Science and the Supernatural

Up for some heavy philosophical reading on the subject of the way science does and should view the supernatural? I'd highly recommend reading this article by a friend of mine, a philosophy professor at St John's University.

The paper is written in a style familiar to students of philosophy. This is really an excellent paper, and pretty accessible for a limited mind like mine - 3 years of philosophy courses in college certainly help. I could not have written it any better. In fact, I could not have written nearly as well.

I could probably have been swayed to the idea that "there is no conflict between methodological naturalism and the principles of discovery, evidence, and self-correction because there is something else about the supernatural that justifies its exclusion from science," but his case for indirect empirical observation of supernatural causes is reasonable - not necessary, per se, but possible. And if that's the case, then methodological neutrality is a much better stance than trying to justify methodological naturalism by limiting its scope.

I also really like the distinction between the "natural world" and the "actual world," with the latter being the appropriate study of realistic science.

I just recently finished Brian Greene's modern classic on particle physics / string theory - "The Elegant Universe." It's a great read, and I highly recommend it if you haven't read it already. But the relevant bit that strikes me is that Greene is very open and honest about how much of string theory and other scientific theories are driven by philosophical disposition rather than evidence. Scientists want the universe to be elegant, to have a coherent "theory of everything," much in the same way scientists of the 19th Century (and many today) want material determinism to be true because it fits their philosophical views.

I just hope scientists and philosophers read this paper and honestly consider it. It would certainly make science more robust and deliver the benefits outlined. It really sounds great in principle, however, I think there's more at work than getting people to acknowledge the superiority of methodological neutrality. Scientists, like all people, are filled with prejudices, aversions, and beliefs. To get the scientific community to largely move to methodological neutrality, you'd have to get through matters of the heart. Good luck achieving that through a philosophy paper!