First Issue:
Apparently my use of the phrase “scientifically impossible” has generated some confusion, though, if I understand your reply, we seem to hold very similar beliefs on the matter. Nevertheless, it’s a fair observation. I will explain.
First of all, I’m well aware that science is a methodology, and that (strictly speaking) it makes little sense to speak of it as “impossible” or “possible.” I encounter a similar problem when people ask me, “What does philosophy say?” Philosophy, technically speaking, doesn’t “say” anything—-there is no set doctrine or beliefs, etc. But usually when people ask me such questions, I know to read between the lines a bit (something I was hoping my readers might do with the phrase “scientifically impossible” so that I wouldn’t have to go into lengthy explanations) and understand that what the speaker is really asking is something like: “According to sound philosophical methodology, and the general consensus among current philosophers who are using this method in its various capacities to understand the item under consideration, what is generally agreed upon to be the case?” In a similar manner, when I claimed that a miracle is commonly held to be something that is “scientifically impossible,” I intended to say that it is a phenomenon for which our current models have no significant or satisfactory explanatory powers. So, for example, if a trained chemist knows that mixing substance A with B, under specific conditions XYZ, always yields substance C, then the idea that mixing the two under those same circumstances and yet not coming up with substance C would be “impossible.” This is also why a scientifically minded individual, when he hears the Shaman say that his magic arts created the rain, will tend to ignore such claims and look elsewhere for an explanation. I may not be a scientist, but there’s nothing cryptic or naïve about this understanding of the scientist’s approach to knowledge. As you yourself have said, our scientific models, which are based solely on matter and energy, are unable to account for miracles. This is all I meant by “scientifically impossible,” and if you’d like for me to stop talking this way that’s fine with me. I just prefer “scientifically impossible” as short-hand in my distinction between different senses of the impossible (for example, I hold that a “resurrection” is not
logically impossible (i.e. according to the rules of formal Logic, and what may be determined
a priori), but that it is “scientifically impossible” (i.e. scientists do not have models that satisfactorily can account for any such occurrence). Conversely, I do consider “square circles” logically impossible, since the two concepts are conceptually at variance. Since “square circle” is a logical impossibility, I do not need to consult
a posteriori procedures, such as science, to determine its tenability.
That issue aside, we seem to have another problem that is not simply a semantic entanglement. According to my understanding of your argument, you hold that: (1) simply because “science” (dare I use the word) cannot account for miracles, it does not follow that miracles are not real; and (2) we cannot, as you say, throw out the observations simply because our models for making sense out of them are unsatisfactory. My reply to this is two fold.
First of all, starting with (2), I am not aware of any “observations” or “effects” that are being ruled out because it doesn’t fit our models—-that is to say, I’ve never seen anything that I would consider to be a “miraculous” aberration from our perfectly natural explanations of things. People come to me all the time claiming that God worked a miracle for them, and once I probe them to find out about their alleged miracle, I find that there is nothing interesting to observe (for example, someone says that God healed them of cancer, but this was after certain treatments and such). Maybe there are “miracles” out there, but I’ve never been exposed to any of them, and when I investigate those who claim to have had them, I usually find poor deliberations, or even, in some cases, psychological instability in the observer. As for the second prong of that argument, number (1), (and supposing for the moment that we
could find a miracle), you are absolutely right in holding that something might be real even if we cannot account for it in any kind of natural or scientific sense. Germs, for example, were very real in ancient times, even though humans had no way of accounting for the noticeable effects of germs in any kind of scientific/biological sense. But we must be careful that we do not commit the fallacy of drawing conclusions from the unknown.
