Abstract
Several prominent scientists, philosophers, and scientific institutions have argued that science cannot test supernatural worldviews on the grounds that (1) science presupposes a naturalistic worldview (Naturalism) or that (2) claims involving supernatural phenomena are inherently beyond the scope of scientific investigation. The present paper argues that these assumptions are questionable and that indeed science can test supernatural claims. While scientific evidence may ultimately support a naturalistic worldview, science does not presuppose Naturalism as an a priori commitment, and supernatural claims are amenable to scientific evaluation. This conclusion challenges the rationale behind a recent judicial ruling in the United States concerning the teaching of “Intelligent Design” in public schools as an alternative to evolution and the official statements of two major scientific institutions that exert a substantial influence on science educational policies in the United States. Given that science does have implications concerning the probable truth of supernatural worldviews, claims should not be excluded a priori from science education simply because they might be characterized as supernatural, paranormal, or religious. Rather, claims should be excluded from science education when the evidence does not support them, regardless of whether they are designated as ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Thanks to Brent Meeker for suggesting this example.
Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting these examples.
References
Alcock JE (2003) Give the null hypothesis a chance: reasons to remain doubtful about the existence of psi. J Conscious Studies 10:29–50
American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006) Letter to Senator Stratton Taylor. Available at www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006
Arzy S, Idel M, Landis T, Blanke O (2005) Why revelations have occurred on mountains? Linking mystical experiences and cognitive neuroscience. Med Hypotheses 65(5):841–845
Arzy S, Seeck M, Ortigue S, Spinelli L, Blanke O (2006) Induction of an illusory shadow person. Nature 443(7109):287
Atran S (2002) In gods we trust: the evolutionary landscape of religion (evolution and cognition Series). Oxford University Press, USA
Atran S, Norenzayan A (2004) Religion’s evolutionary landscape: counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behav Brain Sci 27:713–770
Augustine K (1997) The case against immortality. Available at www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html
Aviles JM et al (2001) Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population: a randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clin Proc 76:1192–1198
Ball P (1999) The self-made tapestry: pattern formation in nature. Oxford University Press, USA
Barrett JL (2000) Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends Cogn Sci 4(1):29–34
Behe MJ (1996) Darwin’s black box. The Free Press, USA
Benson H et al (2006) Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Am Heart J 151:934–942
Blakemore SJ, Decety J (2001) From the perception of action to the understanding of intention. Nat Rev Neurosci 2(8):561–567
Blakemore SJ, Boyer P, Pachot-Clouard M, Meltzoff A, Segebarth C, Decety J (2003) The detection of contingency and animacy from simple animations in the human brain. Cereb Cortex 13(8):837–844
Blanke O, Arzy S (2005) The out-of-body experience: disturbed self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction. Neuroscientist 11(1):16–24
Boyer P (2001) Religion explained: the evolutionary origins of religious thought. Basic Books, USA
Boyer P (2003) Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function. Trends Cogn Sci 7(3):119–124
Britton WB, Bootzin RR (2004) Near-death experiences and the temporal lobe. Psychol Sci 15(4):254–258
Bunning S, Blanke O (2005) The out-of body experience: precipitating factors and neural correlates. Prog Brain Res 150:331–350
Carlson S (1985) A double blind test of astrology. Nature 318:419–425
Carrier R (2005) Sense and goodness without god: a defense of metaphysical naturalism. Author House, USA
Carroll SB (2005) Endless forms most beautiful: the new science of Evo Devo. WW Norton & Co., USA
