Supernatural
Faithful Syence #32
Definitions: - of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe – Merriam-Webster
- caused by forces that cannot be explained by science – Cambridge English Dictionary
- any event, power, or existence that lies beyond the observable universe and operates outside the conventional laws of nature and scientific understanding – AI
These definitions of the word supernatural are all fairly consistent. Many of them go on to give examples such as ghosts, miracles, deities, God, magic, heaven, the afterlife, etc.
The main problem I see with them is that they’re all missing a key idea: Every time “science” is used, it should be “science as currently understood.” Why do I think that is important?
For example, if you brought a cell phone with you in a time machine to the year 1890, and explained to the leading physicists of the time how it worked (thanks to the science of quantum mechanics), it would be considered magical (supernatural), since in 1890, the basic ideas and principles of QM were quite far “outside the conventional laws of nature and scientific understanding.”
The same could be said for the vast body of current knowledge in biology. Tell the most advanced scientists of that day that every living cell contains extremely long polymers (called DNA) that work like a code to produce all the major characteristics of each form of life, and you would probably get this response: “Don’t be ridiculous. Cells are made of protoplasm, which is a homogeneous kind of gooey substance, mostly water. There are no mysterious, magical long chemicals that do any such thing.”
In recent years, biological research has been finding that all life, including bacteria and other single cells, possesses willful agency, acts with purpose, and uses forms of cognition to be aware of its environment. This suggests that the science of life needs to deal with much more than the known laws of physics and chemistry, which cover none of this. (See my book, “Beyond Evolution” for details.) No rocks have agency, and no volcano decides its time to erupt. But life follows other laws, which are illustrated in bees dancing to communicate complex information as much as by the decision of a retired Christian biochemist to write books about how science and faith are tied together, using the tools of the modern age that would have been considered magical a few decades ago.
It appears, then, that the label “supernatural” seems entirely time-dependent. Science is not a fixed set of knowledge—it changes continuously. Most of these changes are fairly small and not widely noticed. But every working scientist spends a great deal of time reading “the literature”—new research published in multiple journals in his or her field.
Every paper published in such journals presents a new finding that was not previously known. (That is the major criterion required for any peer-reviewed paper to be published in a scientific journal—not a magazine, book, or online chat site.) Considering the large number of such papers published every month, we can say that science changes quite frequently.
Now, of course, publication of a single paper, even one making a grand claim with strong experimental evidence, does not immediately change established science. That takes a bit longer and requires multiple laboratories or theorists to confirm any new findings. Even so, at times in a particular field, the pace of change can be dramatic and exhilarating. (This was the case in molecular biology in the 1960s and 1970s—I remember it well from my days as a graduate student.)
So what does all of this mean for people (like me) who believe that God, heaven, miracles, and the afterlife are as real as superposition, the genetic code, tectonic plates, and space travel? Today, the first set of things are called supernatural as opposed to the second set of natural phenomena. But in 1890, they would all be in the first category: magic!
Will future science find ways to incorporate the current set of supernatural phenomena into its purview by developing new scientific laws that address them? Undoubtedly yes, since there is no reason to think that science is now finished, as it never has been in the past, and never will be in the future. Of course, we have no idea which things in the current supernatural world will be incorporated into the future world of science. I would bet (based only on my own prejudices and instincts) that demons, fairies, and Santa Claus may not be among those things that make the transition from supernatural to natural.
But I also believe that the existence of a divine creator is already supported by numerous scientific findings, although the detailed nature of such an entity is beyond our methods of scientific investigation. There is a large literature on near-death experiences, which, although far from being established science, at least raises the point that we really cannot be certain that we currently fully understand the nature of death and what comes after.
So I propose to stop characterizing things or events as natural vs. supernatural, unless we add the critical modifier “as far as we currently understand.” I think I am safe in saying that that is a scientifically valid method of categorization. Amen?