If we encounter a phenomenon that it is unexplained, we cannot violate our epistemic boundaries by rushing ahead and providing explanations for it. For example, suppose we all see a dead man rise from the ground and begin walking about. The religious observers might want to say, “It’s a miracle of God! He was resurrected by the Almighty!” But the scientifically minded might want to say something like, “Well, this certainly is odd, but I just know that there has to be a perfectly natural explanation for this. Just wait long enough, and we’ll eventually have a scientific/natural/physical model that explains this otherwise perplexing occurrence.” Now the problem with this scenario is that both the “scientist” and the religious individuals have violated their epistemic boundaries—that is, they are committing the fallacy known as
argumentum ad ignorantum (“appeal to ignorance”). What we have is an inexplicable phenomenon—-a dead man walking—-and yet both are drawing answers from the unknown: one says, “It’s a natural occurrence” and the other concludes, “It’s God.” Both parties are reasoning fallaciously. Why? Because the hard truth is that it currently is, well, unexplained!
The reason that I gave this example is to illustrate a few points. First of all, that we have no right to ontological claims (i.e. of things that exist, such as spiritual entities) which abrogate sound epistemological procedure (i.e. a procedure through which we may rightfully make a claim to knowledge). Now you can believe whatever you want, and we can make conjectures all day, but it would not count as an item of knowledge. This is precisely the problem with all God-talk. When asked to define “God,” religious people often say that he is invisible, intangible, non-physical, without taste, color, sound, or spatial properties, and that he is atemporal and eternal. This, of course, leaves the rest of us wondering what the difference might be between a God of that sort and one which doesn’t exist! Now, you claim that a miracle is “the
observable interaction of a
spiritual element within an otherwise closed system of matter and energy.” So at this point I must ask you two things: (1) what do you mean by “spiritual element” (how would you define it) and (2) in what sense do you claim that it is observable? If it is observable, is it observable in such a way that other “non-spiritual” models may account for the item in question? If so, why do you choose the “spiritual” explanation rather than the “non-spiritual” model?
As a final note, you said that I ruled out virgin births because it's illogical. But that's not quite true. I rule out virgin births primarily for the reason given above: I’ve never seen a virgin give birth, nor a snake talking in a garden, nor a dead man rising up out of his grave, nor an ass rebuking someone with a human voice. It is a matter of inductive, not deductive, reasoning that leads me away from such beliefs. As a side note, I’m aware that there
have been virgins who have given birth, but this has been explained by biologists in such a way that precludes the miraculous intervention of a divine lover, as we find in so many of the ancient myths. Spiritual explanations have been slowly driven off the scene by “scientific” explanations (or natural/physical/observable explanations, if “scientific” offends you). At one point the stars were peepholes into heaven where the gods abode, and seasons changed by the will of the gods, and if you were ill it was because you angered a god, but now we know better.
Issue 2:
Before I answer your question about the soul, I’m going to need an explanation as to what you mean by “different substance” that adds its conscious thinking abilities to our mind. You claim that there is a physical substance, and a soul (or thinking thing) which arises from that physical substance—-so far so good—-but then there is also an entirely different substance called the spirit, which also thinks, and somehow blends its thinking together with that of the soul to create a composite thinking-thing. All of this is terribly cryptic to me. It is not enough to show that something is possible (if, indeed, you can do that); I want also to know how you came to find out about this alleged other substance, and what your justification for its reality is. In my experience, there are only two types of things—-commonly referred to as body/mind or, in some places, body/soul. We are all familiar with the physical dimension of our person, and as beings which think, we are all certainly aware of the mind/soul part. But what is this additional thinking-spirit thing and how does it mix with the other conscious parts? Also, what does it mean to be human? Must you have all three parts? When the physical dies, do the other two thinking parts go on? If so, does it make any sense to say that “you” went on living now that the physical part is dead? In other words, if to be “John” means to have all three elements, then even if the physical part dies, so has John. Perhaps something went on living, but whatever it was, it wasn’t John (because John just is mind/soul/spirit substance). So explain to me what these three parts are, how you discovered them, how they work together, and which parts are essential to an individual's identity.
Wow, I apologize for the length of this. I’ll try to be more pithy from now on.
