> Josh I would like to get your approval for the following response to my query:
> 
Thank you all for taking the time to respond to my query.  In fact I agree
with you all, and find your responses remarkably clear and reasonable.  (In
contrast see the responses I got to the same query in the talk.origins
forum: 
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c33ee2308
2acbb0b?tvc=1&scrollSave=&
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c33ee230
82acbb0b?tvc=1&scrollSave=&> )
 
So I take it we all agree that in principle, scientific investigation can
defeat a supernatural claim.  But what about the more difficult claim that
scientific investigation can possibly support a supernatural claim?
 
Suppose we simply define "supernatural" as something that that violates the
laws of physics or can not be caused by natural means as determined by the
laws of physics in our local realm of reality. The concept of
"supernatural"
requires the concept of a world that has a "natural" order, meaning that it
normally operates according to a set of "natural" laws. The only way I can
make sense of the existence of the supernatural is to conceive of our
reality as somehow being embedded in a larger reality, such that forces from
the "outside" can act (or hack into) our universe, but we feeble creatures
don't have any direct causal access to events in outside universe. An
analogy consider the rules of a chess program which determine that a white
bishop has no power to jump squares and move on black ­ and those are the
"natural" rules of the chess game world. But the chess program itself is
part of a larger reality and the programmer can hack the program and
unnaturally case the white bishop to jump to the black squares ­ something
the white bishop is powerless to do from within.  So for example, if we turn
out to live in a well-defined embedded computer reality such as in The
Matrix (this doesn't necessarily have to be a copy or "simulation" of some
other reality) then the supernatural would amount to intervention in the
normal course of events from outside the matrix. Or perhaps creatures from
the fourth dimension can intervene in our world but we have no access to
theirs.  In that sense, on my account, their intervention would be
"supernatural".  Perhaps some of you are familiar with that wonderful book
by EA Abbott called Flatland? Imagine you were one of the 2D creatures
living in flatland and it was simply physically impossible for you to access
the 3rd dimension. 2D space would be your "natural" space. In my sense
occasional interference from the 3rd dimension would still be "unnatural"
and hence "supernatural" even if it later turned out 3 dimensional access
became the norm and would no longer be considered supernatural. Maybe the 2D
creatures will eventually come to understand it and maybe they won't, but it
doesn't matter: their current classification of natural and supernatural
phenomena may still be useful and meaningful in their lives.
 
So with that understanding of "supernatural", consider the following case:
Suppose some intelligent creature purporting to be a genuine vampire
graciously agreed to submit to as much scientific testing as any researcher
desired. And indeed the creature exhibits all the phenomenal attributes that
we see the films. Now perhaps being methodological naturalists, good
scientists should assume that this creature is likely a naturally caused
alien born on some other world. But what to make of the creature's
apparently sincere protestations to the contrary? And what to make of the
other extremely odd traits: for example, make a piece of wood in the shape
of a cross and it sizzles the creature's flesh, whereas wood in any other
shape (e.g. a Star of David) doesn't. And this even happens when the
creature is carefully blindfolded and apparently doesn't even know what the
shape of the wood is. Similarly, regardless of what the creature knows,
water blessed by a real priest sizzles its flesh but under carefully
controlled conditions, water blessed by a phony priest does not affect its
flesh. Moreover its flesh and blood never decay in an apparent violation of
the laws of thermodynamics. And on and on the evidence piles up, year after
year. And suppose 50 years of testing still produce results in apparent
violation of natural law. At some point can't we at least say that all this
empirical evidence gathered by science AT LEAST raises somewhat the
probability that something supernatural really exists? Sure it's POSSIBLE
that some alien is simply toying with us to make us think the supernatural
exists, but without a shred of independent evidence to support this
hypothesis it simply becomes an irrational ad hoc defense of naturalism.
I don't think we have to ban discussion of the supernatural a priori. I'm a
hardcore atheist and naturalist precisely because such evidence, after
centuries of assiduously searching for it, in any systematic sense doesn't
exist. My advice to those of us campaigning against creationism and other
paranormal nonsense is: "it's the evidence, stupid."
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/11/04 4:35:51 PM