Quantum mechanics and consciousness - Part 6/8: Conservation laws and closure

6. Conservation laws and closure

One purported strong indication against mind-body or mental-physical dualism is that the physical world appears to be causally closed. The total of energy and total momentum appear to be conserved whenever they have been measured in modern physics. There does not seem to be any room for minds to make a difference to evolution of the physical world. We should first note, with Meixner [9], that there is little or no experimental evidence to prove this within living bodies and especially within brains. The universal application of conservation laws is an assumption of the physical sciences, not a result as it is commonly presented. Arguments for causal closure have turned out to depend on some assumption that is almost identical to the result to be proved [10] [11].

Suppose that physicists found that energy and momentum were not conserved in some instances. How would they react? First, they would note that the laws apply only to isolated systems, so they would examine whether the object really was isolated or not, and whether they should look for something further (like a hidden planet) that was producing the effects. Secondly, they would generalize the conservation laws so the new law was satisfied but not the old one. It used to be thought, for example, that total mass and total energy were separately conserved, but, after many subatomic experiments showing the annihilation and creation of massive particles, those separate laws were quietly dropped in favor of a general law of conservation of mass-energy in combination. If, therefore, the non-conservation of energy and/or momentum were found in certain biological or psychological processes, science as we know it would not collapse. Either the influence from other kinds of beings would be ascertained, or a further generalization of the conservation laws would be sought. The only novelty in the proposals here, is that these ‘other kinds of beings’ would not be ‘physical’ in the traditional way.

[9] U. Meixner, "Physicalism, Dualism and Intellectual Honesty," Dualism Review, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-20, 2005.
[10] U. Mohrhoff, "The Physics of Interactionism," J. Consciousness Studies, vol. 6, pp. 165-184, 1999.
[11] W. Hasker, "How Not to be Reductivist," PCID, vol. 2.3.5, pp. 1-16, 2003.

Previous part 5

Is Naturalism a Conclusion from Science, or was it Presumed at the beginning?

David Tyler has been been commenting on a paper by Massimo Pigliucci about issues in the theory of evolution.

We should pay attention to Tyler's conclusions:

A science that presumes naturalism MUST necessarily end up as an atheistic science. It fails as science because this approach presumes what it then claims science has confirmed. This means that naturalistic science is not objective and is not able to follow the evidence wherever it leads. For example, this is why the advocates of abiogenesis focus their efforts on chemical evolution, as this is the only avenue that naturalistic science permits researchers to follow. Consequently, the information characteristics of life are underplayed and they hope for information to arise by currently unknown emergent processes. The evidence however, points to complex specified information being fundamental to life, which naturalistic science cannot concede. By contrast, theistic science does not prescribe or predetermine outcomes, but it can handle natural processes as well as recognise intelligent agency. We will make progress when multiple working hypotheses can be tested without prescribing philosophical presuppositions for science. This is where education should be heading, not enforcing naturalism as the essence of science.

In particular, we do need 'multiple working hypotheses': some based on naturalism, and some based on theism. This is to include the theistic science I have already suggested.

Mind-body dualism

How mind and body are distinct but intertwined. 

See www.newDualism.org for reviews and articles about all kinds of theories.

Preliminary articles concerning mind-body dualism:

Discrete Degrees Within and Between Nature and Mind
Examining the role of dispositions  (potentials and propensities) in both physics and psychology reveals that they are commonly derivative dispositions, so called because they derive from other dispositions. Furthermore, when they act, they produce further propensities. Together, therefore, they appear to form discrete degrees within a structure of multiple generative levels. It is then constructively hypothesized that minds and physical nature are themselves discrete degrees within some more universal structure. This gives rise to an effective dualism of mind and nature, but one according to which they are still constantly related by causal connections. I suggest a few of the unified principles of operation of this more complicated but universal structure.

Ten Principles

A new account of the role of mind in nature is based on several principles taken to be universal, some of which exist already in today’s science.

Dualism in Descartes and Swedenborg

Swedenborg used Descartes as a symbol of his desired resolution of the mind-body problem in favour of ‘spiritual influx’, but we see that Descartes’ position was substantially different in a number of ways. We consider a number of modern objections and puzzles about dualism, and how Descartes and Swedenborg each might respond.

