Back to Supernaturalism II, part 2 of the series
Well, I know what you are thinking. I know almost all objections people will make, and I will address some of them (not all, obviously).
Objections
You claim that the supernatural does not exist!
No, I don’t. In a sense, my claim is much more devastating. I claim that in our current understanding any claim based on supernaturalism does not make sense. I will happily concede that there might exist a supernatural realm and even supernatural agents like God, because I am sure we don’t know everything.
But if you want to defend the existence of the supernatural, you must provide a better definition. If you don’t, there is no way you can work around or dance around the objection that none of the common definitions do make sense. A better definition is not based on logical contradictions and implicit premises that contradict each other.
You might not understand what I’m claiming here; that’s fine, but don’t think you can argue against a position you do not understand.
You claim that science does know or will know everything.
No, I don't. I claim the opposite: with or without science, we will not and cannot know everything. The proponents of the supernatural claim that, and they even claim they know what science can and cannot know. That's nonsense.
You claim that science is the only path to knowledge.
No, I don't. I will happily concede that there are things even in our current mind that science does not know and might not even know in any future. Outside that, there are things science does not and probably will never know. Though you can be pretty sure if there is a way to know something that is logically coherent, explains data, fits the data, can predict something, that science will adopt this way, as it had always done. Science does not consist of a fixed set of methods. You and I cannot know what science might add to this in the future.
Still, there are things that science does not know and probably will not know. Like, for example, science currently does not deal with moral claims, though it could. There are things that science can know and might detect in the future, but that does not and will not include everything that science can know. Besides that are things science cannot and will not know. Example: the number of olives Aristotle ate during his life. The number might be zero, or odd, or even. Science has no way of knowing the number. Science does not know and will not know what I'm thinking and perceiving right now or in the past or future. The list goes on. But I know what I am thinking consciously at this moment.
You might, for example, think that the scientific method for falsification cannot be applied to an area outside empirical facts. But any method you can think of can be applied by science as well. Science measures the methods against their success rate by solving problems. Only if you would rather not solve problems is science not applicable. For example, deciding what music you want to hear is not an issue that can be solved by science. But whatever human faculty you use for this is open for all and can be investigated by science.
You are not open-minded.
False accusation. I will repeat: supernatural causes or agents might exist if we define terms properly. I am not against that. If you think I am, you are confused, blinded by beliefs you do not understand. Or at least, beliefs I do not understand, which is a more humble and honest approach. Try to explain if you think I do not understand. But be warned: I will dismiss every objection that does not provide a logically coherent definition of terms. This definition does not need to be exhaustive (no definition is). I'm open-minded, but not so open that my brain will fall out. I'm not open-minded enough to accept all kinds of bullshit.
You just don't want to believe.
Yes, right. I want to know. There is no logical, causal, coherent, or even statistical connection between X is true
and I believe that X is true,
unless there is evidence to the contrary. Wanting to believe is just a synonym for wishful thinking. I would like to know what is real; I don't expect reality to be what I wish for. Wanting to believe means not wanting to know the truth.
Reality is what does not go away when you stop believing in it.
Knowledge is not everything.
Right, and I have supported that claim numerous times by now. We cannot know everything because we lack a truth criterion.