Studying the supernatural

I think the question is who or what put the switch, the wiring, the bulb and the electricity there in the first place that would allow "A" to happen.AbE I suppose even more to the point is the question of where did the idea and the inspiration for the process described in "A" come from.Edited by GDR, : AbE

Well I think the sarcastic response tells us more about you than serving to advance the discussion but I digress.Of your 2 options "A" is the obvious response. Of course electricity exists and is the ultimate answer from what we know, but what we don't know why it is that electrical forces exist at all?We can look at the DNA records, the fossil records etc and come to the conclusion that we are an evolved species. We can look at the cosmological record and suggest that the BB is a point at which T=0. We can look at our physiological makeup and see that we have intelligence and emotions.The question is why does all of this exist at all. Did all of this come about from an intelligent source, which presumably would be supernatural or is it from a totally natural non-intelligent source?

In reading through this I kinda feel that we have varying views on just what we mean by supernatural. Essentially it is what is outside the natural but I think that line can become blurred.The thing is we are wired as particle detectors as sensed through our five senses. How else could the universe be perceived? For example we currently believe that only 4.5% of what there is makes up our perceivable universe. Maybe with different senses we could perceive dark matter. Would that be a supernatural world.In my Nov. 2010 issue of Scientific American the lead article is headed up this way; "Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An Entire Universe May be Interwoven Silently With Or Own". Would that be a supernatural universe?I think someone suggested if we can discover something scientifically then it is automatically declared natural. I'm not so sure. It seems to me that just possibly science has already discovered the supernatural.

Sheesh. We went through a whole thread to determine that there was no such thing as "subjective evidence". If the supernatural is anything outside of human perception, (something along the lines of the SA article that I mentioned), then maybe you're right.

Sad isn't it, but I want everyone to remember that it was you that said it and not me. We are talking about studying the supernatural so presumably it has to be something that can be found by creative minds or there is no discussion to be had other than the results of prayer which will; only be based on assumptions anyway. I suppose what I mean is that the natural is the 4.5% of the universe we perceive and can be perceived with our 5 senses. I don't think scientifically understood is the correct term. I think more along the lines of scientifically discovered or accessed would be what I was thinking about.My current belief, that flows from my Christian faith, is that God's heaven is in fact another universe or dimension that is co-located with our own, and that somehow we have emerged with our 4 dimensional existence from something that is more complete, (for lack of a better term), than what we currently experience.Another quote from that article:

quote:

---

A shadow cosmos, woven silently into our own, may have its own rich inner life.

---

I understand this is all conjecture, but I've always believed that science is a natural theology, and if my theology is correct then it has to be compatible with accurate science. Maybe the two will eventually come together through this type of study.My thinking is that at the end of time as we know it, our universe will be brought back into completion by combining it with God's dimension or universe.Incidentally this was my view before reading the article which was the article from SA that you linked. I also realize that the writers of the article were not suggesting anything like what I am, and that what I'm suggesting is highly speculative but I think that it is worth considering.So, in regard to the question being asked, I think that it is possible that science might discover the world of what we call the supernatural and possibly even study it to learn about it, through the use of particle accelerators or whatever else we might come up with. It looks like CERN has already overturned a sacred cow or two. Cheers

You will all collectively say - we should have listened to GDR all along.

Here is an article from a 1998 issue of Newsweek. The bulk of the article pretty much mirrors my feelings on the subject.

quote:

---

According to a study released last year, 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God — not merely an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a deity to whom they can pray.