Dualism: a Causal Correspondence Theory

A suggestion is made how the mind and brain might fit together intimately while still maintaining distinct identities. The connection is based on the correspondence of similar functions in both the mind and the quantum-mechanical brain.

Are Quantum Physics and Spirituality related?

It is particularly valuable to discuss questions concerning quantum physics and spirituality together, in order to see the connection between them. There is an urgent reason for discussing this link, because there are people who want to identify these things, giving a monism rather than (at least) a dualism. There is a widespread feeling that somehow that they are connected, but some ‘new age’ people want to say that quantum physics tells us about spirituality. We have read in Swedenborg that any such connection could  not be quite so simple, so we need to understand in more detail what is going on.


Full details at www.beginningtheisticscience.com/ 

The Pernicious Influence of Immanuel Kant

Here is a good critique of the influence of Immanuel Kant, from a Christian perspective. The errors are the same from any theistic perspective.

The article's conclusion section starts as

Kant posits three questions regarding the ultimate issues of life: “All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?” How a Christian answers these basic questions may serve as an aid in evaluating whether he is more influenced by Kant or Christ. With Kant there is no confidence in objective divine knowledge, no confidence in objective divine guidance or empowerment, and no confidence in objective hope. This stands in stark contrast to those under the influence of Christ who brings confidence in objective divine truth to discover and grow in, confidence in objective divine knowledge and empowerment “to do” (Rom. 7:23), and confidence in divine hope. In fact, Christ is the Blessed Hope (Titus 2:13). Only Christ promises objective truth, enablement, and hope. All Kant offers is doubt and agnosticism which precludes confidence in the arguments of natural revelation or confidence in special revelation. What hope can there be when such revelation is precluded by Kant? What cure could possibly exist for an agnostic who precludes really gaining objective knowledge and truth in natural theology or sacred theology? What a useless and protracted “Kantian revolution”!

Can we conceive of mind-body dualism?

In trying to understand the nature of the connections between mind and body, or between ordinary and spiritual minds, many different ideas have been proposed to explain how they are different. Only if we have a serious scientific proposal for this can we give proper evidence for the fact of a difference, as (almost always in science) new kinds of evidence need a related theory in order to justify taking them seriously.
Many people have realized that there are some differences here, but are reluctant to call that a 'dualism', and so produce many analogies for understanding those differences.  Let us, nevertheless, call the relation between minds and body 'a dualism', and then simply seek to understand its nature.

One way to answer the question of dualism is if we have a clear idea about what have been called 'discrete degrees'. Emanuel Swedenborg wrote in his 1763 book Divine Love and Wisdom that this concept is central to answering many questions:

"Without a concept of discrete degrees ... one can know nothing of the difference between the interior faculties in people which are those of the mind, thus nothing of their state in regard to reformation and regeneration; ... and nothing at all of the difference between something spiritual and something natural." [1]

In everyday life, we have formed our own ideas about these discrete degrees, by means of which we attempt to understand what Swedenborg is suggesting here, especially about what is mental, or spiritual, in comparison with what is natural. However, many people have rather individual ideas about the nature of discrete degrees, and some have ideas that are not in fact dual or discrete.
My purpose here is to look at some common suggestions, to challenge various motives that favour some particular misconceptions, and to try to demonstrate some more realistic (and fruitful) ways of thinking about discrete degrees. This should give us a clearer formulation about how to conceive dualism. In the process we will compare and contrast them with continuous degrees of various kinds, such as occur within a monistic framework.
Our need to think in discrete or continuous degrees touches on some broader desires for certain kinds of explanation. We are much more satisfied, for example, by an integrated view of all the natural and spiritual worlds, compared, say, with a fragmented account. Similarly, scientists and philosophers are much happier with a unified theory which sees everything as part of some continuous whole, compared, say, with a theory with unexplained gaps. We might favor an integrated ‘nondual’ world view compared with an account with dual substances whose relation is more hierarchical and somehow less ‘democratic’.
Our initial desires and kinds of knowledge we can accept are typically based on ideas that we can obtain from our senses, and from logical reasoning from sensual ideas. Contemporary science is a rather full development starting from this approach. However, from our senses and logic, it is rather difficult to have a proper idea of discrete degrees. This is our problem! Most of our starting ideas are based on images obtained from sensations of space and time, and Swedenborg tries to persuade us how our these spatial and temporal images ‘attach’ themselves to many of our attempts to think about discrete degrees. One aim here is to help see how spatial ideas attach themselves to our ideas of discrete degrees, and hence of our ideas of what is (or should be) dual. We will see how spatial images (may) correspond, or be analogous, to discrete degrees, but are not identical with them.
Let us look at some ideas that have been used to describe discrete degrees, and examine each in turn to see whether it is discrete or continuous, and whether it is a means for understanding any dualism about what is mental or spiritual:

