Studying the supernatural

Oddly, you seem intent on alienating potential allies. You're misinterpreting what Nwr is referring to when he says science transforms supposed supernatural phenomena into natural phenomena. He's not referring to Thor.--Percy

It seemed to me that Straggler was disagreeing as strenuously with Nwr as he would with anyone from the opposite side of the divide. It seemed more like a minor difference about how to group and label things.The real issue is that any thread in which both Straggler and RAZD participate eventually ends up discussing the same thing. They're like a pair of carnivores who, game being scarce, take to fighting between themselves over scraps of little importance and then draw in the rest of the pack.--Percy

Hi Dr Adequate,I agree with what Mod said, and it seems compatible with what Nwr said, I just liked Nwr's way of saying it better, and Straggler's strenuous objection over what is really just minor terminology differences seemed out of place.As for the rest, I was speculating that since the creationist pickings are so slim these days that it was causing people who would otherwise agree to bicker among themselves over minutia out of boredom.--Percy

Understood, but you were replying mostly to the history and not so much to what Nwr actually said in Message 7. I already know Nwr and I have differences about the nature of science, but I agree with what he said in Message 7, which wasn't controversial. I think if you temporarily set aside any past disagreements you might have had with Nwr and read that message again that you might see it differently.As to what Nwr is referring to, Thor and lightning wasn't his example, but all he meant was that when lightning is given a supernatural explanation, such as "Thor did it," that science shows that lightning has a natural explanation. Over time this process of providing natural explanations for the supernatural reduces the breadth of the religious domain, and he thinks that religion might be better off claiming that nature is God.He didn't mean that science provides Thor a natural explanation.--Percy

Hi Chuck,You seem to be arguing that study of the supernatural is just an attitude change, that studying the supernatural only requires remaining open to the possibility of ultimate supernatural causes, no matter that in every instance of a scientifically investigated phenomenon traced to a cause, that cause turned out to be natural.You also hinted that you believe some people (or maybe just Straggler, I'm not sure) are arguing that what we don't know is supernatural and what we know is natural. That's not quite the argument, though. It's religious or at least superstitious or primitive people who attribute what we don't know to the supernatural. As time goes by science demonstrates that more of more of these phenomena are natural.Science doesn't believe that what we don't know is supernatural. Science believes that what we don't know is what we don't know, and science also tries to remember that we may not really know what we think we know.What I'm wondering is how you believe study of the supernatural should be conducted?--Percy

Even assuming you have a valid point, it can only suffocate beneath so much verbiage. If you have to write that much to get your point across you either don't have a point or are splitting minute hairs.--Percy

Hi Chuck,PaulK already explained that I was only talking about phenomena traced to a cause (meaning they were explained) hence of course "there are some things still unexplained." Since each new scientific advance tends to raise more (and more detailed) questions than it answers, the breadth of what we know we haven't yet explained grows each day.The important point is that anything we've explained has had a natural explanation. In the entire history of science, not a single phenomena has ever been found to have a supernatural explanation. As you noted, this is largely due to the nature of science which seeks only natural answers, which raises the question, what would a scientifically supernatural explanation look like. Is "scientifically supernatural" a contradiction in terms?Mod attempts to address this question in the opening post. Your paranoid slip is not only showing, you've pulled up your whole dress when you say Mod was trying to make creationists look stupid. He was trying to resolve the confusion that always develops when discussing the possibility of supernatural explanations. Science not only cares a great deal about origins, it has given origin issues increasing attention over the years. It's inevitable that it would do so, it develops out of the "every answer raises more questions" nature of scientific inquiry. This is true about how we feel on the science side, but our creationist members feel that science should be able to confirm supernatural events. Not only should be able to, but has. How is debate between these two perspectives to be structured? Again, this is what Mod attempts to address in his opening post. But science is not God to me. Most people in science, including myself, are not atheists. Interesting that among the three labels I provided (religious, superstitious and primitive) you chose the last for yourself. The labels refer to people who attribute unseen and unknown and even unknowable causes to phenomena. Isn't that you? (In associating "primitive" with the great apes you exhibited extraordinary effort in finding an insult. I was thinking of remote primitive tribes people.) If the explanation for thunder is Thor, a supernatural being, and if science shows that lightning is actually the product of naturally occurring atmospheric phenomena, then how would you describe what science has accomplished? There are actually some people here who aren't incredibly picky about terminology. It's fine if you don't like the word "refuted" when describing what science has shown about Thor's role in the cause of lightning. What words would you like to use to describe it? Yes, you're correct, that's what I would say, but Mod's opening post describes two different perspectives, and the other one says that, "supernatural events occurred that can be evidenced in a scientific context." For example, a common creationist belief is that the great flood was an actual event for which evidence exists that can scientifically studied. If you think this kind of thinking is wrong then that's what you should be addressing, because it is much more apropos than this conversation where we're just trying to understand each other.It is okay to believe there is more to heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in scientific philosophy, but is there a way to study this other stuff, or is it just something one happens to believe, particularly if one is saved.It's easy to become impassioned in these discussions and begin feeling like people are being arrogant, condescending, insulting, etc. And sometimes they are. Let it all slide off, you'll feel better for it.--Percy

I feel the same way.I think anyone who thinks the supernatural is perceivable should give us examples, or at least one example.The burning bush that God set afire but that wasn't consumed, was that supernatural? If so then it was definitely perceivable and should be amenable to scientific study. What should a scientist find were he and his laboratory transported back to Mt. Sinai in the time of Moses. Moses and God have just left, the bush is still burning. Will the scientist find a perfectly natural explanation, as have all phenomena explained by science so far? Will he find a supernatural explanation, the first in the history of science? Or will he just be unable to explain it, like all other not-yet-explained phenomena? If if it's this last possibility, how do we tell the difference between the supernatural on the one hand, and the natural that we haven't explained yet on the other?--Percy

Can something testable only by someone who already believes be considered science?Or perhaps you believe that testing prayer would violate God's stricture that thou shall not test the Lord thy God. In that case, be aware that anything not testable isn't science.There have been studies of the efficacy of prayer, here are references to a few:

• A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit
  
• Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population: a randomized controlled trial.
  
• Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer
  
• Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial

These studies were not conducted by atheists, yet they used the very techniques described to you in this thread. The methods of science do not vary according to religious belief.--Percy