​

To Joel Primack, an astrophysicist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, "practicing science [even] has a spiritual goal" — namely, providing inspiration. It turns out, explains Primack, that the largest size imaginable, the entire universe, is 10 with 29 zeros after it (in centimeters). The smallest size describes the subatomic world, and is 10 with 24 zeros (and a decimal) in front of it. Humans are right in the middle. Does this return us to a privileged place? Primack doesn't know, but he describes this as a "soul-satisfying cosmology."
Although skeptical scientists grumble that science has no need of religion, forward-looking theologians think religion needs science. Religion "is incapable of making its moral claims persuasive or its spiritual comfort effective [unless] its cognitive claims" are credible, argues physicist-theologian Russell.
Although upwards of 90 percent of Americans believe in a personal God, fewer believe in a God who parts seas, or creates species one by one. To make religions forged millenniums ago relevant in an age of atoms and DNA, some theologians are "incorporating knowledge gained from natural science into the formation of doctrinal beliefs," says Ted Peters of Pacific Lutheran Seminary. Otherwise, says astronomer and Jesuit priest William Stoeger, religion is in danger of being seen, by people even minimally acquainted with science, "as an anachronism."
Science cannot prove the existence of God, let alone spy him at the end of a telescope. But to some believers, learning about the universe offers clues about what God might be like.
As W. Mark Richardson of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences says, "Science may not serve as an eyewitness of God the creator, but it can serve as a character witness." One place to get a glimpse of God's character, ironically, is in the workings of evolution.
Arthur Peacocke, a biochemist who became a priest in the Church of England in 1971, has no quarrel with evolution. To the contrary: he finds in it signs of God's nature. He infers, from evolution, that God has chosen to limit his omnipotence and omniscience. In other words, it is the appearance of chance mutations, and the Darwinian laws of natural selection acting on this "variation," that bring about the diversity of life on Earth.
This process suggests a divine humility, a God who acts selflessly for the good of creation, says theologian John Haught, who founded the Georgetown (University) Center for the Study of Science and Religion. He calls this a "humble retreat on God's part": much as a loving parent lets a child be, and become, freely and without interference, so does God let creation make itself.
It would be an exaggeration to say that such sophisticated theological thinking is remaking religion at the level of the local parish, mosque or synagogue. But some of these ideas do resonate with ordinary worshipers and clergy.
For Billy Crockett, president of Walking Angel Records in Dallas, the discoveries of quantum mechanics that he reads about in the paper reinforce his faith that "there is a lot of mystery in the nature of things." For other believers, an appreciation of science deepens faith. "Science produces in me a tremendous awe," says Sister Mary White of the Benedictine Meditation Center in St. Paul, Minn. "Science and spirituality have a common quest, which is a quest for truth."
And if science has not yet influenced religious thought and practice at the grass-roots level very much, just wait, says Ted Peters of CTNS. Much as feminism sneaked up on churches and is now shaping the liturgy, he predicts, "in 10 years science will be a major factor in how many ordinary religious people think."
Not everyone believes that's such a hot idea. "Science is a method, not a body of knowledge," says Michael Shermer, a director of the Skeptics Society, which debunks claims of the paranormal. "It can have nothing to say either way about whether there is a God. These are two such different things, it would be like using baseball stats to prove a point in football." Another red flag is that adherents of different faiths — like the Orthodox Jews, Anglicans, Quakers, Catholics and Muslims who spoke at the June conference in Berkeley — tend to find, in science, confirmation of what their particular religion has already taught them.
Take the difficult Christian concept of Jesus as both fully divine and fully human. It turns out that this duality has a parallel in quantum physics. In the early years of this century, physicists discovered that entities thought of as particles, like electrons, can also act as waves. And light, considered a wave, can in some experiments act like a barrage of particles. The orthodox interpretation of this strange situation is that light is, simultaneously, wave and particle. Electrons are, simultaneously, waves and particles. Which aspect of light one sees, which face an electron turns to a human observer, varies with the circumstances.
So, too, with Jesus, suggests physicist F. Russell Stannard of England's Open University. Jesus is not to be seen as really God in human guise, or as really human but acting divine, says Stannard: "He was fully both." Finding these parallels may make some people feel, says Polkinghorne, "that this is not just some deeply weird Christian idea."
Jews aren't likely to make the same leap. And someone who is not already a believer will not join the faithful because of quantum mechanics; conversely, someone in whom science raises no doubts about faith probably isn't even listening. But to people in the middle, for whom science raises questions about religion, these new concordances can deepen a faith already present.
As Feit says, "I don't think that by studying science you will be forced to conclude that there must be a God. But if you have already found God, then you can say, from understanding science, 'Ah, I see what God has done in the world'."
In one sense, science and religion will never be truly reconciled. Perhaps they shouldn't be. The default setting of science is eternal doubt; the core of religion is faith. Yet profoundly religious people and great scientists are both driven to understand the world. Once, science and religion were viewed as two fundamentally different, even antago-nistic, ways of pursuing that quest, and science stood accused of smothering faith and killing God. Now, it may strengthen belief. And although it cannot prove God's existence, science might whisper to believers where to seek the divine.
With Marian Westley