Space

1. We may imagine as discrete degrees those natural things with discrete units, such as a ladder, as a multi-storied house, even as earth + plants/animals + the heavens, etc. Religious and spiritual literature often uses such images. We may use the body, with head+neck+body+legs +feet to represent different discrete degrees, but from looking at human bodies, as from biology alone, we do not thereby understand what are mental or spiritual degrees.
2. Similarly, the whole and its parts may be imagined as discrete degrees and in a relation of duality. The cells, nerves, muscles, skin and whole body of a person may be called discrete degrees. However, the whole body, however it may be controlled by a mental degree, is itself an aggregation of its parts. It is therefore not itself of a different degree to its parts.
3. We may think of discrete degrees as another dimension, even the fourth (or fifth) dimension of space and time. It is true that dimensions can be counted, and so are discrete in some sense, but they can still be continuously transformed into each other, for example by rotations. It is clear that rotating or expanding does not, by that fact, take you to a new spiritual discrete degree.
4. Infinite space, or Space Itself. Spinoza, for example, saw matter and space as the twin aspects of an infinite divinity, from which matter and space are themselves infinite in their details and in their extents. However, space is not mental, but is in a discrete degree distinct from all mental and spiritual degrees.
   Time
5. We may think of discrete degrees as new frequencies of vibration. Entering the mental realm has been called, for example,  ‘entering a new vibrational level’. However, frequencies can also be continuously transformed into each other, since time in nature is on a continuous numerical scale. It is clear that vibrating faster does not, by that fact, take us to a new discrete degree, and does not describe a dualist ontology.
6. Some natural objects have discrete harmonic modes of operation. A guitar or cello string, for example, has fundamental and harmonic vibrational modes, and these resonate among themselves. Electrons in atoms have discrete levels of different energies. However, if we look in detail, we see that all intermediate vibrations and energies are still possible, but just do not last very long. I have above mentioned the possible roles of different frequencies, and in physics, vibrational energy is proportional to frequency.
7. Series of successive processes, such as waterfalls or other emanations, or the stages of a person's life, are often used to represent ‘successive discrete degrees’. We may often represent discrete degrees as ‘successive’, but we should be aware that this is another representation using ‘time’. Discrete degrees (such as mental/spiritual and natural) are still ‘simultaneous’ in many important senses!
8. Infinite time, or the denial of time, as being eternity. Encompassing all time is sometimes seen as a degree above all us ‘time bound’ individuals. However, any mind or spirit is presumed to be the source of life and activity, and certainly not the freezing of time. We may imagine that Divine Wisdom does see all time together (past, present and future) in an eternity, but note that the accomplishment of Divine Love still requires enacting that time successively.
Natural States

9. Solids, liquids and gases are discrete phases of many substances in nature. Ice, water and steam are discrete manifestations of the one chemical H₂O. However, these multiple phases of water can be continuously transformed one into another, and back again, so not describe dualities in a sense from which we can learn about mind and nature.
10. A related suggestion is to use the classic quartet of earth, water, air and fire, especially to identify a mental or spiritual degree as fire.
11. Sometimes we imagine mind or spirit as a fine or subtle substance that pervades and influences ‘coarse matter’. This may be true, but unless we have an independent idea of the mental or spiritual degrees, we cannot properly describe it merely from the idea of ‘fineness’ or ‘subtlety’.
12. Various polarities in nature, such as positive and negative electric charge, or male and female in biology. Opposite electric charges, such as of electrons and its antiparticle the positron, however, are exact mirror images at exactly the same natural level. Male and female organisms, by contrast, have internal complexities that are very similar, differing in particular in the way some of these are ordered. Furthermore, we cannot say that only positive charges, or only females, are connected to (or are) a dual degree.
    Inside and Outside
13. We may think of discrete degrees as the internal and the external of bodies, or of persons. The  words inmost, inner, and outer may be often used to describe discrete degrees in practice, and many of us use these adjectives to contrast spiritual with natural things. However, if we examine the specific meanings of these words, we see that they are essentially spatial images that must be interpreted metaphorically if they are to indicate spiritual and natural as distinct discrete degrees.
14. Connected with the previous suggestion, sometimes the mental or spiritual degree is seen as the ‘first person’ inside view of nature, so physical matter is the ‘outside’ or ‘third person’ view. This is a popular belief among those trying to reconcile science and spirituality, but it does not help, for example, in trying to understand the possibility of life after separation from the physical body. How can there be a life from a coherent inside view if the outside view is of matter broken into pieces?
15. A recent suggestion is based on chaos theory, where we see self-similarity: a similarity of behavior patterns when we compare the whole and the parts. But the whole and the parts, again, are not ontologically dual.

Many of the above distinctions have been adopted in popular culture as sufficient for defining the distinctness of degrees that lead to the mental or spiritual, and there is some satisfaction, for example, with imagining the spiritual as 'higher resonant states in higher dimensions' of reality as yet undiscovered by physics. However, all the above classifications are continuous, not discrete or dual. The desires for continuous spiritual degrees, though widespread in many contemporary and Eastern philosophies today, are what we should call ‘natural’ or even ‘sensual’.
We need to separate our understanding, in some way, from natural and sensual images. This separation may never be complete on earth, but let us at least be aware of the way we presently think.
But let us try to form some more positive accounts. My immediate problem here is that you may be most happy if I produce a new picture which I claim shows discrete degrees most accurately. However, we have just seen that all pictures are based on spatial and temporal images, and by that fact should be called into question! What can we do?
This is a problem that modern quantum physics has faced for much of the last century. Modern physicists have realized that pictures based on ‘particles’, or on ‘waves’, are no longer satisfactory, but have nothing satisfactory to replace them with. Some among them have (wisely) said that ‘we can no longer rely on naive pictorial thinking’. Thus, for minds as well as for physics, we have to rely on some different kind of thinking. Quantum physics can use its mathematical equations, but what can we use?
To understand in a specific way discrete degrees, and the possibility of a real dualism, we can either

1. build on and extrapolate whatever discrete degrees physics and philosophy have discovered, or
2. rely on our own intuitive understandings of causes and effects in ourselves.

A description of those discrete degrees that physics has discovered is given separately, so I will merely mention some of the more obvious discoveries here. Let me first describe some of the discrete degrees and dualities that Swedenborg has described: two from general philosophy, and one from simple physics:
Degrees in Philosophy and Simple Physics

16. Form and substance are a pair of discrete degrees. For a given thing, such as this chair, the form is its position, orientation and shape. And not just the overall shape, but also the shapes and arrangements of all its constituent parts. The substance of the chair is that of which the constituent parts are forms of, are made of. This physics can give us some idea of, namely some kind of energy or propensity to interact. Form and substance cannot be continuously transformed into each other.  Yet they are not ontological dual, in the sense of independently existing.
17. End, cause and effect are a triplet of discrete degrees. The end is the original principle according to which a process starts, the cause is the formulation of means that is poised to act, and the effect is the resulting action. End, cause and effect produce each other in sequence, but cannot be reversibly transformed.
18. Heat and Light, strictly, are radiation in the same electromagnetic spectrum: making them a pair of continuous rather discrete degrees. However, ‘heat’ has a more general meaning: that of energy in general, and light has a more specific meaning: as a form of radiation that can be encoded with very much information. Energy and information do form a discrete pair of degrees, but similar therefore to 'form and substance' above. Thus ‘light’ is a particular form of energy, so light is like form and heat is like substance.
    Other discrete degrees, even within nature, have been discovered by science:
    Degrees in Modern Physics
19. Force and motion are discrete degrees. This was in fact realised in the 18th century by Boscovich and by Kant, Forces may be present even if no movement of matter occurs.
20. Potential energy and force are discrete degrees. This was made clear with the discovery of electromagnetic fields by Faraday and Maxwell. Electric energy fields, for example, only produce forces if a charged particle is present within the field. Similarly, the gravitational fields of the earth and sun are not themselves forces, but only produce forces on planets and satellites should these be present. Physicists often conflate potential energy and force, by saying that forces are simply a description of the gradient of the potential energy surface, but the 'force' here is the force actually operating, not that of a 'force field' that is still waiting to have any effect.
21. Waves and particles, or (better) waves and events are discrete degrees. This is the best way of understanding quantum physics: waves are a description of causes, and specific particle positions (or events) are the actual effects of those causes.
22. Virtual and actual processes are discrete degrees. Electric fields, for example, are generated by a prior degree of virtual photons. I discuss this a little more separately.These dualisms within physics are described elsewhere in more detail.
    Other discrete degrees are seen by our intuitive understanding of causes and effects, for example within ourselves, within our own minds.
    Degrees as suggested by Swedenborg
23. End, cause and effect are a triplet of discrete degrees. The end is the original impetus which motivates us, the cause is that motivation when it has formulated the means and is poised to act, and the effect is the resulting action. End, cause and effect produce each other in sequence, but cannot be reversibly transformed.
24. Affection, understanding and action are discrete degrees. These are analogous to the previous set, but generalised os as to be applicable to processes also of the mind.
25. Soul, mind and nature, are the three discrete degrees, according to Swedenborg [1], describing the production of creation via affections and thoughts to nature.
26. Love, Wisdom and Use are, according to Swedenborg [1], again analogous to discrete degrees, and are applicable even to the Divine.

The classifications 19-22 do describe discrete degrees, but only in nature. By themselves they do not indicate any spirituality, but nevertheless they reflect the true spiritual discrete degrees (23-26) more accurately than the continuous degrees (1-15) since they are themselves discrete and not continuous.
Trying to understand any kind of discrete degree is a useful education toward understanding dualism, and hence to begin to understand what is mind, and what is spiritual.

References
[1] Emanuel Swedenborg, Divine Love and Wisdom, 1763. (online)

New book published: "Starting Science From God"

At last my new book is published!

This book describes a general theory to link science to theism. Theism is the philosophical basis of Western religions. As the first Amazon reviewer says:

Here is a scientist who begins by assuming God exists and develops his scientific ideas from that point of view. He has a unique idea that is fascinating. I loved reading this, even though it takes concentration to follow. The discussion combines philosophy, quantum physics, and religion. It reminded me of the Tao of Physics, only more modern and more Christian.

More details of the book are at http://www.beginningtheisticscience.com, where there are sample chapters and preliminary reviews. It is available on Amazon now, and soon at Barnes & Noble. There are Kindle and Nook eBooks now, and soon there will be an iBooks version. It should be internationally distributed by the end of the year.


In future blog postings here, I will be discussing questions arising from the book and from its readers. 

Theistic Science and other Sciences

Allowing science to consider how God is the life of the mental and natural worlds would be a big mental jump from any naturalistic starting point.  It would necessarily change the kinds of scientific theories that should be permitted.  We are thus going to introduce a new kind of science called theistic science, as suggested by Plantinga.  You may argue that there is in fact only one kind of science, and that there is no sense in talking about e.g. `Australian science,' or `theistic science'.  However, there are still ways in which plurality can and should be part of science.  In particular, there can and should be multiple sources of ideas that lead to scientific theories.  This means that we can consider theistic science as a branch of each theoretical science that derives general theoretical principles from the theism presented here, and begins to give the results  described later in this book.  In general, I argue that we should encourage `ontological pluralism'.  This pluralism is already explicit in the foundation of physics, and in psychological modeling. Basic physics, for example, considers strings or spin foams or deformed space as alternative possible ontologies. Psychology can consider symbols or functions or network connections in alternative possible ontologies. There is no principle of science that forbids such ontological pluralisms.

Some may respond that this pluralism only makes sense in the initial stages of a science, but not in its mature stage.  I reply that neither fundamental physics nor psychology are mature sciences in the required sense.  Others may argue that we should stick with the framework we have, to see how far it will take us. There is always the possibility, they say, that materialist science may in the future give a complete and adequate account of mental processes, the creation of the universe, and of the creation of life, so in the meantime, we should not be impatient.  To which I reply by asking us to consider the possibility that theism is true, and that God does make a difference to the world.  Must we then wait 100 or 200 years until the naturalists have finally given up seeking natural explanations of those differences? Can we not start thinking now about these matters?  To do so, is to encourage ontological pluralism in science, especially concerning foundational questions.  As Feyerabend says in Against Method, in science there are in fact no fixed rules, and that successful explanation is what counts. If some of us want to seek alternate explanations in the chance that we may be more successful in producing scientific predictions, then we should be allowed to do so. This is pluralism.

