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.

[Jose]

By definition, the scientific method deals with natural phenomena -- things that can be observed -- things that can be tested. The supernatural things, by definition also, are outside of this reality.

As stated in the Bible, God declares that "My ways are not your ways. My ways are beyond your ability to find out" We each can accept that statement or deny it. But what if what we think of as being reality is only an illusion? What if life, as we know it, is like the Matrix movie - a vast simulation. How can we be so certain that what we can see and touch is actually real and that which we can't see and touch is not real?

But to some, god is a part of the natural world. These are the ones who insist that god should be a part of science classes. They assert that scientists who use this logic to exclude god from science classes are practicing a religious faith that excludes god. Harvey1 has pointed out to me that this is called metaphysical naturalism. It is easy to mistake the inability of science to detect the undetectable for an atheistic worldview that refuses to consider the supernatural. How would you make this distinction clear to the angry parent?

But one thing is certain and cannot be denied. One day we will enter a different reality through death. Will that reality consist of nothingness as an Atheist would claim? Or would that reality consist of being judged by our creator and being sent to heaven or hell as a Christian would claim. And, of course, there are other claims. None of us could prove the other wrong by natural means.

This, it seems to me, is a matter of faith not science.

It seems that every independently-derived religion has its own certainty about what follows death. It also seems that no one has gone there and come back to report on it. Given that this is the case, what do we say to the student or parent who does not want evolution taught because--to quote someone in exactly this predicament--"I'm afraid of what will happen when I die"?

As I have pieced things together from these forums, it seems that this worry stems from the biblical notion that there was no death before The Fall. God's covenant with humans at The Fall was to say that at death, he'd bring us back to The Good Place if we had behaved ourselves. Therefore, if evolution is true, then there has always been death, so there can be no such covenant, and thus no salvation. Admittedly, this requires absolute insistence that one must interpret scripture one way, and one way only, with no metaphor or allegory. It requires insistence that the bible is so weak that it can be effectively destroyed by a mere scientific finding. This produces a paradox: the strongest believers have the most fragile faith. How do we make it clear to them that science cannot speak to theif faith, either by detecting the supernatural or by proving it wrong? It can do neither.

[AlAyeti]

Indeed, nature is obviously quite content orchestrating her own performance. When Autumn comes the trees know exactly what to do. They don't need to be told from upon high. And neither do we.

///

It's almost unbelievable that the above statement can be made by a rational thinking person.

"The trees know exactly what to do."

Symbiosis should be viewed as a miracle. As should the "knowledege" in a tree and the instinct observable in the insects under the grass. No wonder the clock had to be enlarged billions of years for random processes to "make sense."

That the use of the word "orchestrating" can be used without the ability to observe a conductor is sad to see. Excuse me . . . a Conductor.

Order denotes only one thing. Chaos defines only one thing as well.

Science has indeed shown us miracle after miracle after miracle. Empirically.

I wonder if God isn't enjoying His children finding the way home.

[ST88]

Supernatural things do not "resist" scientific inquiry. Quite the contrary, supernaturalist claims are usually (always, as far as I know) investgated and explained immediately by scientific means.

Those aren't the same things. Supernatural things aren't perceivable. End of story. Whether they exist or they don't. Supernaturalist claims (e.g., visions, healing stories) are outrageous because of this if nothing else. If a supernatural force was able to somehow make contact with the natural world in such a way, then it would cease being supernatural. Semantics, perhaps. But we have a distinction in the language for a reason. The human brain tends to want to attribute an effect to a cause. An unseen cause to a real effect is "spooky". And so we tend to want to give the unseen cause properties that would create the real effect. Therefore we have this entire field of "study" of the supernatural. We see effects without apparent cause and try to glean the characteristics of the cause through the effects. It's purely speculative and it builds upon itself to create entire mythologies, religions, dogmas.

But even despite this, the existence of the supernatural does not rely on supernatural claims, neither proving nor falsifying. Claims of supernatural contact may always be false, but this says nothing about an actual supernatural realm.

We can't say what a "real" supernatural thing would be like. no oone has ever seen one. That's a challenge for the supernnaturalists. Show us three supernatural things, ]then we'll decide how to define it.

The supernatural ceases to be super once it is perceived. Therefore, your challenge is an unworkable paradox.