|
The concept of proof is unfortunately tied to a scientific standard of verifiability and repeatability. However, these criteria are specifically tied to the natural world. Science is, after all, based upon empirical study of the natural world. Therefore, proof can never be given for an event which falls outside the realm of observable natural phenomena. By definition, the supernatural falls outside this realm.
Science tosses out alot of data that doesn't fit their models. Science is also made and created by people. People who are also highly prejudiced, biased and fiercely protective of their world views. So called supernatural events are also subject to misinterpretation, but some are genuine.
The real problem is that the believers and the skeptics are arguing about a belief system. Typically, the argument usually turns out to be a semantic one. Because if any subject related to the supernatural were suddenly proven to exist, the skeptics would then claim victory on the grounds that the subject was never supernatural at all - it was natural. The believers would claim victory on the grounds that their perceptions were correct all along.
History is full of instances where the science of the day failed and had to wait for technological advances before the truth could be known.
Absence of proof doesn't invalidate the possibility of a supernatural cause. It simply means no proof is yet available.
The mistake some people make is assuming that those who entertain the idea that there MAY be supernatural forces at work are automatically "religious nuts". I'm a staunch atheist - and my definition of supernatural (or paranormal) simply means something that occurs outside of the natural world we currently know about. It doesn't point to the existence of a deity or supreme being.
A person with a truly open mind doesn't dismissively label others with differing opinions and experiences as fools, idiots and morons. The earth was flat...until 'fools' proved it was round.
|