Castelli F, Happe F, Frith U, Frith C (2000) Movement and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. Neuroimage 12(3):314–325
Chibnall JT, Jeral JM, Cerullo MA (2001) Experiments on distant intercessory prayer: god, science, and the lesson of Massah. Arch Intern Med 161:2529–2536
Darwin C (1876) Autobiography. Reprinted in Joshi ST (ed) Atheism: a reader. Prometheus Books, USA, 2000, pp 193–198
Dawkins R (2006) The god delusion. Houghton Mifflin Co., USA
Davidson EH (2006) The regulatory genome: gene regulatory networks in development and evolution. Academic Press, USA
Dennett DC (2006) Breaking the spell: religion as a natural phenomenon. Viking-Penguin Group, USA
Drange T (1998) Nonbelief & evil: two arguments for the nonexistence of god. Prometheus Books, USA
Everitt N (2003) The non-existence of god. Routledge, USA
Faber MD (2004) The psychological roots of religious belief: searching for angels and the parent-god. Prometheus Books, USA
French CC (2005) Near-death experiences in cardiac arrest survivors. Prog Brain Res 150:351–367
Gauch HG: (2006), Science, worldviews, and education. Science & Education. Available online at http://www.springerlink.com/content/p668904p854h5t6x/
Gould SJ (1992) Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Sci Am 267(1):118–121
Gould SJ (1997) Nonoverlapping magesteria. Reprinted in Pennock R (ed) Intelligent design creationism and its critics: philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. MIT Press, USA, 2001, pp 737–749
Guthrie SE (1993) Faces in the clouds: a new theory of religion. Oxford University Press, USA
Harris WS, Isley WL (2002) Massah and mechanisms. Arch Intern Med 162:1420
Hauser MD (2006) Moral minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong. Ecco, USA
Hinde RA (1999) Why gods persist: a scientific approach to religion. Routledge, USA
Hinde RA (2002) Why good is good: the sources of morality. Routledge, USA
Howson C, Urbach P (1993) Scientific reasoning: The Bayesian approach. Open Court Publishing Co., USA
Hume D (1779) Dialogues concerning natural religion. In: Gaskin JCA (ed) Dialogues and natural history of religion (Oxford World’s Classics). Oxford University Press, USA, 1998
Ikeda M, Jefferys WH (1997) The anthropic principle does not support supernaturalism. Reprinted in Martin M, Monnier R (eds) The improbability of god. Prometheus Books, USA, 2006, pp 328–336
Isaak M (2002) A philosophical premise of naturalism? Available at http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/naturalism.html
Johnson PE (1999) The church of Darwin. Wall Street Journal A14
Jones JE III (2005) Memorandum and order. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District_trial_ documents
Katz LD (ed) (2000) Evolutionary origins of morality: cross-disciplinary perspectives. Imprint Academic, USA
Kelly I (1998) Why astrology doesn’t work. Psychol Rep 82:527–546
Larson EJ, Witham L (1998) Leading scientists still reject God. Nature 394:313
Laudan L (1982) Science at the bar- causes for concern. Sci Technol Human Values 7:16–19
Laudan L (1983) The demise of the demarcation problem. In: Cohen RS, Laudan L (eds) Physics, philosophy, and psychoanalysis. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 111–127
Mahner M, Bunge M (1996a) Is religious education compatible with science education? Science & Education 5(2):101–123
Mahner M, Bunge M (1996b) The incompatibility of science and religion sustained: a reply to our critics. Science & Education 5(2):189–199
Martin M (1990) Atheism: a philosophical justification. Temple University Press, USA
Martin M (1994) Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education. Science & Education 3(4):357–371
Martin B, Martin F (2003) Neither intelligent nor designed. Reprinted in Martin M, Monnier R (eds) The improbability of god. Prometheus Books, USA, 2006, pp 215–222
McCloskey HJ (1960) God and evil. Reprinted in Angeles P (ed) Critiques of god: making the case against belief in god. Prometheus Books, USA, 1997, pp 203–224
McGrew JH, McFall RM (1990) A scientific inquiry into the validity of astrology. J Sci Explor 4:75–83
McKay B, Kalai G, Bar-Hillel M (1999) Solving the bible code puzzle. Stat Sci 14:2150–2173
