From: timk@world.std.com (Tim King)
Subject: Re: Secular Humanism
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:14:12 GMT

Angela Zimmerman <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU> writes:

>>> *  We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
>>>    understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
>>
>>> *  We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain
>>>    the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for
>>>    salvation.
>>
>> Why does reason and science necessarily preclude the existence of the
>> supernatural?
>>
>> In fact, one would think that reason and science would tend to lead us
>> toward the supernatural.
>
> If the supernatural were accepted as fact, there would be many theories
> on "fact" that had no actual basis in fact, but rather were based on
> what the human mind could make up.  [good example deleted]
> secular humanists believe in researching and experimentation toward finding
> the "truth" rather than blindly following something "supernatural" that
> was more than likely just made up to conveniently explain a situation
> or occurance.

Ahhh... but that's not what the original quote said!  If you will refer
above, you will see that secular humanists "deplore efforts... to seek to
explain the world in supernatural terms and to look outside nature for
salvation."  As a matter of fact, I as well am "committed to the application
of reason and science to the understanding of the universe..."  However,
I see that, * within a reasonable framework *, the supernatural necessarily
deserves consideration.

For example, let's consider the following argument:


Definitions:

The "universe" refers to the 4-dimensional space-time in which we live.

"Anything" and "something" refer to the matter and energy within the
universe.

"Natural" describes matter and energy which is part of only the universe
and events that can be explained in terms of only the universe.

"Supernatural" describes that which is not natural.  In other words, that
which originates or resides, at least partially, outside of the universe
is "supernatural".


(1) Now, either
    (a) something exists, or
    (b) it doesn't.

(2) If anything exists, either
    (a) it has always existed or
    (b) it had a beginning.

(3) If anything had a beginning, either
    (a) it originated within nature, or
    (b) it came from outside of nature.


(1b) can be eliminated using several good arguments.  Obviously,
science accepts that the universe and those things within actually
exist and also are predictable.  Also, reality is confirmed by independent
observations.  For example, if I say I saw a green cow on the moon, you'd
say I was crazy.  But if you and others could observe the same phenomenon,
then either (a) we're all crazy together, or (b) there really is something
that at least _ looks _ like a green cow on the moon.  (Further research
is necessary to determine if it really is a green cow or if it is something
different, but the phenomenon is real.)

Therefore, (2) applies.  However, we know that (2a) is not true.  The
Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids it.  This fundamental law basically
says that, in a closed system, the energy available for useful work will
always decrease.  If the universe is a closed system and everything within
the universe had been around forever, there would be nothing available
for useful work.  Either (2a) is false, or the universe is not a closed
system, which leads us to the supernatural.  However, I will grant that
the universe is essentially a closed system. (see footnote)  Also,
observation has, through independent procedures, measured the age of
the universe.  It is approximately 13.6 billion years old, if memory
serves.

So, we _ must _ ask ourself which of (3a) or (3b) is more reasonable.
Doubtless, there are many objects in the universe which were "created"
within nature, but they necessarily came from something that already
existed.  The question being posed concerns the very first something.
In this context, (3a) contradicts a fundamental axiom, The Law of
Conservation of Matter and Energy.  If (3a) is true, then at the birth
of the universe (or at least the birth of anything in the universe) a
very large amount of matter and energy spontaneously came into
existance... out of nothing.  Isn't it much more reasonable to assume
that reality consists of more than our 4-dimensional space-time, that
there are higher dimensions containing supernatural elements?


Now, this line of argument does not justify my acceptance of God.
Without any further information, it would be just as easy for me
to assume that there is no supernatural intelligence.  However, the
argument does give a basis on which to build other arguments that
support the existence and reality of God.  I am justified in my
search for a supernatural cause, as it were.  But, more to the point,
the original statement denied the possibility of any supernatural
element, and I hope it is clear that this is an unreasonable
assumption.


Footnote:

There is one small matter that needs to be addressed.  In (2) I assumed
that the universe is a closed system.  In doing so, I arrived at (3b),
that the universe is not a closed system.  This, at first glance, would
appear to be contradictory.  But there are two possibilities, which can
be addressed at another time:  <i> Whatever it was that gave birth to
nature no longer affects it, or <ii> things outside of this universe
affect it relatively little, so that we cannot practically observe the
effect.  For reasons I won't go into now, I (obviously?) believe <ii>
to be the case.

-TimK
-- 
Tim King              <>  |  "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have
24 Myrtle Street       |  |  excluded the impossible, whatever remains,
Dedham, MA 02026     < |  |  however improbable, must be the truth."
timk@world.std.com    \|  |           (Sherlock Holmes, The Beryl Coronet)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU