Back to Supernaturalism IV, part 4 of the series
Modern supernaturalism
Science is based on detecting unknown causes and making them known through logically backtracking from an effect to cause. All scientific explanations are based on this. The question of why event (A) happened is answered when we know the cause of it. Religious people often claim that science can only know how something happened but not why it happened. That assumption is clearly wrong. When we ask why the window is broken, we ask what caused the window to break.
Every perception we can make is assuming that what we perceive has a cause. Only then do we have a chance to backtrack the perception to its root, the cause. That is also true for every kind of observation or measurement. If a perception is uncaused, we cannot know what caused it. That is logically the same as an unknown cause. If we declare that every unknown cause is just that, namely, unknown, we cannot distinguish case #1 from all the other cases. But this means that we have found another way to treat alternatives #1 to #5 the same, because they all lead to the same conclusion. Which means we have to turn back to scenario #6.
A fallacy and a logical circle
Here, the fallacy is well disguised. It is claimed that there is a supernatural realm that influences us, but its workings (and existence) are—by definition—inaccessible to rational, scientific methods. One can, and this is the crux of the argument, know nothing about it. We know for certain that this sphere exists, and we know its influence! We know nothing—yet, in a logical contradiction to this, we know (how?) that it exists and that it
affects us. Some people even claim that they know what is caused by a supernatural agent and some other supernatural causes, though there is no way to tell one from the other.
This is called Knowledge from Nothing.
It boils down to the claim that one pretends to know something about a matter that one cannot possibly know. The other person must believe this just because,
based on one’s own authority, without any reasons or grounds. This is referred to as a postulate of epistemic privilege
.
The argument for supernaturalism is circular. First, the existence of a supernatural realm is proposed. That is a factual existence claim; therefore, one cannot use the argument that supernaturalism does not deal with empirical claims. Because if some cause (A) causes (B), (B) should be observable. If it is not observable, it means that there is no known effect (B). This is not the claim that (B) does not exist; it is the claim that we do not know about (B).
From (B), we can try to work our way backward to what caused it. If it is successful, it will lead us to (A). If it is unsuccessful, we do not know what (A) is.
Supernatural - how do we know?
By claiming that (A) is a supernatural cause, the supernatural realm is presupposed. But the only way to argue for a supernatural cause is to claim that it was supernatural. But we have no way to distinguish an unknown supernatural cause from an unknown natural cause. There is no rational way to distinguish one from the other. All the supernaturalist can do is to point to the fact that he has presupposed a supernatural realm. There is no method to show that one is different from the other, and pointing to the presupposition makes this argument circular.
In short, an unknown supernatural cause cannot be separated from an unknown natural cause in a known or knowable or rational way, because the fact that it is unknown overrides any distinction. We do not know what caused the universe; we do not even know if it was caused at all. And that is all we know and can know. No amount of speculation can add any new information to the fact that we do not know.
That does not presuppose that all causes are natural. It points to the fact that until today no supernatural causes have been found. If you claim that there are supernatural causes, pointing to the empty set of found supernatural causes means nothing. The only source of claiming comes from the presupposition of a supernatural realm, which means it is a circular argument.
If there is a method to detect supernatural causes, it is the duty of the claimant to show this. It is not enough to point to the successful detection of natural causes and claim that the other side has to prove that all causes are natural. Besides, such a claim was not made.
One other interesting idea: if you claim that there are supernatural causes, then explain why there are no super-supernatural causes, and so on. The concept of supernaturalism has no way of stopping such an infinite regression. The reason for this is if you claim that two indistinguishable causes that are unknown have an unknowable difference, why not three different realms? Or four? Or any number?
Obfuscating the matter
Supernaturalists try to hide behind the claim that the supernatural realm is non-empirical. Which means that no empirical method can be used to detect it. But if the effect is empirical, how would you establish that the cause is non-empirical? If the effect is non-empirical, how would you detect it? Everything that changes empirical facts leaves traces. And when we do not know the cause, we do not know if the cause was empirical or non-empirical. All we need to know is the fact that we do not know the cause. Either we can detect the cause or we cannot. Either we know or we don't know. Whatever supernaturalists claim, they pretend to know what we don't know by drawing an arbitrary line in the unknown. This is often hidden behind plenty of words with obscure meaning because, if you say it clearly, it becomes obvious.
We could make the same six cases we already covered. But declaring the supernatural realm as non-empirical does not change a thing. That is used to hide the fact that any of these claims can neither be proven nor disproven.
Supernaturalism and authority
I know something that no one else can know—not even me—and you have to take my word for it. Just trust my authority.
In science, it’s precisely the opposite, because in science there are no authorities—no trust in the alleged knowledge of someone else who has no evidence, proof, or arguments. More precisely, it contradicts the ethos of science, which is based on honesty and transparency (= openness). You have to lay your cards on the table. In poker and in religion, you can bluff.
If we cannot find a cause by applying the methods of natural science, so be it. In that case, we have to say, We don't know,
and that's it. No amount of words can solve that because labeling the cause as supernatural
just repeats that we don't know.
Anyone who bluffs right from the definition stage doesn’t deserve trust. Trust can be deceived into being granted, and that is the core of monotheistic, supernaturalist religion. It’s about credibility in what cannot be verified nor disproven. Anyone who bluffs with the necessary conviction is successful. Just as in a poker game, those who can deceive others successfully are favored.
This is why Nietzsche said that a conviction is a worse enemy of the truth than a lie.
This requires deceiving oneself. That is what distinguishes it from a lie: one lies when one says something while believing the opposite. If one first convinces oneself, no lie can be detected, and one becomes seemingly credible.
Supernaturalism and causality
In the framework of science, all causes are assumed to be natural because supernatural causes are out of its reach. This fits nicely with the definition of causality in the natural sciences. Causation means that an existing material object (A) transfers energy to another existing material object (B) by transferring energy. (A) and (B) must be local in spacetime. Due to the laws of the conservation of energy, (B) transfers back the same amount of energy to (A), and that causes both (A) and (B) to change state. Notice again that matter and energy are equivalent and are interchangeable. Because existence is not a state but the precondition for something to have a state, there cannot be a cause of existence.
Supernaturalists claim that everything has a cause, including existence. We don't know that. There might be uncaused events, and quantum physics seems to confirm that. But it is notoriously difficult to detect; we might be in error.
On a side note, the claim that everything is caused implies philosophical determinism. This collides with the fact that some monotheistic supernaturalists claim that we have libertarian free will. Most don't; they assume that we have compatibilistic free will, which is supposed to be compatible with determinism. But we have to put this discussion aside for this topic.
If you claim that a cause is different, that (A) is supernatural and non-empirical, what you are saying is that an empirical fact (B) was influenced by an immaterial, non-empirical cause (A). If you take a close look, this means that (B) changed its state and that (B) cannot transfer energy back to (A).
This kind of effect is measurable. You need energy out of nothing, which would create an imbalance in the sums of all energy. We can measure energy, and we can do that with high precision. We can find traces of neutrinos, who very seldom interact with matter. In science, this is called the first law of thermodynamics: in a closed system, the sum of all energy is constant. Any supernatural cause violates that principle, and this would have effects that can be measured (but never have).