I ran across an interesting discussion on Troythulu’s Rants, and responded thus: Science is so wide we can dispense with the category of supernatural altogether.  The category of Natural is so wide, it includes what most people call “supernatural.”  How can I say that?  Consider two ideas:

FIRST, consider the Big Bang Theory:  There’s an empirical answer about where the singularity came from, in principle, but yet the other side of ten -43rd seconds (Planck time or P-time) is unknowable.  The only thing we DO know is that while it probably was an electromagnetic universe (in terms of, e.g., Whitehead’s cosmology), physical law was so radically different that prediction of states of affairs prior to P-time aren’t possible. We’re forced to admit the predictions before P-time are probably logically possible, but given that L,W,H (thus volume) didn’t “exist,” nor did gravity suck, nor did light as we know it exist, nor did entities (particles) as we know them exist, it’s extremely difficult to see how we can make an empirical prediction in that kind of environment.  Thus, even though the status of the singularity is an empirical question (logically), it’s hard to see how science can give a natural answer to the question. Science can only do what it can do–move forward to a point in time (e.g., a fraction of a second this side of P-time) where physical law as we know it exits, and make predictions and test them.

SECOND, consider the scientific ideas that leave INFINITE amounts of room for what most folks call “spiritual phenomena:”  Non-locality; appearance/disappearance of virtual particles; “space” between atoms doesn’t really exist; space-time dialation effects (in terms of relativity); extra-dimensional “space;” super-positioning (indeterminism/Heisenberg in general); quantum coherence (in the sense of quantum states of indeterminism, etc., being “held together” if even for an instant on the macro level as in possible happenings in the human brain)–the list goes on and on.

The so-called “scientific” universe is WAY TOO WIDE to artificially divide it into natural and supernatural.  Natural contains already what we call supernatural.  God is natural not supernatural.

Another way to think of it is to say that all matter is “alive” in terms of sentience (it’s illogical to claim that at t(1) there was only dead inert matter then at t(2) there was life)–there’s no need to artifically posit “dead” matter like a hunk of granite, and “live” matter like a human nervous system.  There’s only matter, and it’s all “alive.” Ditto for natural/supernatural. There’s only natural, and ultimately the natural world itself is beyond our comprehension, even in principle.

Natural phenomena which are beyond our ken we have to take on faith. If one wants to call that supernatural, then that’s fine, but it’s artificial.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s