Sorry about the late response, but I see your comments now. Great thoughts and questions! Allow me to respond as best I can.

“Wouldn’t randomness itself be beyond the scope of science to explain?”

Actually, randomness it’s self is quantifiable, making it possible to study via the scientific method, but I don’t think that’s what you were getting at. You were saying that if there exists random causation somewhere in the universe, it would be beyond science’s reach. Depends on the type of randomness. True white-noise random causation would be impenetrable. Probabilistic random causation, where certain outcomes are more likely than others, is within the scope of scientists. In fact, statistical analysis was developed for that very purpose. It is this latter kind of randomness that is exhibited by some sub-atomic processes.

“How is it then that what appears to be complete randomness in the sub-atomic world can lead to predictability in the macro world?”

This is an excellent question (and your terminology is just fine). It’s the probabilistic nature of the randomness combined with large numbers that lead to deterministic behavior at the macro level. Take the position of an electron, for example. It’s position is random, but it’s much more probable that it’ll be within a very small area and almost impossible for it to be found outside this area. Considering the shear number of electrons in your average macro object, the minuscule percentage of electrons that are suddenly ‘missing’ because they are found far away, has no measurable impact on the macro object. This gives it the appearance of complete determinism at the macro level.

“…why can’t science look past the Big Bang to find a natural cause?”

There’s the problem of the inability to gather the needed information. Because of that I am, strictly speaking, agnostic on whether the First Cause is supernatural or natural – or even if there is a First Cause. An infinite past for the universe is a possibility as well.

“…the universe if breaking down over time (2nd law of thermodynamics).”

Breaking down, that’s one way of putting it. But it’s not disappearing. It’s just slowly transforming into a form that cannot sustain any life – or anything of interest for that matter. It’ll still be there though.

“…if the supernatural really does exist and does influence our world (even if only at times), then wouldn’t this have staggering implications in our search for truth?”

Staggering implications, possibly. I mean if a supernatural force intervenes once every trillion years to move a photon fifteen millimeters, then it’s implications would be insignificant. If it altered the strength of gravity by a factor of two – that would be staggering!

“And this is based on…what? What authority has determined what and what not is a “useful concept to humanity”?”

Useful as in the sense that it can actually be used to achieve measurable results; you know, actual utility.

“I think the entirety of the remainder of your comment… is a bit of grasping at straws. Just because something has been applied poorly (or exploited) by some does not invalidate it for everyone.”

Okay, do me a favor, if you have the interest. Take my six points and explain to me how the proponent of a supernatural cause for the unexplained should act. You asked me what’s problematic about it and I gave a list of real-world problems created by such allowances. It was not meant as a refutation of any particular supernatural claims. Perhaps it would be instructive for me if you list the reasons why positing no explanation whatsoever for the currently unexplained is problematic.

Stan,
You said:

I think God sent Satan a Trojan Horse.

Would you say that you personally hold to the Christus Victor view then Stan?

[A]ny supernatural force that lacks consistency is not a useful concept to humanity. For if it were useful in some way, it would be verifiable.

And this is based on…what? What authority has determined what and what not is a “useful concept to humanity”?

You may not find it useful to you, but I’m not sure I am cool with someone attempting to speak for all of humanity.

Honestly, Sid, I find your presuppositions to be rather selective and, dare I say, random

Given, I realize that some things we now consider predictable were at one time considered to be random. But, with the miniscule amount of knowledge I have of quantum physics, it seems that scientists are now discovering an entire sub-atomic world that seems to counter our ability to neatly explain it. And yet, the sub-atomic world is what makes up the entirety of what we see including those things that we now believe we completely understand. How is it then that what appears to be complete randomness in the sub-atomic world can lead to predictability in the macro world? (Don’t know if my terminologies are correct–just shooting from the hip here) You don’t have to except the explanation of the supernatural, but isn’t it a possibility?

If all of science is based upon cause and effect (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?), and there is no supernatural element involved (supernatural being simply something beyond this reality), then why can’t science look past the Big Bang to find a natural cause? It seems like either you are left with one of two options. Either the universe is finite or it is infinite. I don’t think that either of us would believe in the latter, seeing that the universe if breaking down over time (2nd law of thermodynamics). But, if it is finite, then there was a time when this natural universe did not exist–including all of the matter that makes up the universe. Where then did it come from? If every thing is built upon cause and effect, what caused the universe to come into existence? If there truly was a time when this universe didn’t exist, what reality existed so as to cause this one to come into being?

supernatural explanations are useless

Based upon your next set of statements that followed I can see why you would say this. But, if the supernatural really does exist and does influence our world (even if only at times), then wouldn’t this have staggering implications in our search for truth?

