims ever made. I reject it completely and heap scorn on you for bringing it up.

IF a supernatural thing were real there would be no difficulty in studying it scientifically.

Let's say there were a magical statue that could heal people. Scientifically you could examine it in these ways:

1) At what distance does the statue work?

2) Does it cure all diseases and conditions, or only some?

3) Is professed belief in the statue a necessary condition for healing?

4) Are those healed by the statue susceptable to the same disease/condition later in life, or are they thereafter immune?

Why can't we do these sorts of studies? It's not because the supernatural is "outside science". It's because there are no known statues with the ability to heal.

DanZ