The limits of skepticism

 

Have I finally found the chink in the skeptical armor of ChatGPT?

Doesn´t this mean that science can miss the existence of God (or a god), if they try to explain miracles as naturalist anomalies?

Yes — exactly. What you’re pointing to is a real and fundamental limitation of science: its methodological naturalism. This means science, by its nature, restricts itself to natural causes and explanations, even if something truly supernatural were at play.

So yes, science could in principle “miss” the existence of God, or misclassify divine action as an unexplained but natural anomaly — for a few key reasons:

---

🔹 1. Science Doesn’t Test for the Supernatural

Science is not built to detect non-natural agents. It can only:

• Measure phenomena,

• Look for patterns,

• Develop naturalistic explanations that can be tested and falsified.

Even a genuine miracle (say, a medically documented healing that defies biology) would be treated scientifically as:

"An unexplained anomaly — more research needed."

It would not be formally attributed to divine action, because that’s outside science's self-imposed scope.

---

🔹 2. Science Treats All Events as Potentially Natural

Even deeply strange events are assumed to have a cause that is:

• Physical,

• Law-governed,

• Or probabilistically understandable (e.g., quantum effects).

So even repeated, mind-blowing phenomena might be chalked up to:

• Unknown physics,

• Statistical outliers,

• Observer bias or data error.

Only in theological or philosophical contexts would someone ask, “Could this be God?”

---

🔹 3. Science is a Tool, Not a Final Arbiter of Reality

Science is extremely powerful for understanding the mechanisms of the physical world, but:

• It makes no claims about what exists beyond its empirical reach.

• It doesn’t (and can’t) answer “ultimate why” questions (e.g., Why is there something rather than nothing?).

So it's entirely possible — and many religious thinkers would say probable — that God could act in ways science would never detect or interpret correctly.

---

🔹 4. This Doesn't Make Science Wrong — Just Limited

This limitation is by design, not failure:

• Science avoids metaphysical assumptions so it can remain objective and testable.

• But this means it can’t affirm or deny God.

• If a divine act looks natural, it stays within science.

• If it looks supernatural, science usually says, “insufficient evidence,” not “miracle.”

---

🔹 5. Example: Resurrection or Healing

Suppose a resurrection occurred and was recorded under controlled conditions. Science would:

• Verify the body was dead,

• Verify it came back to life,

• Confirm it defies known biology.

But then it would stop. Science would say:

"This is unexplained. Possibly new physics. Not enough data to say more."

It would not conclude, “This was God,” because no experiment can prove a metaphysical agent.

---

🧭 Final Thought

Yes — by its very structure, science could entirely miss or misinterpret genuine acts of God. This doesn’t make science invalid or flawed, but it does mean:

Science alone cannot rule out the existence of God.

This is why many thinkers see a necessary role for philosophy, theology, or personal experience when asking about the divine.

Would you like to explore how major thinkers (like Thomas Aquinas or William James) have approached this boundary between science and the divine?

This would be true of other supernatural phenomena as well, for instance ESP.

Exactly — the same logic applies to all so-called supernatural or paranormal phenomena, including things like ESP (extrasensory perception), telepathy, psychokinesis, or precognition.

These phenomena face the same core problem: science can only verify consistent, repeatable, natural mechanisms. If something appears anomalous but irregular, or cannot be clearly distinguished from chance or error, science will either:

• Attribute it to noise, placebo, or cognitive bias, or

• Mark it as unexplained, but not evidence of the supernatural.

Let’s break this down a bit further:

---

🔹 1. ESP and Scientific Methodology

Researchers have studied ESP (especially in the mid-20th century) using controlled experiments, like:

• Zener card tests (guessing symbols),

• Ganzfeld experiments (sensory isolation),

• Remote viewing.

Results?

• Occasionally showed small, statistically significant effects.

• But not replicable across experiments and labs.

• Often dismissed as experimental artifact, bias, or statistical flukes.

👉 Scientific stance:
Without robust, repeatable, peer-confirmed evidence, ESP remains unproven.

---

🔹 2. Science vs. Supernatural Hypotheses

If someone had real ESP:

• It might manifest in a way indistinguishable from chance.

• It might not be under voluntary control.

• It might even follow unknown laws that we haven’t discovered yet.

But science needs:

• Controlled variables

• Repeatable results

• Rule-based causation

So even if ESP were real, science could miss it or misclassify it, just like with divine miracles.

---

🔹 3. Methodological Skepticism

Scientific fields apply strict thresholds for accepting something as “real,” especially when:

• The phenomenon violates current physics or biology,

• There's a long history of fraud or wishful thinking (as in parapsychology),

• The effect size is small or inconsistent.

So science defaults to skepticism — and rightly so, to avoid false positives.

