Re: Science and supernatural causation (and schools)

Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Thu, 30 Nov 1995 10:02:06 -0500

I appreciate Loren's efforts to tackle difficult subjects. Frequently I
find myself claiming that science is not the right tool for dealing with
the supernatural, and thinking as I type that someone is going to ask me
_why_ science is that way, and must it be so, and I'm not sure I have a
good answer.

The answer I use most frequently is that people have a variety of different
views about the supernatural that are not generally reconcilable. Science
is an effort to understand how objects in nature function and interact with
one another. If supernatural causation were included in science, it would
be difficult for scientists with varying views of the supernatural to
collaborate. Scientists therefore strive to limit the causation models
they will entertain to those that can be established by examination of
physical data. In other words, scientists have deliberately sacrificed the
ability to consider the supernatural in order to make progress in
understanding what can be understood by means which people who disagree on
the supernatural can agree on -- physical experimentation, observation and
measurement. From a Christian point of view there is something unnatural
about this, admittedly. Should knowledge be divided into categories like
hard science, theology, socialogy, ...? Perhaps the division of knowledge
into different categories is a consequence of the fall, or perhaps it's
simply a consequence of the finiteness of man.

Loren writes

>I argue that science is not, and does not need to be,
>restricted to methodological naturalism. Science is able, in certain
>cases, to accomodate supernatural causation in its models.

I'm very curious how this can be done.
>
But when Loren says
>
>...science does not always restrict itself to hypotheses which are
>testable and falsifiable. (What is and is not testable often changes as
>technology advances.

I agree.
>
It seems to me the fundamental hypothesis of science is that nature is
intelliglble. A Christian can claim Scriptural backing for making that
hypothesis, from Job 12;7-10 and Psalm 19 for example, as well as other
passages. Furthermore, experience seems to confirm this hypothesis. A
scientist who is an atheist or an agnostic can only point to experience.

In any case, I recognize the question of how the supernatural can enter
into scientific reasoning as a legitimate question, and one we ought to
consider.

Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)
hamilton@gmr.com (office) | whamilto@mich.com (home)