We give the name of theistic science to the kind of scientific activity within ontological pluralism that develops theoretical ideas for the relation between God and the created world, and how they function together.  This enterprise starts by rigorously formulating and examining a `scientific theism', and then leads towards theistic science that gives rise to `theistic psychology', `theistic biology', etc., within an environment of ontological pluralism.  If successful, we might one day begin to call these just `science', but that, of course, remains to be seen.

Theistic science, therefore, simply starts with the postulate that there is a God, according to the living theism defined above. Just as naturalistic physics starts from the a-theistic assumption of God not existing (but something else), I start from the assumption of God existing.  We have to assume that something exists, to start with, so both these ontological approaches should be allowed within science, as long as they produce good explanations.  Science per se should not prejudge the kinds of ontologies to be assumed in the best theories, since that should depend only on the results of the investigations. The earth will not disappear from under our feet if we consider the possibility of God existing, to see what conclusions might follow from that assumption.

Prospects for a Theistic Science: Part II of a rebuttal of Robert Pennock

(Continuation of Part I, against Pennock's paper Supernaturalist Explanations and the Prospects for a Theistic Science)

Pennock claims that The appeal to supernatural forces, whether divine or occult, is always available because we can cite no necessary constraints upon the powers of supernatural agents.

This appeal is only available to those who claim that non-natural agents act only arbitrarily and capriciously. But Divine, spiritual and/or mental agents only appear as arbitrary and capricious to those who fail to understand their principles and logic. In themselves, for example us as human minds, there are regular principles which regulate our action. Of course, such agents can change their minds without telling others, but theistic science begins with the principles that God is a good Love, so the underlying Divine and spiritual agents only change their minds when there are good reasons to do so. Only if we do not understand the meaning of 'good love' and 'good reasons' will those actions appear to be arbitrary and capricious.

These 'constraints upon the powers of supernatural agents' are not necessary, in the sense of being logically necessary. But they are necessary in another sense, namely given the nature of the Divine God which, by theism, creates, sustains and (where possible) dwells in all of creation. Only someone who has denied the possibility of theistic science already would claim that nothing non-natural can follow such regulating principles.

Finally, Pennock says, if we were to allow science to appeal to supernatural powers even though they could not be tested, then the scientist's task would become just too easy. One would always be able to call upon the gods for quick theoretical assistance in any circumstance.

The method in theistic science will not be to 'appeal' to supernatural powers to explain problems in the theory, but to only allow those influences of non-natural agents that follow from the structure and powers of those agents. It is up to the proposer to show that the alleged influences do follow, and never to merely assert without evidence.

I admit that gathering evidence concerning non-natural agents, apart from those that are our own minds, is not an easy task. This is partly because, without having yet a clearly formulated theory of minds and souls, it is very difficult to collect evidence for what particular minds and souls might be doing on any particular situation. It is general feature of science that very often the evidence and the theories are linked, so that one only makes sense once we have some idea of the other.

Without the binding assumption of uninterruptible natural law there would be absolute chaos in the scientific worldview. Supernatural explanations undermine the discipline that allows science to make progress. It is not that supernatural agents and powers could not explain in principle, it is rather that they can explain all too easily.

Non-natural agents explain 'all too easily' only when we have no good theory about what those agents actually are, what they do, and what are the principles that guide their operations. The worrisome claim here of 'absolute chaos' betrays more an irrational fear of the unknown, and of losing one's sense of importance in existing professional expertise. It should be clear that existing sciences will not be immediately rendered redundant by the existence of theistic and mental sciences, though it will be revised in many places.

Pennock does consider the possibility of Super Natural Explanations, which is To say that science doesn't deal with "the supernatural" does not mean that everything that we currently think of as supernatural--ghosts and extra-sensory perception, for example--really is. Perhaps these are actually natural law-governed phenomena that are yet to be discovered. ... In Star Trek, for example, we may have that departed "souls" turn out to be "coherent energy patterns."

