Is not invoking supernaturalism a reason to reject religion?

[harvey1]

HughDP stated here:

Specifically what, in fact, is outside the realms of science? If the combination of constants required to get our universe is rare, then one of the most logical assumptions is that it would take a number of attempts to hit on that combination. Either there is nothing extraordinary about the combination of constants in our universe, or the number of attempts at getting this combination is large, or - as you suggested - it's just incredibly lucky. I'd be surprised if it was the latter, but if it is and if it's within the realms of science, then so what? Still no need to invoke anything supernatural. I think we need more than extraordinary coincidence to invoke the supernatural. If one day scientists declare that our universe is totally impossible, then we'd have to consider the supernatural to make the impossible possible, but I think we're a long way off that point now, don't you? My point is that there's still a lot of science to do. Scientists do not have all the answers, but much work is being done to find them. They haven't all given up their jobs and become Elvis impersonators instead yet. I think we're considering the idea of a Creator way too early in our history.

So, my question is the following: Is postulating a Creator to account for the amazing facts of the world (e.g., the physical constants seeming to be extremely coincidental to the universe's becoming) necessarily invoking a supernatural explanation, and is a Creator explanation for these features premature given our current knowledge of science?

[juliod]

Is postulating a Creator

No, it is not necessarily a supernatural thing. But all creators that have actually been described have in fact been supernatural.

If you wish to postulate a creator, you need to tell us enough about him/her/it/they to decide whether the creator is supernatural or not. Otherwise I will say you haven't actually described a creator.

I think that some people intentionally avoid describing what they believe in order that he/she/it/they will not be falsified.

DanZ

[HughDP]

HughDP stated here:

Specifically what, in fact, is outside the realms of science? If the combination of constants required to get our universe is rare, then one of the most logical assumptions is that it would take a number of attempts to hit on that combination. Either there is nothing extraordinary about the combination of constants in our universe, or the number of attempts at getting this combination is large, or - as you suggested - it's just incredibly lucky. I'd be surprised if it was the latter, but if it is and if it's within the realms of science, then so what? Still no need to invoke anything supernatural. I think we need more than extraordinary coincidence to invoke the supernatural. If one day scientists declare that our universe is totally impossible, then we'd have to consider the supernatural to make the impossible possible, but I think we're a long way off that point now, don't you? My point is that there's still a lot of science to do. Scientists do not have all the answers, but much work is being done to find them. They haven't all given up their jobs and become Elvis impersonators instead yet. I think we're considering the idea of a Creator way too early in our history.

So, my question is the following: Is postulating a Creator to account for the amazing facts of the world (e.g., the physical constants seeming to be extremely coincidental to the universe's becoming) necessarily invoking a supernatural explanation, and is a Creator explanation for these features premature given our current knowledge of science?

Well done Harvey ... we were drifting a bit in the other thread!

It's a good question too.

Strictly speaking, a Creator does not, I guess, have to be supernatural. If we assume there could be an intelligence that was in some way responsible for configuring the laws of our universe then, providing we don't invoke the supernatural, we have it within the scope of science to discover it.

That doesn't mean we will discover it though. One could imagine the Creator intelligence being to us as we are to ants. Maybe it's simply beyond our scope at the moment; maybe it will be forever. One may think that we're no better off in such a situation than we were with the supernatural Creator, but I think we are because we're not starting with an a priori assumption that it is impossible for science to define it, however much we know.

I do, however, think there's an awful lot of science left in us before we need to rely on an intelligent Creator. Throughout history we've kept managing to explain the unexplained - starting with things like fire - and when we've written science off as 'finished' a new breakthrough has generally occured.

We are really just at the beginning of our quest to unravel the fundamental laws of the universe - we've only had such things as quantum mechanics and relativity for a century. We're also only just getting the technology to look deep into the universe (and thus back in time) or to probe the subatomic realm with the energies we require.

Personally, I think some of the stuff we already know is quite amazing, but I think there's much more to come.

[McCulloch]

Strictly speaking, a Creator does not, I guess, have to be supernatural.

Really? Why not? If the Creator is not supernatural, then mustn't he/it then need a creator? If the Creator is natural and created all that is natural, then the Creator becomes self-created.

[Cathar1950]

I will become that which I will become.
or
I will be that which I will be.
This seems to be a better translation then "I am" told to Moses.
So it seems that at least they thought God was self creating.
Of course the Bible God is not the God of the philosophers even when they do the switch.
It is like the shell game. When you watch to see what shell the pea is under and it isn't under any of the them, the guy palmed it.

[HughDP]

Strictly speaking, a Creator does not, I guess, have to be supernatural.

Really? Why not? If the Creator is not supernatural, then mustn't he/it then need a creator? If the Creator is natural and created all that is natural, then the Creator becomes self-created.

Possibly. If it is within the bounds of science then it's not supernatural.

I'm not postulating a Creator at all, merely granting that if we suppose that whatever a Creator is - guiding intelligence, smiting god or super-evolved kangaroo - as long as it's not defined as supernatural at the outset, it can potentially be confirmed or falsified by science. That sets it on different ground to the supernatural, god-like Creator that many religions offer.

[QED]

Harvey asks "Is not invoking supernaturalism a reason to reject religion? ". Now one possibility is that tour universe was created as part of a grand plan by beings in another universe. I would ask how would we know this from any other possibilities we are considering here? Never mind that these beings and their universe goes unexplained - they are as natural as anything that science in our universe is capable of discovering and it is their actions that bring us into existence. Perhaps people still think that they deserve the attention of our multitude of different faiths, with all their different myths, rituals and ceremonies. Perhaps people think that our religions are somehow automatically re-directed to whatever it is that lies beyond these "Gods by proxy". My opinion is still that humanity is very much premature in reacting to ambiguities such as this by responding with the likes of the Christian and Islamic faiths.

[Bugmaster]

To answer the original question:

It depends on what kind of Creator you postulate. If your Creator is completely undetectable by any natural means, in principle, then he's supernatural. If your Creator can be detected by some natural means, then he's not supernatural, but now you have the task of coming up with some evidence for him (or face the gleaming edge of Occam's Razor).

In general, I don't see anything wrong with supernatural Creators. Jesus, YHVH, Allah, Coyote, Vishnu, those cosmic vibration things that Hare Krishnas believe in... It's all good. You are free to have faith in whatever you want. Of course, you'll never be able to convince anyone that you're right based solely on faith, but them's the breaks.

[QED]

If your Creator is completely undetectable by any natural means, in principle, then he's supernatural.

I disagree. If beings in another universe create a black-hole in one of their labs so spawning a new universe that we eventually find ourselves within they might be undetectable in principle from this side of the singularity but that doesn't make them supernatural in my book.

[Bugmaster]

If beings in another universe create a black-hole in one of their labs so spawning a new universe that we eventually find ourselves within they might be undetectable in principle from this side of the singularity but that doesn't make them supernatural in my book.

Eh, that's kind of a toss-up. If the existence of other universes, and beings within them, cannot be empirically verified (or, at least, inferred from other empirically verifiable theories), then I'd still count those things as supernatural. I don't think it matters if the "super-" part is dualism or science fiction... if we can't detect it by any means, in principle, then it's pretty much a supernatural entity.