Metcalf T (2004) An argument from non-gratuitous evil. In: Martin M, Monnier R (eds) The improbability of god. Prometheus Books, USA, 2006, pp 328–336
Monton B (2006) Is intelligent design science? Dissecting the Dover decision. Available at http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002592
Nagel E (1959) Philosophical concepts of atheism. Reprinted in Angeles P (ed) Critiques of god: making the case against belief in god. Prometheus Books, USA, 1997, pp 3–18
National Academy of Sciences (1998) Teaching about evolution and the nature of science, Appendix C. National Academies Press, USA
National Academy of Sciences (1999) Science and creationism: a view from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd edn. National Academies Press, USA
Norenzayan A, Hansen IG (2006) Belief in supernatural agents in the face of death. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32(2):174–187
Oaksford M, Hahn U (2004) A Bayesian approach to the argument from ignorance. Can J Exp Psychol 58:75–85
Olshansky JS, Carnes BA, Butler RN (2003) If humans were built to last. Sci Am (Special Edition) 13(2):94–100
Paley W (1802) Natural theology: evidence of the existence and attributes of the deity, collected from the appearances of nature. In: Eddy MD, Knight D (eds) Natural theology. Oxford University Press, USA, 2006
Pallen MJ, Matzke NJ (2006) From the origin of species to the origin of bacterial flagella. Nat Rev Microbiol 4:784–790
Parsons K (1989) God and the burden of proof: plantinga, swinburne, and the analytic defense of theism (frontiers of philosophy). Prometheus Books, USA
Perakh M (2003) Unintelligent design. Prometheus Books, USA
Persinger MA (1983) Religious and mystical experiences as artifacts of temporal lobe function: a general hypothesis. Percept Mot Skills 57(3 Pt 2):1255–1262
Persinger MA, Healey F (2002) Experimental facilitation of the sensed presence: possible intercalation between the hemispheres induced by complex magnetic fields. J Nerv Ment Dis 190(8):533–541
Pigliucci M (1998) A case against God: Science and the falsifiability question in theology. Skeptic 6(2):66–73
Pigliucci M (2002) Denying evolution: creationism, scientism, and the nature of science. Sinauer Associates Inc., USA
Pigliucci M (2005) Do extraordinary claims really require extraordinary evidence? Skeptical Inquirer 29(2):14–43
Ridley M (1996) The origins of virtue: human instincts and the evolution of cooperation. Penguin Group, USA
Rowe WL (1979) The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism. Reprinted in Martin M, Monnier R (eds) The improbability of god. Prometheus Books, USA, 2006, pp 250–261
Rowe WL (1996) The evidential argument from evil: A second look. Reprinted in Martin M, Monnier R (eds) The improbability of god. Prometheus Books, USA, 2006, pp 275–301
Rowe WL (1998) Evil and theodicy. Reprinted in Martin M, Monnier R (eds) The improbability of god. Prometheus Books, USA, 2006, pp 262–274
Russell B (1952) Is there a God? In: Slater JC, Kollner P (eds) The collected papers of Bertrand Russell, vol 11: Last philosophical testament 1943–68. Routledge, London, 1997, pp 543–548
Sawyer DB (2005) Heart failure research continues to reveal the flaws in nature’s unintelligent design. Circulation 112:2891–2893
Schellenberg JL (1993) Divine hiddenness and human reason (cornell studies in the philosophy of religion). Cornell University Press, USA
Schellenberg JL (2004) Divine hiddenness justifies atheism. Reprinted in Martin M, Monnier R (eds) The improbability of god. Prometheus Books, USA, 2006, pp 413–426
Scriven M (1966) God and reason. Reprinted in Angeles P (ed) Critiques of god: making the case against belief in god. Prometheus Books, USA, 1997, pp 95–114
Shanks N (2004) God, the devil, and Darwin: a critique of intelligent design theory. Oxford University Press, USA
Shelley PB (1814) A refutation of deism. Reprinted in Joshi ST (ed) Atheism: a reader. Prometheus Books, USA, 2000, pp 69–77
Sinnott-Armstrong W (2004) The argument from ignorance. Reprinted in Martin M, Monnier R (eds) The improbability of god. Prometheus Books, USA, 2006, pp 380–384