Here, Pennock is repeating the error we saw previously: of equating "natural" with "law-governed". He refuses to entertain the possibility of anything "non-natural" being law-governed: exactly the possibility which is the foundation of theistic science. He claims that If there are other sorts of "laws" that govern that world, then they can be nothing like those that we understand, but this is to excessively underestimate human powers of comprehension. If we do have non-natural minds and souls (as theistic science contends), then even from an evolutionary point of view we would survive better if we had the capacity to understand what these are! Maybe we only find the necessary comprehension after being instructed by God, and if we have been told many times, we have few excuses for not understanding.

He recognises that By discussing the confirmation of "ghosts" in this way (as "coherent energy patterns") we have tacitly taken them out of the supernatural realm and placed them squarely in the natural world. To conceive of ghosts as supernatural entities is to consider them to be outside of the natural realm, outside the law-governed world of cause and effect physics. But to say that science could test and confirm their existence, as in our hypothetical case, is to reconceive them as natural entities. Perhaps there really are "coherent energy patterns" as postulated in the story, but such "ghosts" are no longer supernatural--they have been naturalized. Surely the Christian will quite properly object that, whatever these things are, they are surely not departed souls in the religious sense of the term.

Here, Pennock admits that treating "ghosts" as "coherent energy patterns" means that they are not mental and/or spiritual, for he knows that is what the religious are talking about.

But consider the possibility that souls or minds are discovered, and are found that they do have an influence on the world, and that they are constituted from forms of love, and have the ability to produce perceptions and thoughts in law-like manners (as theistic science will postulate). What would he imagine happen in a Star Trek episode if this were to occur? What would Kirk and Spock think if such souls proved immune to any damage from physical weapons? Would they necessarily think 'energy, but not as we know it?', or would they admit to something non-physical? Would Pennock necessarily insist that even these minds, being law-like, automatically become 'reconceived as natural entities'? They would be nothing like the natural entities known to physics: not 'physical' in any normal sense of the term!

The conflict that arises here is the classic dilemma in defining physicalism / naturalism. Does it assert that nature consists of everything that science knows now, or of everything that science will postulate in the future? If the former, then it is almost certainly wrong, since science will evolve and will postulate new things. If the later, then the claim of physicalism now is without content, since we do not know where science will proceed in the future! For more discussion of this last dilemma, see for example Dan Synnestvedt's article on naturalism.

Prospects for a Theistic Science: A rebuttal of Robert Pennock. Part I.

Robert Pennock has written a paper Supernaturalist Explanations and the Prospects for a Theistic Science or "How do you know it was the lettuce?" that attempts to show "why supernatural explanations should never enter into scientific theorizing".

Some other preliminary comments on his paper point out that all practical action in the physical world must assume some metaphysical principles, for example about constancy of laws. Those principles can only be based in supernatural principles, since they are about the natural as a whole. But let us look more specifically at Pennock's arguments against the possibility of a theistic science that contains principles about what is not natural.

To focus our thoughts, let us consider three kinds of putative non-natural things: (1) Minds as mental not merely physical, (2) Souls as spiritual not merely mental or physical, and (3) the Divine as not merely spiritual or mental or physical. We will see to what extent his arguments block a theistic science that studies the existence, structure and dynamics of these three things. Is he successful in one, some or all of these? We may agree that all three are denied by current scientific naturalism, at least as that appears in science journals.

In his section Supernatural explanations, Pennock puts forward some arguments why 'supernatural explanations' should have no place in science.

The first is that supernatural agents and powers, of course, is that they are above and beyond the natural world and its agents and powers. Indeed, this is the very definition of the term. They are not constrained by natural laws. ... If supernatural agents are constrained at all it may only be by logic.

Pennnock is arguing here that non-natural things {our (1, 2, 3) above}, are not constrained by natural laws. Yes, that is true, because they are not physical. But Pennock then suggests there are no other laws short of logic! Does he not know of any sciences of mind? If minds are not physical, is he saying that there can be no laws of mind? Are all the works and investigations of psychologists about mentality, cognitive processing, social psychology, etc seeking laws which cannot exist??

And for him to not recognise any laws about spirituality is to betray a complete ignorance of what religions have been trying to tell us for thousands of years. We must admit that there are certainly laws of mind, and very probably laws of spirituality. If we do not know what these are, we (as scientists) should investigate! And not give up at the beginning by saying it is impossible.

