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.
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.
Beautiful comment, and I'll mention just one small piece. You said, "science should not confuse the limits of current understanding with the limits of reality itself." This is an incredibly important observation, because it perfectly describes the beliefs of many materialist atheists. It is a logical error which with some thought can be understood. Thanks for all you said.
What a beautiful comment! Thank you. Yes, I fully and entirely agree with everything you wrote. In fact much of your comment could be used as a summary of my most recent book “Beyond Evolution”, where I try to make the same case, although with less elegance than you have done.
Yes, I think it is entirely “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 ?” In fact, considering the history of science, I believe it might be inevitable.
A bit of trivia. I believe that the word "supernatural" was coined by the writer Pseudo-Dionysius. You won't find it in Augustine even though he described a lot of events (prodigies) that we would label miracles.
Even within the "natural" order not everything is equally easy to study. The easiest are those we can do experiments on. However, I once took a lab course named "Applied Astrophysics". We all sat at lab desks but no experiments or other manipulations of physical material were carried out in that laboratory during the entire year. Weak and sporadic phenomena like ESP and NDE's are a couple of levels more difficult to investigate. Studying the historical phenomena of geological and biological history, little of which has been preserved, lies in between.
Sy, how do you feel about the evidence demands skeptics or atheists, such as Matt Dillahunty, place on theists when discussing the supernatural?
It seems odd to me when discussing the possible existence of something categorically outside of the observable natural order (I.e. supernatural) that both parties would only allow contemporary, scientific method-based evidence.
It seems to me that if there is a supernatural divine being, to attempt proving the existence of the supernatural being within the confines of the naturally observed universe would be logically and categorically wrong.
This is not to say that the supernatural doesn't interact with the natural universe, I certainly believe the Christian God does, I just think it's a mistake to force the issue to only define and observe the supernatural through natural (and often limited) human methods.
Sy, why do you think so many people push for this type of evidence as opposed to others?
You make many good points and ask good questions. I will answer them, but not in order. I fully agree with your second and third sentences. Evidence for anything does not need to be so restricted. Personal feelings, which are beyond scientific investigation, can be evidence for many things, including beliefs, love, appreciation of art, music, or humor.
As for your fourth sentence, that was part of the point of this piece. It is very difficult to define the supernatural by any means and certainly basing it on current scientific knowledge is a mistake.
Going back to your first sentence, I should mention that I respect a great many well-known atheists and have good relationships with many. The man you mention is not among them. He is an ignorant buffoon, whose modus operandi I often compare to Jerry Springer. I had one interaction with him that I will never repeat.
Respectfully Sy, I think I'll have to disagree with this one. "Science" is merely a process of description through observation... ideally quantifiable. It doesn't pretend to define that which underlies the phenomena it measures. Rather, it simply attempts to derive systems through which one can make predictions. And I think it a mistake to confuse the nature of that which underlies what we measure with that which we measure. The latter is objectively observable... a radio transmission, turbulent flow, or neurons firing in response to some physical stimulus. The former is at best symbolically approximated by some mathematical relationship... Maxwell's equations, the Navier-Stokes equations, or perhaps some kind of stochastically-mediated cascade dynamics. From what substrate this consistency emerges, I can't say. And perhaps we have no more chance of fully comprehending its nature than a cricket has of comprehending Calculus. This is the "metaphysics" upon which our existence rests. But I'll agree that its consistency suggests a high probability that demons, fairies, and Santa Claus, indeed, don't actually exist outside of our amazing abilities to imagine.
Merely look into a mirror and contemplate the unmeasurable... redness, the feeling of wind on your skin, music, love... this is the "supernatural". I suspect that God is unquantifiably closer than we think. But I will side with Max Planck's final words in "The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics":
“…scientists have learned that the starting-point of their investigations does not lie solely in the perceptions of the senses, and that science cannot exist without some small portion of metaphysics. Modern Physics impresses us particularly with the truth of the old doctrine which teaches that there are realities existing apart from our sense perceptions, but that there are problems and conflicts where these realities are of greater value for us than the richest treasures of experience.“
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.
Thank you Dave. All I can say to that is Amen, brother.
