A thorough analysis of supernaturalism and its implications

Back to contents: Supernaturalism

What is supernaturalism?

Part I of the exploration of supernaturalism

Supernaturalism is most commonly the vague notion that the world of our perception is not all there is. There is strong evidence that supports this view. For example, visible light is only a small fraction of the large electromagnetic spectrum. Most of this spectrum cannot be directly observed by us; we need specifically engineered apparatus to translate it to the visible spectrum. We cannot perceive radio waves, radar, radioactivity, etc. directly. But this view is completely incorporated into naturalism, the scientific view, because science detected this spectrum beyond the visible, directly perceivable, and observable world.

Metaphysical supernaturalism is the philosophical view that this is not enough; there exists a world beyond the natural world that naturalism cannot account for. There are supernatural causes and supernatural agents like gods, angels, demons, souls, and so on.

This is tied to the view that naturalism is incapable of detecting this world beyond the natural world and that we require different means to access these worlds beyond. For example, we require a revelation from God to access the whole truth about the world. This means that supernaturalism makes truth claims founded on an epistemology different from the naturalistic approach.

I will argue that supernaturalism is based not on a valid or sound epistemology but rather a confusion of terms. The term supernaturalism is either a contradiction in terms and is therefore meaningless or a synonym for the unknown. Which, in sum, means that supernaturalism cannot provide meaningful explanations or predictions, cannot add to our knowledge, and should be abandoned entirely. There is no supernatural epistemology other than old stories, traditions, authority, intuition, dreams and unsubstantiated claims. Supernaturalism makes truth claims but does not have a valid truth criterion or a falsification criterion. Ultimately, all claims about the supernatural are based on old stories with dubious content or intuition.

It is possible to come closer to the truth without a truth criterion when you use falsification. You don't know what is right, but at least you can deduce what is wrong. We lack a truth criterion ^[1], which makes gaining knowledge so difficult.

Supernaturalism has neither a criterion for truth nor falsehood, which makes gaining knowledge impossible.

Intuition fails

When we can learn one thing from physics, it is this: basing your ideas  about the world of physics on intuition will fail almost with certainty. Why should this be any different when it comes to realms further away from our experience? Yet, most supernaturalists are convinced that they know some aspects of this realm. And it always looks like something that our intuition tells us and, mostly, what we wish for. Doesn't it look a bit too convenient?

Our intuition is extremely unreliable. It operates within the very limited framework of our ancestors’ experience, to the extent that it was important for their survival. Even there, it leads us to believe that intentional agents without bodies exist, because a false alarm is not as harmful as failing to notice a predator creeping up on us. Once we step outside this framework, our intuition fails almost completely. Scientific research shows ^[2], see [Kahneman 2012] that decisions made intuitively are of lower quality than those made through rational deliberation, even if our intuition tells us otherwise. Even our intuition about our intuition is wrong. There are only a few examples where intuition performs better. These include extreme danger situations that require quick decisions, or the behavior of mothers toward infants, which is statistically better because it has been optimized through a long evolutionary process.

Still, some consultants make considerable profits by giving the bad advice that you should make all your decisions based on your intuition. Yes, you should listen to your emotions and your intuition, but take that as a starting point for rational decision-making.

Because monotheism is founded on supernaturalism and can hardly exist without this worldview, the idea of God, or supernatural agents or causes, must be rejected. Additionally, we must reject the common misconceptions of naturalism, like arguing that naturalism is the same as materialism or physicalism, which is not the case.

Not all religions are based on supernaturalism

Notice that not all religions are based on supernaturalism. Paganism was never based on supernaturalism; it holds the view that all gods are part of nature or are myths. Therefore, paganism is compatible with a pure naturalistic worldview. The Unitarian religion fully embraces scientific naturalism and is atheistic in nature. The Christian religion named Sea of Faith rejects God and a supernatural worldview.

On the other hand, there is Buddhism, a worldview based on supernatural causes named karma. Buddhism does not generally embrace gods but is compatible with the view that there are gods, though they are not necessarily supernatural (more like pagan gods).  Tibetan Buddhists like the Dalai Lama are mostly atheists. Zen Buddhism is fully atheistic and is not based on supernaturalism and rejects the idea of an afterlife and any gods.

Notice that Buddhists might reject the claim that karma is a supernatural force.

These are only a few examples.

Immunization against criticism

Monotheistic religious believers in miracles follow an ideological maneuver called immunization against criticism. This is a crucial part of all supernaturalism, which cannot exist without such a maneuver. Ideology and immunization against criticism are treated here: Immunization against criticism.

Supernaturalism, so it's claimed, is an experience beyond  any experience, a world beyond our world. A world that cannot even be detected by science or any other coherent and systematic approach. A world that has consequences, if it exists, but you cannot measure any consequence it has. It almost always only is reflected in the believing brain [Shermer 2011].

First, I investigate miracle claims made to support supernaturalism.

Continue reading: Supernaturalism II

Reports of the supernatural are not evidence of the supernatural—rather, they are evidence of how easily people can be deceived. \Volker Dittmar

1. The reason we lack a truth criterion is explained here: Münchhausentrilemma Back to the text 1

2. See the work of Kahneman as an example. Back to the text 2