Pennock's second argument is that a characteristic of the supernatural, that we have mentioned before and that follows rather directly from the first, is that it is inherently mysterious to us. As natural beings our knowledge all comes via natural laws and processes. If we could apply natural knowledge to understand supernatural powers, then, by definition, they would not be supernatural. The lawful regularities of our experience do not apply to the supernatural world. If there are other sorts of "laws" that govern that world, then they can be nothing like those that we understand. Occult entities and powers are profoundly mysterious to us.

In reply, we admit that our knowledge comes 'via natural processes'. We learn about the minds of others by watching them and listening to what they say. Bodily movements and sounds are indeed natural processes. But that does not mean that those natural processes cannot be effects of mental and/or spiritual causes. The whole business of science is to seek a causes, and not be merely satisfied with descriptions of effects. Most of us know (or at least acknowledge) that our spiritual and mental life affects our behaviour. Science, therefore, should investigate these things as causes of our behaviour! And when we include the Divine as a cause of spiritual and mental things, we are talking about theistic science. That brings us to Pennock's next argument:

The same point holds about divine beings--we cannot know what it is that they would or would not do in any given case. God works, they say, in mysterious ways. We cannot have any privy knowledge of God's will and those who have tried to claim it are quickly brought back to earth

This claim again shows much ignorance about religious and spiritual matters. If we review the history of the past few thousand years, we find indeed that God's interactions with the universe are not 'mysterious', but are in fact rather predictable. Indeed, we find that God has (many times!) tried to give us the means to make these predictions: we see in many places some introductions to the principles which guide God's actions. Every warning about consequences of some specific behaviour is in fact just the explication of one of these principles. And it is very relevant the more we try to live according to spiritual and religious guidelines, the less arbitrary and mysterious they appear. Rather they appear more law-like, rational and wise, and similarly for the principles which lead to these guidelines.

Theistic science, therefore, should be concerned with the collection and elucidation of these principles, and how they have consequences of spiritual, mental and physical processes. Yes: physical processes too! If we want to know the causes of physical things, we have to include Divine influences as well. Pennock may reply that many different principles have been proposed over the centuries, and they cannot all be correct. Just so, but let us collect some of the core principles of theism, and see what their structure is and what their consequences are. I have begun this process with my manifesto of theistic principles. We can indeed find laws about things which are not natural (in the sense of 'not physical').

A final relevant element of the notion of the supernatural, closely linked to the previous ideas, (according to Pennock) is that supernatural beings and powers are not controllable by humans. Though our secret desire may be to gain esoteric power through contact with the supernatural, we seem to understand at a deep level that such control would be impossible. ... We need to recognize that this wishful belief in the possibility of human control of divine and occult powers actually contradicts the idea of the supernatural in a profound manner, for by definition the supernatural is beyond the reach of we mere creatures of the natural world. If the supernatural could be controlled by the natural then it would cease to be super.

This claim betrays an ignorance even of contemporary science. That science does not insist on being able to control everything that it studies! Just think of cosmology, and the study of neighbouring galaxies, neutron stars, or black holes. Scientists are unable to control these things, but can still study them! Pennock may reply that the limits here are 'practical' rather then 'theoretical'. But science can never control the Big Bang, because of even stronger principles, namely the fixity of history, and its unrepeatability. By comparison, controlling such non-natural things as our minds and souls is a piece of cake: we do it (with varying success!) every hour of every day of our lives. To decide that one of these actual acts of controlling is impossible, but controlling neutron stars as 'in principle possible', is to betray an extreme prejudice against mental and spiritual realities, in favour of exclusively physical realities.

So Pennock claims that These characteristics of the supernatural show why supernatural explanations should never enter into scientific theorizing. Science operates by empirical principles of observational testing; hypotheses must be confirmed or disconfirmed by reference to inter-subjectively accessible empirical data.

Science does indeed use 'inter-subjectively accessible empirical data'. Science, however, also uses rational thinking about causes that cannot be directly observed. We cannot directly observe individual quarks (in principle), but that does not stop us rationally inferring their existence from their (many) effects in (many) experiments. In exactly the same way, theistic science can rationally infer the existence of (many) mental and spiritual processes from their (many) effects in the world. At it can rationally postulate the Divine according to the principles that God has been trying to tell us for centuries, and examine the logical consequences of those principles for everything we see in the world.

To be continued ...