Can Science Study the Can Science Study the Supernatural?Supernatural?

Vic StengerVic Stenger

Top scientists don’t seem Top scientists don’t seem to think soto think so

Science is a way of knowing about Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is question about which science is neutral.neutral.

––National Academy of SciencesNational Academy of Sciences

But the media think so...But the media think so...

Spiritual Spiritual gurus gurus think think so...so...

And theists think And theists think so...so...

But the courts don’t think But the courts don’t think soso

McLean v. Arkansas (1982)McLean v. Arkansas (1982)✦State law mandated teaching creation State law mandated teaching creation science along with evolution. science along with evolution.

✦Federal Judge William R. Overton ruled Federal Judge William R. Overton ruled creation science is religion and law is creation science is religion and law is unconstitutional.unconstitutional.

✦Unnecessarily,Unnecessarily, also declared creation also declared creation science not science.science not science.

Forced to define science.Forced to define science.

Overton’s definition of Overton’s definition of sciencescience

(with help of Michael Ruse)(with help of Michael Ruse)

✦ it is guided by natural law;it is guided by natural law;

✦ it has to be explained by reference to natural it has to be explained by reference to natural law;law;

✦ it is testable against the empirical world;it is testable against the empirical world;

✦ its conclusions are tentative, that is, are not its conclusions are tentative, that is, are not necessarily the final word;necessarily the final word;

it is falsifiable.it is falsifiable.

Reaction of philosopher Larry Reaction of philosopher Larry LaudanLaudan

✦Creation science is testable, Creation science is testable, tentative, falsifiable.tentative, falsifiable.

✦Falsified science can still be science, Falsified science can still be science, just wrong science.just wrong science.

✦Arkansas decision would come back Arkansas decision would come back to haunt science by "perpetuating to haunt science by "perpetuating and canonizing a false stereotype on and canonizing a false stereotype on what science is and how it works."what science is and how it works."

The result: Intelligent DesignThe result: Intelligent Design

““In our greatest In our greatest universities, naturalism–universities, naturalism–the doctrine that nature is the doctrine that nature is "all there is"–is the "all there is"–is the virtually unquestioned virtually unquestioned assumption that underlies assumption that underlies not only natural science not only natural science but intellectual work of all but intellectual work of all kinds.”kinds.”

––Phillip JohnsonPhillip Johnson

But the courts still don’t But the courts still don’t think science can study think science can study

supernaturalsupernaturalKitzmuller, et al. v. Dover, Pa. Area School District Kitzmuller, et al. v. Dover, Pa. Area School District (2005)(2005)

✦BOE attemped to insert Intelligent Design BOE attemped to insert Intelligent Design creationism into science curriculum.creationism into science curriculum.

✦Federal Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID was Federal Judge John E. Jones III ruled that ID was religion and teaching it in science classes was religion and teaching it in science classes was unconstitutional.unconstitutional.

✦Again the Judge Again the Judge went further than necessarywent further than necessary in in also ruling that ID was not science.also ruling that ID was not science.

Witnesses from both sides testified that ground Witnesses from both sides testified that ground rules of science would have to be broadened to rules of science would have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.allow consideration of supernatural forces.

Science can and does study the Science can and does study the supernatural!supernatural!

Ontological naturalism:

Only natural processes and events exist.

MetaphysicsMethodological naturalism:

Assume only natural processes for purpose of inquiry

Physics

Applying methodological Applying methodological naturalism to the naturalism to the

supernaturalsupernatural

✦Take empirical data in normal Take empirical data in normal scientific way.scientific way.

If no natural explanation is even If no natural explanation is even remotely plausible, then we may remotely plausible, then we may entertain possibility of a supernatural entertain possibility of a supernatural process.process.

Impossible?Impossible? No.

Example: Example: Intercessory Intercessory prayerprayer

Suppose Suppose independent independent experiments showed experiments showed conclusively that conclusively that Catholic prayers Catholic prayers heal the sick– heal the sick– while Jewish, while Jewish, Protestant, Muslim Protestant, Muslim prayers have no prayers have no effect.effect.

What plausible What plausible natural natural

explanation?explanation?

Catholics were right after Catholics were right after allall

Say 3 Our Fathers and 4 Hail Marys and call me in the

morning

Good prayer experiments Good prayer experiments have been donehave been done

✦Mayo Clinic (2001)Mayo Clinic (2001)✦Duke University (2005)Duke University (2005)

Harvard , Mayo,.. (2006)Harvard , Mayo,.. (2006)

No significant effects No significant effects seenseen

Other scientific tests of Other scientific tests of supernaturalsupernatural

Revealed truth is Revealed truth is testabletestable

ConclusionConclusion

✦Science can study the supernatural

✦Science does study the supernatural

✦Science has not foundhas not found the supernatural