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
Beautiful comment, and I'll mention just one small piece. You said, "science should not confuse the limits of current understanding with the limits of reality itself." This is an incredibly important observation, because it perfectly describes the beliefs of many materialist atheists. It is a logical error which with some thought can be understood. Thanks for all you said.
Katy,
What a beautiful comment! Thank you. Yes, I fully and entirely agree with everything you wrote. In fact much of your comment could be used as a summary of my most recent book “Beyond Evolution”, where I try to make the same case, although with less elegance than you have done.
Yes, I think it is entirely “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 ?” In fact, considering the history of science, I believe it might be inevitable.
I am sorry, I meant to type Katie.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate it. And I am off to buy your book now <3
A bit of trivia. I believe that the word "supernatural" was coined by the writer Pseudo-Dionysius. You won't find it in Augustine even though he described a lot of events (prodigies) that we would label miracles.
Even within the "natural" order not everything is equally easy to study. The easiest are those we can do experiments on. However, I once took a lab course named "Applied Astrophysics". We all sat at lab desks but no experiments or other manipulations of physical material were carried out in that laboratory during the entire year. Weak and sporadic phenomena like ESP and NDE's are a couple of levels more difficult to investigate. Studying the historical phenomena of geological and biological history, little of which has been preserved, lies in between.
Sy, how do you feel about the evidence demands skeptics or atheists, such as Matt Dillahunty, place on theists when discussing the supernatural?
It seems odd to me when discussing the possible existence of something categorically outside of the observable natural order (I.e. supernatural) that both parties would only allow contemporary, scientific method-based evidence.
It seems to me that if there is a supernatural divine being, to attempt proving the existence of the supernatural being within the confines of the naturally observed universe would be logically and categorically wrong.
This is not to say that the supernatural doesn't interact with the natural universe, I certainly believe the Christian God does, I just think it's a mistake to force the issue to only define and observe the supernatural through natural (and often limited) human methods.
Sy, why do you think so many people push for this type of evidence as opposed to others?
David,
You make many good points and ask good questions. I will answer them, but not in order. I fully agree with your second and third sentences. Evidence for anything does not need to be so restricted. Personal feelings, which are beyond scientific investigation, can be evidence for many things, including beliefs, love, appreciation of art, music, or humor.
As for your fourth sentence, that was part of the point of this piece. It is very difficult to define the supernatural by any means and certainly basing it on current scientific knowledge is a mistake.
Going back to your first sentence, I should mention that I respect a great many well-known atheists and have good relationships with many. The man you mention is not among them. He is an ignorant buffoon, whose modus operandi I often compare to Jerry Springer. I had one interaction with him that I will never repeat.
Thank you for taking the time to reply!
Respectfully Sy, I think I'll have to disagree with this one. "Science" is merely a process of description through observation... ideally quantifiable. It doesn't pretend to define that which underlies the phenomena it measures. Rather, it simply attempts to derive systems through which one can make predictions. And I think it a mistake to confuse the nature of that which underlies what we measure with that which we measure. The latter is objectively observable... a radio transmission, turbulent flow, or neurons firing in response to some physical stimulus. The former is at best symbolically approximated by some mathematical relationship... Maxwell's equations, the Navier-Stokes equations, or perhaps some kind of stochastically-mediated cascade dynamics. From what substrate this consistency emerges, I can't say. And perhaps we have no more chance of fully comprehending its nature than a cricket has of comprehending Calculus. This is the "metaphysics" upon which our existence rests. But I'll agree that its consistency suggests a high probability that demons, fairies, and Santa Claus, indeed, don't actually exist outside of our amazing abilities to imagine.
Merely look into a mirror and contemplate the unmeasurable... redness, the feeling of wind on your skin, music, love... this is the "supernatural". I suspect that God is unquantifiably closer than we think. But I will side with Max Planck's final words in "The Universe in the Light of Modern Physics":
“…scientists have learned that the starting-point of their investigations does not lie solely in the perceptions of the senses, and that science cannot exist without some small portion of metaphysics. Modern Physics impresses us particularly with the truth of the old doctrine which teaches that there are realities existing apart from our sense perceptions, but that there are problems and conflicts where these realities are of greater value for us than the richest treasures of experience.“
Joy and good cheer to you!
Amen!!
Amen!
Thank you, Rebekah, and very well said.