Smith KC (2001) Appealing to ignorance behind the cloak of ambiguity. In: Pennock R (ed) Intelligent design creationism and its critics: philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. MIT Press, USA, pp 705–735
Smith PW (2002) The effects of prayer: scientific study. Arch Intern Med 162:1420
Stenger VJ (1999) The anthropic coincidences: A natural explanation. Reprinted in Martin M, Monnier R (eds) The improbability of god. Prometheus Books, USA, 2006, pp 125–149
Stenger VJ (2003) Has science found god? the latest results in the search for purpose in the universe. Prometheus Books, USA
Stenger, VJ (March, 2006a) Supernatural science. Skeptical Briefs (CSICOP quarterly newsletter), p 11 & p 15
Stenger VJ (2006b) The comprehensible cosmos: where do the laws of physics come from? Prometheus Books, USA
Stenger VJ (2007) God: the failed hypothesis: how science shows that god does not exist. Prometheus Books, USA
Tremlin T (2006) Minds and gods: the cognitive foundations of religion. Oxford University Press, USA
Vilenkin A (2006) Many worlds in one: the search for other universes. Hill & Wang, USA
Weisberger AM (1999) Suffering belief: evil and the Anglo-American defense of theism (Toronto studies in religion). Peter Lang Publishing, USA
Young M, Edis T (eds) (2004) Why intelligent design fails: a scientific critique of the new creationism. Rutgers University Press, USA
Acknowledgments
This work was motivated in part by discussions on Professor Victor Stenger’s ‘A-VOID’ online list serve and by two articles, Monton (2006) and Stenger (2006a), which defend a similar thesis. The author is grateful to the editor, Dr. Michael Matthews, Jonathan Colvin, Keith Douglas, Anna Grossman, William Jefferys, Brent Meeker, Victor Stenger, RJ Welsh, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions on a previous version of the paper. Special thanks to Brent Meeker for significant editorial contributions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Testing God: A Bayesian Approach
Appendix: Testing God: A Bayesian Approach
A believing Christian amputee prays to the Christian God for re-growth of his arm:
1.1 Hypotheses:
God exists = +H
God does not exist = −H
Assume equal prior probabilities for H and −H: P(+H) = 0.5; P(−H) = 0.5
1.2 Evidence:
Amputee’s arm grows back after prayer = +E
Amputee’s arm does not grow back after prayer = −E
If God exists, there is a 9/10 chance that the amputee’s prayers will be answered- this is based on the passage in the King James Bible: “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” Matt 21:22). P(+E|+H) is set equal to 0.9 (a high probability) instead of 1.0 to leave open the possibility that the amputee failed to utter the prayer perfectly or that the amputee’s faith, although he is an avowed and devout believer, is not sufficient to merit God’s beneficence
If God does not exist, there is a 1/100,000 chance that the amputee’s arm will grow back naturally. This is empirically a grossly over-optimistic estimate, since there have been many times 100,000 amputees, all of which have failed to have their limb grow back; But we don’t set it to zero because there is always a possibility that there is something we don’t know about how nature operates. Further, it is possible that, within the lifetime of this particular amputee, medical science will discover a way to cause the arm to re-grow through natural means.
(Bayes’ Theorem)
(i.e., the posterior probability of +H, given +E, is greater than the prior probability of +H.)
(i.e., the posterior probability of +H, given −E, is less than the prior probability of +H.)
Therefore, the hypothesis that the Christian God exists, H, is confirmed by evidence, E, and is disconfirmed by evidence, −E.
Hence, the fact that no devout Christian amputees have ever had their limbs grow back following prayers to the Christian God requesting limb re-growth is strong evidence that the Christian God does not exist.
(The example presented above is inspired by the website: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fishman, Y.I. Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?. Sci & Educ 18, 813–837 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9108-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-007-9108-4