Libertine
08-25-2005, 05:08 PM
Religion, by definition, is based on the notion of a supernatural realm. In philosophy, "natural" designates the attribute of obeying to physical laws. Therefore, supernatural entities do not obey to physical laws : for this to be, they have to be immaterial, because physical laws are dependant on the material nature of the universe, and matter is necessarily guided by them. This means that supernatural entities do not exist in the same plane of existence than natural - material - entities.
Does this supernatural plane exist ? How can we know if individual supernatural entities exist ? Science cannot tell us anything about this. The reason is not because science is against religion, even if they are opposites. The reason is because science is based on the assumption that everything has physical causes. This is the only way that knowledge can advance. If one posits supernatural causes, there is no more knowledge of mechanisms to be gained. If "God did it" was a scientific answer, science wouldn't go very far, because there would be no need to go further. Supernatural entities are considered to be the domain of personal belief and can only be superimposed on the physical universe.
If science cannot tell us anything about the supernatural, it can tell us that all mechanisms known to man have known or possible physical causes. The origin of the universe, of man and his intellectual capacities, and others, are all well-explained events. It is always a possibility to superimpose a supernatural cause on top of it, but that is an unnecessary addition. Occam's Razor tells us that if two theories can explain the same data equally well, and that one theory has more entities present than the other, that we should prefer the simpler theory. This is because unnecessary entities or conditions could be added to any theory, that would make it complicated while adding no explanative power. Supernatural entities are unnecessary to explain any other piece of data, and are therefore unnecessary entities.
Being unnecessary does not necessarily mean inexistant. How can we decide if supernatural entities exist ? This is obviously not an easy task, since they are deemed to be immaterial, and therefore undetectable. This is why they are beyond the reach of the scientific method or of any direct empirical judgment. In that respect, they are the perfect cop-out for all quackeries. If material causes are used, it is easy to examine them and refute or accept them. But if supernatural causes are used, they cannot be examined, and therefore are more easily accepted.
Not only are supernatural entities beyond the reach of examination, but they are also of an undefined nature. For that reason, they can be claimed as the cause of anything. The reason why we can say that the supernatural is undefined is because it is mostly defined negatively. This is akin to negative theology in Christianity, and used in the same way. The supernatural is not natural, therefore it does not obey to physics - it is not material, therefore it is not made of matter - these two characteristics become unknown, undefined, since there is nothing to replace them with. The supernatural is not said to be "made" of anything, nor is it said what laws its composition obeys.
Since such supernatural entities are an easy cop-out, because they are unperceivable and undefined, it may seem that there is no way to refute them. But that is not true. If the supernatural belief is not limited to supernatural effects or contents, we can draw from empirical evidence to refute such a belief. Let me illustrate with an example.
If a religion claims that human beings have souls, and that this soul is the person that survives death, the claim that souls are the receptacle of personal identity can be examined. But the functions of the soul are attributed to the brain, which is a material entity, therefore belief in souls is dependant on our examination of the brain. Since the brain fills the function that we attribute to souls (like personality, intelligence, etc), we can say that the soul cannot contain these things. If there is such a thing as a personal supernatural entity, it contains nothing that we attribute to a soul. Thus we indirectly conclude that this belief is false. The same can be said of such concepts as astral bodies or spiritual bodies. As long as a supernatural concept is related to material entities in some way, the claim can be examined. Note that, in this particular example, it could be argued that the soul is not part of the person but a copy of it, but not mentioning all the problems associated with non-material support for the mind, evidence for this particular form remains to be seen.
If a sufficient number of attributes are put forward for a supernatural entity, it can also be refuted by deductive evidence. One example of this is gods. See "strong-atheism" for the deductive evidence of this example.
Finally, as I said earlier, even if the supernatural exists, it has no necessary role in our universe, therefore it does not directly concern us. Unless a supernatural-material relationship can be established, the supernatural is merely a hypothetical closed realm which seems to be the product of human imagination, and which serves the role of sustaining delusions. This realm has no evidence supporting it, and therefore stays forever in the domain of the hypothetical. According to Occam's Razor, anyone who invokes them must show data which cannot be answered without them.