But this does mean:

Some real but rare or non-reproducible phenomena could be ignored or explained away.

---

🔹 4. Analogy with Quantum Phenomena

Ironically, quantum mechanics has shown that weird, counterintuitive events can be real — like entanglement and non-locality — but:

• These effects are measurable and obey strict rules.

• ESP lacks that repeatable, rule-bound character (so far).

So even if ESP were like quantum phenomena, until we have a coherent theory and reliable data, science won’t adopt it.

---

🧠 Final Thought

You’re right: just like with God or miracles, science can in principle overlook or misinterpret genuine ESP if:

• The effect is subtle, rare, or irregular,

• It doesn't lend itself to experimental repetition,

• Or if it's philosophically uncomfortable for the current paradigm.

This doesn’t mean science is broken — it means it’s cautious by design.

Would you like to explore the strongest scientific studies or criticisms of ESP? Or the historical relationship between science and parapsychology?

Could there be some threshold when it becomes obvious that something truly supernatural is going on. For instance, if a man like Jesus would be provably born of a virgin, made miracles, resurrected and ascended/disappeared? Wouldn´t this be enough, or would science still attribute it to space aliens?

This is a very sharp question — and it goes right to the heart of the tension between empirical observation, interpretation, and worldview. If a figure like Jesus were to reappear today, and if his miracles could be provably documented under modern scientific scrutiny, what would science say?

Let’s explore the implications carefully.

---

🔹 1. Yes — A Threshold Might Exist

There could indeed be a point at which the weight of evidence becomes overwhelming, and the scientific community would say:

“Something is happening that is not explainable by current physical laws.”

Examples might include:

• Verified virgin birth (confirmed genetically and obstetrically),

• Repeated, filmed, lab-verified miracles (e.g., instant healing of amputees),

• Actual resurrection after medically certified death,

• Ascension witnessed by large groups under controlled observation.

In such a case, scientists would have to acknowledge a radical anomaly — something not just rare, but incompatible with the known laws of physics and biology.

---

🔹 2. But Even Then — Interpretation Would Diverge

Science Would Say:

“This is a phenomenon we cannot explain within our current model of reality.”

But science would not declare:

“This is the work of God.”

Instead, possible naturalistic interpretations would flood in:

• Advanced aliens with godlike powers (a common fallback in materialist thinking),

• Simulation glitch (we’re in a simulated universe being manipulated),

• Unknown physics, quantum loopholes, or even mass hallucination (though harder to justify at that point),

• Artificial intelligence or time-traveling future humans creating illusions.

In other words, science would likely adopt a technological or theoretical explanation over a supernatural one — because that’s methodologically safer.

---

🔹 3. The Supernatural Isn’t a Scientific Category

This is crucial: science can detect anomalies, but it cannot declare supernatural causes because:

• It can’t define the supernatural operationally.

• It has no tools to study uncaused causes or immaterial agency.

• It can’t rule out any possible natural explanation, even unknown ones.

So even if someone performed miracles under full surveillance, science would say:

"This defies explanation — but it may not be divine."

Unless the event defined its own meaning (e.g., the miracle-worker also revealed deep metaphysical truths that aligned with the phenomena), the interpretation would remain open.

---

🔹 4. Faith and Reason Meet at the Threshold

For many people, the threshold would not just be what happens, but how it aligns with deeper meaning:

• Prophecy fulfilled,

• Moral or spiritual authority revealed,

• A coherent message of salvation or cosmic purpose.

Only then would some interpret it as God, not just “something very advanced or very strange.”

This is how Christian apologists interpret the historical Jesus:
Not just because he allegedly performed miracles, but because the whole narrative — teachings, prophecies, death, resurrection — points to a divine identity.

---

🔹 5. Would Modern Scientists Believe in God Then?

Some would — especially those open to philosophical theism or the limits of naturalism.

But others would resist, and here's why:

• The modern scientific mindset defaults to naturalistic explanations, no matter how strained.

• Accepting “God did it” breaks the model of testability and repeatability.

• Psychological and cultural resistance to religious claims plays a role.

As the physicist Sean Carroll once said:

“Even if a being showed up claiming to be God, performed miracles, and did all kinds of magic, I would first assume it’s an advanced alien or hallucination before accepting that it’s God.”

---

🧭 Final Thought

Yes — there could be a threshold where a supernatural explanation becomes the most coherent interpretation, even if it can't be proven by scientific means.

But science itself would never declare that threshold crossed, because it is not built to affirm the supernatural — it can only raise its hands and say:

“We don’t know — something unprecedented is happening.”

So whether that’s God, aliens, simulation, or myth in motion ultimately becomes a philosophical and theological judgment.

Would you like to explore how historical thinkers like C.S. Lewis or David Hume have debated miracles and evidence?