Criticism of Supernatural

From Wikinfo

There have been many attempts to verify claims of supernatural phenomena scientifically. All are generally considered failures, although proponents often claimed to show startling and unusual results. Most scientists claim that the experiments are best classified as pseudoscience, that they have been experimentally flawed, statistically invalid, and/or not repeatable. Other events appear to be manifestations of a natural, explainable nature that are misinterpreted. Most religious people claim that these phenomena, being essentially "unnatural," are not appropriate for scientific study (see also William James, The Variety of Religious Experience).

Nevertheless, many claims of supernatural phenomena often conflict directly and fundamentally with current scientific understanding.

Arguments against supernaturality

The following arguments are frequently cited against the existence of supernatural events:

• Much of what we call science today was once believed to be supernatural. The control of electricity, the manufacture of steel, radio waves, all were once thought to be beyond the bounds of nature, and therefore supernatural, by conventional scientists. As such, what is believed to be supernatural today may be completely explained tomorrow.

• Many claimed supernatural events can be studied by the scientific method; this has been often attempted. However, once the physical laws by which an event occurs become known, the event is no longer classified as 'supernatural' anymore.

• Supernatural events cannot or are unlikely to occur (cf. Occam's Razor), and some, if not all, theological claims made by religions are unsupportable by scientific means. Sir Karl Popper's influential Conjectures and Refutations argues that the strength of a hypothesis depends on how many ways it could be proven false. Hypotheses inherently incapable of falsification can only be compared on the basis of general principles such as Ockham's Razor. Fundamental supernatural hypotheses are difficult to define, let alone test.

• Neither science, mathematics, nor any other method can provably reveal Absolute Truth. Even the simplest logical inference depends on axioms. All observations depend on interpretations of external detectors or of our own fallible sensory organs. Dreams, feelings, and hallucinations are even less reliable, but are often cited as a basis for supernaturalism. To compensate for this limitation, mathematicians seek the simplest, most indispensable axioms. Any scientific hypothesis worthy of the title "theory" is supported by a complex web of observations and tests that might have falsified it but did not. The supernatural hypothesis provides no such basis for belief.

• Those who do not accept dogmatic authority find no reason for accepting the belief that the Bible (or any other religious scripture or institution) is infallible, or historically accurate and flawless. The absence of independent evidence confirming some of the biblical narratives has caused many scholars to question the accuracy or even the historicity of these accounts (see The Bible and history). In this view, all works of scripture are seen as work s written by human beings, that developed in a given historical and social context over a long period of time. Such books were influenced by a process of deliberate or unconscious mysticism, in which both Biblical writers, and later readers, attributed natural events to the will of God.

• Because the truth of supernatural claims cannot be objectively tested, disputes about them often lead to schism and persecution. The philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed this out in his essay "An outline of Intellectual Rubbish":

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion. So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants.

• Examples:
  • The Great Schisms among Christians were the culmination of centuries of disagreement concerning the powers of the Pope to decide doctrine. No objective standard for resolving these differences has been agreed upon, then or since. It may be argued, then, that only the abandonment of the competing supernatural claims can possibly lead to the resolution of differences.
  • The Thirty Years War was justified as a defense of inviolable privileges granted by God to the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Emperor, over against the Protestant claims of God's grant of the rights of nations and of self-government according to the Bible.
  • For centuries, Christians angered and frustrated by the refusal of Jews to acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah have considered the Jews to be especially guilty of the crucifixion of Christ, cursed and deserving of suffering (see deicide). Other folk-religious beliefs about alliances between the Jews and Satan, and similar terrifying conspiracy theories, have fueled hatred and cruelty toward the Jewish people, and have produced a special indifference to Jewish suffering.

Where science is able to address issues in dispute, to correct errors of fact, or to call into question claims of authority grounded in history, it has at times been able to soften antagonisms based on competing supernatural claims. This is because in issues of observable fact the truth of opposing claims can, at least in principle, be objectively tested, eliminating the temptation toward violence to resolve a difference of views and silence dissent.

• Truth as suggested by naturalistic science may arguably provide greater freedom of opinion beyond those issues that can be decided by science, but science itself does not claim to be able to resolve disputes of authority, or of rights or standards of morality, unless these are issues of testable fact. Otherwise, (for example) the politics and morality of a scientist are as subjective or as reliant upon assumptions about the supernatural as those of anyone else -- and of course, individuals may decide to remain either passively agnostic about every issue that cannot be tested or actively hostile to claims of authority that cannot be scientifically justified.

• Naturalistic science may arguably provide promise of greater agreement of thought and culture than supernaturalism has. Science is far more widely accepted than any particular form of supernaturalism: men and women of all races, cultures, and religions practice science or use the technology inspired by it, but they do not all accept naturalism as a philosophy.

In short

• Our knowledge of the world is continuously increasing. Some occurrences, once assumed supernatural, can today be explained by scientific theories.
• Many suggested supernatural phenomena vanish when they are examined closely. There have been, for example, various studies on astrology, most of them with negative results^{[1][2][3][4][5]}(a single positive result cannot outweigh many negative ones, as it can be expected by mere chance).
• Humans in good mental health are capable of simulating perceptions that do not exist. This is commonly known as Hallucinations in the sane.

References

This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at Supernatural. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. The text of this Wikinfo article is available under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license. English | Română | edit

Part of a series of articles on the Paranormal
Main articles
Paranormal · Forteana Supernatural · Miracles Ghosts · Ghost hunting Haunted locations Remote viewing · Clairvoyance Extra-sensory perception Near-death experience Precognition · Psychokinesis Psychometry · Telepathy Apparitional experience Parapsychology UFOs · UFO sightings Paranormal UFO explanations Paranormal fiction Cryptozoology · Folklore Psychics · Phasmophobia Mythology Crybaby Bridge · La Llorona Skepticism
Committee for Skeptical Inquiry Debunking · Hoaxes Cold reading · Magical thinking James Randi Educational Foundation Paranormal challenges
Related science articles
Anomalous phenomena Fringe science · Pseudoscience Protoscience · Falsifiability Scientific method
This box: view • talk • edit