Does this supernatural plane exist ? How can we know if individual supernatural entities exist ? Science cannot tell us anything about this. The reason is not because science is against religion, even if they are opposites. The reason is because science is based on the assumption that everything has physical causes. This is the only way that knowledge can advance. If one posits supernatural causes, there is no more knowledge of mechanisms to be gained. If "God did it" was a scientific answer, science wouldn't go very far, because there would be no need to go further. Supernatural entities are considered to be the domain of personal belief and can only be superimposed on the physical universe.
If science cannot tell us anything about the supernatural, it can tell us that all mechanisms known to man have known or possible physical causes. The origin of the universe, of man and his intellectual capacities, and others, are all well-explained events. It is always a possibility to superimpose a supernatural cause on top of it, but that is an unnecessary addition. Occam's Razor tells us that if two theories can explain the same data equally well, and that one theory has more entities present than the other, that we should prefer the simpler theory. This is because unnecessary entities or conditions could be added to any theory, that would make it complicated while adding no explanative power. Supernatural entities are unnecessary to explain any other piece of data, and are therefore unnecessary entities.
Being unnecessary does not necessarily mean inexistant. How can we decide if supernatural entities exist ? This is obviously not an easy task, since they are deemed to be immaterial, and therefore undetectable. This is why they are beyond the reach of the scientific method or of any direct empirical judgment. In that respect, they are the perfect cop-out for all quackeries. If material causes are used, it is easy to examine them and refute or accept them. But if supernatural causes are used, they cannot be examined, and therefore are more easily accepted.
Not only are supernatural entities beyond the reach of examination, but they are also of an undefined nature. For that reason, they can be claimed as the cause of anything. The reason why we can say that the supernatural is undefined is because it is mostly defined negatively. This is akin to negative theology in Christianity, and used in the same way. The supernatural is not natural, therefore it does not obey to physics - it is not material, therefore it is not made of matter - these two characteristics become unknown, undefined, since there is nothing to replace them with. The supernatural is not said to be "made" of anything, nor is it said what laws its composition obeys.
Since such supernatural entities are an easy cop-out, because they are unperceivable and undefined, it may seem that there is no way to refute them. But that is not true. If the supernatural belief is not limited to supernatural effects or contents, we can draw from empirical evidence to refute such a belief. Let me illustrate with an example.
If a religion claims that human beings have souls, and that this soul is the person that survives death, the claim that souls are the receptacle of personal identity can be examined. But the functions of the soul are attributed to the brain, which is a material entity, therefore belief in souls is dependant on our examination of the brain. Since the brain fills the function that we attribute to souls (like personality, intelligence, etc), we can say that the soul cannot contain these things. If there is such a thing as a personal supernatural entity, it contains nothing that we attribute to a soul. Thus we indirectly conclude that this belief is false. The same can be said of such concepts as astral bodies or spiritual bodies. As long as a supernatural concept is related to material entities in some way, the claim can be examined. Note that, in this particular example, it could be argued that the soul is not part of the person but a copy of it, but not mentioning all the problems associated with non-material support for the mind, evidence for this particular form remains to be seen.
If a sufficient number of attributes are put forward for a supernatural entity, it can also be refuted by deductive evidence. One example of this is gods. See "strong-atheism" for the deductive evidence of this example.
Finally, as I said earlier, even if the supernatural exists, it has no necessary role in our universe, therefore it does not directly concern us. Unless a supernatural-material relationship can be established, the supernatural is merely a hypothetical closed realm which seems to be the product of human imagination, and which serves the role of sustaining delusions. This realm has no evidence supporting it, and therefore stays forever in the domain of the hypothetical. According to Occam's Razor, anyone who invokes them must show data which cannot be answered without them.