Can a supernatural explanation be scientific?

[Sjoerd]

From another thread:

A naturalistic world view is one of the foundations of science.

Only recently has it been a "foundation" in science.

Everything that happens must be governed by *some* law and have *some* kind of observable cause.

Yes. However, in a naturalistic worldview, it automatically rejects any type of supernatural cause, even if there is empirical evidence for it.

However, I strongly object against presenting as science something that isn't. If it isn't compatible with the naturalistic worldview, it isn't science.

I would disagree. But, this is not really a part of this topic.

Question for debate:

Can a supernatural explanation be scientific? Is there any scenario where, following the scientific method, a supernatural explanation could be accepted as a scientific theory, even if it is true ?

To stay on topic, please accept the following assumptions during debate (even though both of them are far-fetched):
- The supernatural phenomena are factual truth
- Scientists are not biased by existing theories or by their own opinions, but only by biases inherent to the scientific method

[McCulloch]

Can a supernatural explanation be scientific? Is there any scenario where, following the scientific method, a supernatural explanation could be accepted as a scientific theory, even if it is true ?

No. By definition, supernatural events are beyond the scope of science. As soon as the event becomes scientifically verifiable, it is no longer supernatural.

[Scotracer]

Can a supernatural explanation be scientific? Is there any scenario where, following the scientific method, a supernatural explanation could be accepted as a scientific theory, even if it is true ?

No. By definition, supernatural events are beyond the scope of science. As soon as the event becomes scientifically verifiable, it is no longer supernatural.

And leads me to my question about Supernatural:

What exactly is it?

[Sjoerd]

As soon as the event becomes scientifically verifiable, it is no longer supernatural.

Hold on...are you saying that an event such as Jesus walking on water would not have been supernatural if there had been scientific instruments present?

[Sjoerd]

Can a supernatural explanation be scientific? Is there any scenario where, following the scientific method, a supernatural explanation could be accepted as a scientific theory, even if it is true ?

No. By definition, supernatural events are beyond the scope of science. As soon as the event becomes scientifically verifiable, it is no longer supernatural.

And leads me to my question about Supernatural:

What exactly is it?

Let us define it as an event of direct divine intervention, in direct contradiction to the natural laws.

[McCulloch]

As soon as the event becomes scientifically verifiable, it is no longer supernatural.

Hold on...are you saying that an event such as Jesus walking on water would not have been supernatural if there had been scientific instruments present?

No. If Jesus walked on water, then that event might have been verified as having happened using scientific methods. Science then, having verified the event attempts to explain it by natural means and if there is no explanation, the event remains unexplained. That is as far as science can go.

Supernaturalism, on the other hand, jumps to conclusions that there must be explanations beyond what is natural when they cannot come up with a natural explanation.

[cnorman18]

As soon as the event becomes scientifically verifiable, it is no longer supernatural.

Hold on...are you saying that an event such as Jesus walking on water would not have been supernatural if there had been scientific instruments present?

No. If Jesus walked on water, then that event might have been verified as having happened using scientific methods. Science then, having verified the event attempts to explain it by natural means and if there is no explanation, the event remains unexplained. That is as far as science can go.

Supernaturalism, on the other hand, jumps to conclusions that there must be explanations beyond what is natural when they cannot come up with a natural explanation.

I quite agree. Even if a supernatural event were witnessed, attested to and verified by scientific instruments and unbiased, trained observers, it would remain "unexplained" from a scientific point of view.

I don't think that scientists will begin to recognize the electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak force, gravity, and the hand of God as being of equal validity in the study of physics anytime soon.

[Cathar1950]

When we are dealing with ancient writings we need to look at their world.
They were superstitious.
There are other city-states that claimed their victories and defeats were because of either pleasing or displeasing their gods.
People saw signs in everything and believed in all kinds of gods and spirits.
Then there are their stories.
Did an angel save Jerusalem or was it the Kushites?
Was Jerusalem protected by God because of a promise made through one of the prophets or did the king pay tribute?

[Scotracer]

I agree with everyone else - how would it be possible to positively verify the supernatural if something unexplained had all the same hallmarks?

I would propose that everything ever posited as supernatural was purely a lack of understanding at the time.

[juliod]

The key point to keep in mind is that if a phenomenon or object actually exists, then it can be studied by science.

This is separate from questions about events in the past. Small scale events (including miracle claims) are matters of historicity, and the subject of historical research which is a scholarly field, but not a science in itself. Historicity must include analysis of probability and possibility, and so must be informed by current scientific views of realism.

The thing about existing supernatural claims is that they are all (100%) about phenomena for which we have no reason to believe they are real. The vast bulk are either trivial and anecdotal (medical prayer claims) or conclusively fraudulent (TV psychics), or just plain silly (Jesus in a sausage). Even the vast Catholic church, with it's fetish of miracles and saints, cannot field a supernatural claim that can pass even a cursory critical examination.

So there is nothing for science to study that might be supernatural. The word has almost become a synonym for "false". James Randi has been offering a million dollars for years now for anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural phenomenon. What's amazing is that no one has even even made a serious attempt at collecting the money. If you read the on-line postings of the applications, you can see they are all made by cranks and people with frank mental illnesses. It's almost as if those people making a living from supernatural claims (and there are many) know that these claims are phoney.

DanZ