---

The question still remains though as to what is supernatural. Is it just some form of ghostly spiritual life floating around in our world that is nearly always unperceivable, or is it another normally unperceivable universe/dimension around us in which there is some form of intelligent life?If it is the latter, then it seems to me that science might very well be available to discover it, in the terms of the Scientific American article that Straggler linked to earlier. Here again is that link. It seems to me that the information is that article is the crux of the notion of science "Studying the Supernatural" Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An Entire Universe May Be Interwoven Silently Within Our Own

I agree it is a circular argument. However, it would depend on the nature of the evidence and one's personal understanding of the supernatural, whether it should have any credibility at all. A circular argument isn't necessarily wrong as the original assumption may actually be correct. It seems to me that science takes unproven subjective theories and tries to prove them. (For example string theory or the multi-verse.) The difference is of course that theories like string theory are likely falsifiable. It is easy enough to make myself look like an idiot around here without trying to give any suggestion that I have a clue as to what the bright lights at CERN are doing. That is really the big question. My own view of the supernatural is of a universe or of dimensions around us that we are unable to perceive, directly or indirectly with our 5 senses, and that in some way interact with the world as we know it. In addition within that there would be an active intelligence that also in some way interacts with our world.Therefore, I see any evidence that there is more to our existence than the 4 dimensional world of our experience would be an indication that there is at least more going on than just our perceived material world.I think the idea, as I understand it, from QM that in order from us to perceive or measure a particle in the present that the past has to be created in order to bring about the outcome in the present. I think this is a possible indication that there is more than one dimension of time. I know I'm out of my depth here so I'm quite open to correction.In the SA article when it talks about a hidden universe interwoven with our own I see that as a possible, and I emphasize possible, indication of what we might call a supernatural world. If we were to be able to detect and possibly learn about such a universe I suppose it would make the supernatural natural. No. I believe that we are the result of an original intelligence and that it is an open question as to whether or not we are able, using the scientific method, to detect that intelligence or a location, (I can't think of a better word), for that intelligence.The bottom line is, if we are going to have a discussion on studying the supernatural we have to have a picture of what we understand as being supernatural. I have done my best to give my understanding of it and I’d like to hear what your understanding would be.

I guess in some ways I view all of existence as being supernatural and that it only becomes natural when we gain an understanding of the processes that are being utilized. As far as coming to a conclusion about what is natural and what is supernatural is concerned I don't think that we can ever be sure unless we are able to discover a supernatural world influencing us and not declare it natural. I believe in a theistic, not a deistic god. If that is correct then this non-specific god, is a god that is on an ongoing basis involved with our natural world. In order for this to be true there has to some point of connection between the world of this god and the world that we are able to perceive.Science has been able to discern the effects of gravity and electromagnetic forces etc. They are examples of things that could have been seen as supernatural in the past. In the world of QM with particles dropping in and out of existence we have discovered a world that we consider natural now but still has supernatural overtones. Where do those particles go and where did they come from? (Once again if I have this stuff wrong I'm open to correction as I am the ultimate lay person on these issues.)As I said, if my theistic views are correct then there is a point of connection between god's world and our own. It seems to me quite probable that we might find strong evidence of a universe(s) or dimension(s) outside of our own that have a physical impact on our own. Through that we could possibly see that there is an intelligent pattern to the influences that we are able to discern. We might even find that all of this leads us to an understanding that the reality that we experience is actually the emergent property of a much greater reality.It seems to me that the most likely way this is going to happen is through the further study of QM but who knows. Even if your scientists had been able to examine the burning bush presumably all they would have been able to examine would be a burnt out bush. We know that it burned out eventually so presumably it only kept burning long enough for Moses to get the message and then it is just another burnt up bush. Actual supernatural events seem to be transitory and so again I suggest that what science would have to discover is the point of connection that makes a supernatural event possible.

I know that this is the 2nd reply to this post but I had just now sat down to start reading Brian Greene's "The Hidden Reality", (a signed copy by the way as I heard him lecture at the local university ), and I came across the before I got two pages into Chap 1.

quote:

---

In the end labelling one realm or another parallel universe is merely a question of language. What matters, what's at the heart of the subject, is whether there exist realms that challenge conventions by suggesting that what we've long thought to be the universe is only one component of a far grander, perhaps far stranger, and mostly hidden, reality.