Just thinking out loud with you Sid…please bear with my fumbling statements.

I would be glad to elaborate. I least I was glad to until I read the article you linked. This is part of why I’ve pretty much given up blogging. Everything I want to say has not only already been said on the web, but often much more eloquently than I can say it. The article does an excellent job of making the point I was going to.

I have one quibble with it, though. The author is advocating the abandonment of methodological naturalism in science to include the possibility of supernaturalism while at the same time demanding investigation of supernatural forces be performed via methodological naturalism. It’s a contradiction.

“I have trouble believing that supernatural actions and influences would necessarily operate in the same consistency required by science to ‘prove’.”

You’re right, they wouldn’t have to be. Lacking the ability to be verified doesn’t rule out the possibility of the existence of the supernatural, only the ability to investigate it scientifically. I would point out, however, that any supernatural force that lacks consistency is not a useful concept to humanity. For if it were useful in some way, it would be verifiable. This is because every time we someone uses the supernatural force, we can test the outcomes to see if there is a real (rather than just random) impact. In other words, if the outcome of a supernatural cause is indistinguishable from randomness, then the concept of that supernatural cause is as useful as an explanation as no reason at all.

Considering your cancer example – this is an idea commonly called “god of the gaps” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) which can be generalized to “supernatural of the gaps” (much less catchy). Basically, the supernatural is attributed all causality that cannot be explained naturally. The problem is, with the scientific method, that which is not explained naturally is constantly shrinking creating smaller and smaller roles for the supernatural – smaller gaps in our knowledge.

The other problem with assuming a non-verifiable supernatural cause to the cancer cure is that there is no way to determine who’s supernatural hypothesis is the correct one. Did Jesus do it? Or maybe it was Krishna this time. No, wait! The patient lived honorably and was favored by the spirits of his ancestors. The lack of the ability to verify the supernatural cause makes it impossible for us to distinguish which (if any) of the multitude of supernatural hypothesis is the correct one. This also renders the concept of unverifiable supernatural causation useless.

So what is wrong with allowing for the supernatural as a possible explanation for things that are otherwise unexplained? A couple things. First, as I’ve pointed out, supernatural explanations are useless. Second, having a supernatural explanation for currently unexplained things discourages exploration of natural (and thus potentially useful) causes. Third, competing supernatural explanations leads to unnecessary conflict. Fourth, if a natural explanation becomes available for something previously assumed to be supernatural, there is great resistance to accepting the potentially useful, natural explanation (consider Galileo and Darwin). Fifth, proponents of supernaturalism often want to implement portions of their beliefs as part of public policy regardless if that policy is actually beneficial to society or not (consider ‘new age’ medicine and their push to have it covered by Medicare). Sixth, the acceptance of supernatural causes that lack verifiability is antithetical to critical thinking leading to a more credulous population. This last one is especially problematic in holistic medicine, where each new huckster preys on sick people with new supernatural ‘cures’ after their previous supernatural ‘cures’ have worn off. Snake oil! $ No, crystals! $ No, magnets! $ No, acupuncture! $ No, uber-diluted poisons! $ No, Reiki Healers! $…$…$

After responding to you the other day, I made an attempt to find some people who embrace your position so I could understand it better. What do you think of the contents of this page here?

I don’t want to pit science against faith, but I have trouble believing that supernatural actions and influences would necessarily operate in the same consistency required by science to “prove”. I realize that makes it sound like a circular argument of sorts. But it seems to me that it’s like using a scale in an effort to weigh a “heavy heart”.

In other words, let’s assume for a moment that someone is diagnosed with cancer and then claims to be healed. We can determine whether or not their original tests showed cancer, and we can determine whether or not their follow-up tests show them to be clear. However, determining what caused that change can be near (if not outright) impossible. My understanding of Occam’s Razor says that anything other than something supernatural is more likely to be the explanation. But, doesn’t that automatically exclude the supernatural from even being considered in a situation?

In other words, what is wrong with allowing for the supernatural as a possible explanation for things that are otherwise (and currently, I should concede) unexplained?