This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Refuting supernatural

Steve Zara's Avatar Jump to comment 16 by Steve Zara

Comment 14 by jay29

Your claim that "the idea of the supernatural... is logical nonsense" is merely unsupported assertion. if you wish to claim that supernaturalism is nonsense then you owe us a coherent logical argument establishing such a thing. Do you have one?

I actually don't owe anyone anything. I'm careful about borrowing. Instead, I have been handsomely funded in terms of support for my claim by philosophers through the ages, who have freely given valuable insights into this matter. More recent providers of high-interest intellectual payment have included J.L. Mackie and Daniel C. Dennett.

However I am happy to provide some arguments here. Science is the process of testing ideas empirically. It doesn't insist on philosophical naturalism, but instead uses methodological naturalism, which, put simply, is the assumption that no-one is playing tricks behind the scenes.

Supernaturalism today is defined as being beyond science, because it is beyond naturalism. However, this view is mistaken because science doesn't require naturalism, it only assumes naturalism as a way of getting started. If science finds that more is going on, this doesn't make it redundant. For example, if people started to say that they had seen angels, this doesn't mean that we can't investigate this scientifically, even if angels do exist.

Supernaturalism is nonsense because science has no limits. In fact, the idea of separating reality into naturalism and supernaturalism is itself nonsensical. It's like a child's drawing where a gap is left between land and sky. There are things that are real, and that is all we need to say.

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 22:38:53 UTC | #949013