​

A striking fact is that many of the major developments in fundamental theoretical physics - relativistic physics, quantum physics, cosmological physics, unified physics, computational physics - have led us to consider one or another variety of parallel universe. Indeed, the chapters that follow trace a narrative arc through nine variations on the narrative theme. Each envisions our universe as part of an unexpectedly larger whole, but the complexion of that whole and the nature of the member universes differ sharply among them. In some, the parallel universes are separated from us by enormous stretches of space and time, in others, they're hovering millimetres away; in others still, the very notion of their location proves parochial, devoid of meaning. A similar range of possibility is manifest in the laws governing the parallel universes. In some, the laws are the same as in ours; in others, they appear different but have a shared heritage; in others still, the laws are of a form and structure unlike anything we've ever encountered. It's at once humbling and stirring to imagine just how expansive reality may be.

---

It seems to me that a parallel universe, if it in some way interacts with our own, would qualify as being supernatural. Presumably it wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility that there could exist intelligent life in some form in that universe which would take the supernatural aspect of it to another level.I think that this is a possible answer to your question Percy.

I don't think we can know the answer. If parallel universes exist then we might find ways of perceiving them that we wouldn't know about now. My understanding of a particle is that it is essentially dimensionless but still with particle accelerators we are able to study them. Who knows what the future might bring. That's the question I brought up earlier. It depends on our definition of supernatural. If it is something that we are unable to perceive with our 5 senses no matter how enhanced then I think it would be considered supernatural. I'll repeat a part of the quote from Greene's book.

quote:

---

What matters, what's at the heart of the subject, is whether there exist realms that challenge conventions by suggesting that what we've long thought to be the universe is only one component of a far grander, perhaps far stranger, and mostly hidden, reality.

---

I agree that this could very well be consistent with what your statement. Just the same though, if we are a part of a much greater reality it certainly leaves room in that for a supernatural intelligence. If that intelligence does exist we might be able to investigate how it interacts with our 4 dimensional world at the point in which our universes interact.Who knows. When we talk about studying the supernatural it is obviously going to require speculation.I agree with the math and physics part but who is to say whether or not that through math and physics we may very well determine that they do impinge on our universe and conceivably we might even find that there is external intelligence involved.

This all becomes a little difficult because there is no clear understanding of what is supernatural. I'll go back to the Greene quote. (3rd time)

quote:

---

What matters, what's at the heart of the subject, is whether there exist realms that challenge conventions by suggesting that what we've long thought to be the universe is only one component of a far grander, perhaps far stranger, and mostly hidden, reality.

---

If we are able to discover that we are part of a much greater reality that we have been unable to perceive and come to the realization that we are an emergent property of this greater reality is that supernatural?It seems to me that if we through particle accelerators, or any future device, are able to learn about this normally unperceivable reality we are studying the supernatural. Would you agree?

Well put. I agree with all that. The point then is that, as Rahvin says in the post after yours (125), that once we have come up with an explanation for anything considered supernatural it becomes natural.The problem I see with that though is that everything that we have explained away has been a part of the world that we are able to perceive with our 5 senses such as lightning and eclipses. It seems to me that a universe(s) that is interwoven with our own that is part of our reality is not the same thing as anything else we have come up against. I would agree that just because we discover an interwoven universe would not mean that there is sentient life in it but it certainly opens up the possibility. Presumably this interwoven universe or greater reality would have its own set of natural laws which in all likelihood would be different than our own, so even though we might be able to learn about it, I don't think it could be considered natural in the way we normally understand it. I don't know, QM is pretty strange. There are all sorts of ideas out there that I suppose are possible. I read one scientist that suggested that our minds were part of another universe but we experienced physical life through our 4d universe.

Some more so than others.......

You've got a point but seeing as how this is a thread where we are talking about studying the supernatural, at this point speculation is about all we have available to us.As I have said numerous times I view science as a natural theology and that if we have our science right and our theology right they would obviously be congruent.It has been my view for some time that my chosen deity does not exist in some vague spiritual sense or in some location up there — somewhere, but in another form of existence co-located with our own. As a result I'm bound to find it interesting when I pick up my copy of Scientific American with the headline that I quoted earlier on it.It's not likely to happen in my life time but I would love for science to be able to sort some of these issues one way or the other. In the final analysis all of us are just trying to sort out the truth of things. Sometimes it appears that truth is elusive. Cheers