I think that as always, Christians can see the "miracle" of scientific understandings as gifts from God, placed THIS side of the "natural/'supernatural'" divide. Seen that way, the term "supernatural" is not a particularly useful term. In other words, we ought not chase God into further and more obscure corners of that which is not understood, but rather cherish God's presence in our lives and being.
You, Sy, have said with more eloquence than I could ever muster, that the mere fact of mathematical rules for the operation of physics; so-called "fine tuning" of the parameters that provide for life; the "third rock" parameters giving us warm summer meadows; none "have" to be or can be explained by some underlying rule. All exist this side of the "natural/'supernatural'" divide.
What the further revelations of science will do is not "crowd out" the supernatural, but bring to light the intricate and beautiful truth of God's creation. And that I do look forward to.
Dr. Garte,
Thank you for this essay. One of the things I appreciate about your writing is your insistence that science should not confuse the limits of current understanding with the limits of reality itself.
In fact, it seems to me that there have been real moments of breakthrough in science that have been, unfortunately, “ghettoized" as being metaphysical ( read: “ woo woo”) because there was not a protocol in place to test them.
I am thinking specifically of the question that arises with Einstein’s famous relativistic equation \(E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2\) (where \(E\) is energy, \(m\) is mass, \(p\) is momentum, and \(c\) is the speed of light).
In it, one obtains two mathematical solutions for any given mass: one with positive energy and one with negative energy.
Einstein set aside the negative energy half because it appeared to violate physical reality—an object with energy less than zero seemed absurd.
And yet, if seemingly absurd questions are pursued ( and thankfully Dirac refused to be dissuaded from doing this!) there can be huge leaps in understanding.
For Dirac, ignoring the prevailing zeitgeist in the world of physics was ultimately a fruitful endeavor.
He predicted the existence of antimatter, specifically the positron.But if he hadn't proceeded with courage, no advance would have been made at that time by him.
I am speaking as a layperson here, and as a poet and not a scientist, but isn’t the fear or reluctance to treat the currently unexplainable as the potentially-possible, rather than summarily dismissing it or worse yet, mocking it, a signal moral failing in the scientific community, and the culture at large?
As I read your blog post, I found myself wondering about the concept of negentropy ( or even syntropy).
I have always been intrigued by the underlying question it attempts to address.
As you well know, entropy describes the tendency toward dispersion, disorder, and equilibrium.
Yet when I look at life, I see something that appears equally real: the gathering of parts into wholes, the emergence of increasing coherence, meaning, organization, and purpose. A seed becomes a tree. A fertilized egg becomes a person. Human beings gather memories into identity, words into stories, and acts of love into enduring relationships.
As a Christian, I do not see these things as accidental or untelated. I believe they point toward a Creator whose nature is not merely power but also order, purpose, and love.
Reading your discussion of agency and cognition in living systems made me wonder whether concepts such as negentropy/syntropy were discarded because they arrived before science possessed the conceptual tools to investigate what they were trying to describe, or the intellectual courage to investigate them?
In other words, is it possible that future science may develop a more rigorous way of describing the observable tendency of living systems toward increasing integration and purposefulness without reducing those realities to mere illusion or " woo woo" mysticism ?
Or do you think that current evolutionary and systems biology already account for everything that earlier thinkers were attempting to capture with ideas like negentropy/syntropy?
As Christians, we believe that creation is not ultimately grounded in chaos but in Logos.
I sometimes wonder whether the persistent appearance of order, meaning, and goal-directedness in life is a clue pointing toward truths that science has not yet learned how to articulate fully.
And as a poet, I see the concept of consilience as being a useful tool in forging a path forward.
Silo-ing knowledge, hampering or ignoring discoveries that we don’t yet have the tools to understand fully or mocking those who consider that all Truth is substantially “ of a piece” ( dare I say, a glimpse of God)...these are ideologies and accepted behaviors that are not at all generative for the human race.
I'd be grateful for your thoughts.
Katie McFarland