When we apply the phrase “science can’t explain that” to any concept, (for example, what we perceive to be the supernatural) it represents a combination of laziness and pride. The idea that science can’t be used to explain something is a sign that an idea is in its dieing throes and requires one last ditch defense before it is completely exposed for what it is. We must build a barrier of enforced ignorance around it. We must say, “No, science cannot touch this. It has been encroaching for a while now and it doesn’t belong here. We’ve seen science do its thing. Fire was once a gift to us. Life was once the kiss of the gods. Now it’s all just a chemical soup. No, you cannot have my supernatural.”
We then pledge to simply stop learning; to stop asking questions. After all, science only gives us more questions, but our explanation of what’s supernatural is simple and easy. It just is. It is everything we cannot know. In that way, we can mystify and glorify it. We can bond with it because we can personify it. It loves us and supports us. If we were to expose it as a latent chemical reaction within our brains, all of that magic would be lost. Why, we would be nothing but mistaken, flawed beings. And this cannot be so.
One binding characteristic of a supernatural thought is that everyone’s idea of it is unique. Because it cannot be measured or confirmed, it becomes an idea that people develop for themselves within their own mind. And this is where the term “binding” is used quite astutely. An idea is a possession and any attempt to dispel it is akin to theft. It’s quite threatening to be told that you’re wrong about an entire segment of your reality; one that you filled in the blanks yourself. And to be wrong also means that there are some genuine questions that remain to be answered with rigorous adhesion to discipline.
Why can’t we just say it can’t be explained and move on? Because we’d be wrong. We’d be lazy and prideful and wrong.
Follow-up Note: Some of my readers and friends have been saying that I'm wrong, but I want examples of where I am wrong. If you were to say that science can't explain love, I would reply, "If I could give you a combination of artificial memories and conducive chemicals in your brain that would alter how you feel about someone, to the effect of love, then would you believe me?" You might reply, "But science can't do that." And I would then say, "No, not yet, but there is no law of physics that says it can't in the future." And that's the point. No, we don't have all the answers at our fingertips, nor do we have all the means to the answers at our fingertips, but to flat out say that we never will... is absurd.
Good post - maybe there are certain items that are unexplainable or unanswerable for right now, but that doesn't mean they won't one day have a very reasonable explanation. The truth is, all questions have an answer. Whether we preserver enough to find the answer is the question.
ReplyDeleteSparrow: Thanks! I actually just added a little extra note based off of the initial reaction from people that pretty much says the same thing.
ReplyDeleteFor certain things, I admit that "science can't YET explain ___." Like what's beyond the hypothesized finite boundaries of our universe, for example. But if I were to have faith in anything, it's that I have faith that science will one day be able to answer what we cannot currently answer.
ReplyDeleteno one can know whether or not science can or can't know something or other. "How do you know that science can't know that?" short answer is that you can't know that, no one can!
ReplyDeletemost likely, as history has shown, it's the combination of knowledge blindness (faith that it is immutable) and a complete failure of the imagination (in conceiving alternate realities and explanations) about a topic that misleads us into thinking that we can't know it.
the beauty of science discourse is that even if the scientific consensus firmly held that something can't be known, scientists would still dedicate their lives to proving the consensus wrong. inquiry will never stop, we can't know if something can't be known, or if we just have't developed our minds enough to grasp it, and so we keep on...
"Science is what we do when we don't know what we're doing." - Alvaro De Rújula, physicist
ReplyDeleteI would go so far as to say that if science cannot explain it, it is incomprehensible. If you understand something, then science is capable of figuring it out. If you think you have a handle on supernatural phenomena, or on love, then science will eventually understand it far better than you ever did.
ReplyDelete