An Argument Against Supernatural Causation

[Purple Rabbit]

Hmmm...Interesting objection, but I don't think it works. Heres why:

Lets call the dimension that supernatural causation occurs in X. Souls etc are non-spatial, but they are X-dimensional. The causal trajectory goes from A to B through dimension X. Bear in mind that the causal traffic needs to be 2-way. Minds affect bodies and vice versa.

Okay, for that to work then ordinary matter also has to be X-dimensional (as well as spatial of course). Otherwise we have the same argument again, only applying to dimension X rather than space. Thus X-dimensionality is a natural property of natural objects, as well as being a property of supernatural stuff.

And once we establish that, I'd suggest that we're back on the slippery slope to materialist monism. If natural objects are X-dimensional, and causation can occur X-dimensionally, then surely dimension X comes under the purview of science. Okay, we can't detect dimension X right now, but if we can transmit causation through it then it should be possible to do so, at least in theory.

Theres also the question of whether natural objects can affect other natural objects via dimension X rather than via space. If so, then where the hell is this x-dimensional causation? If not, why not?

It happens to be so that string theory, an as of yet unfalisifiable yet mainstream theory among theoretical physicists, predicts that there are additional spatial dimensions to the three spatial dimensions known to us. It has invented a thing called Kaluza-Klein compactification to explain why these spatial dimensions are not visible to us. So according to string theory, you are describing the very nature of our reality. Indeed normal matter and nature share these dimensions as you describe. If the causal chain is playing out in these dimensions it is undetectable for us. So in fact this ALREADY IS under the scrutiny of science and defined as a natural property. This shows that the distinction between natural and supernatural is not that relevant in Kim's argument.

IMO it is foolish of Kim to proof a negative, i.e. that the supernatural can be ruled out by a logical argument. But that is exactly what he does. Also I can imagine other approaches in attacking his claim, for in the realm of speculation all is possible.

---

I agree with you in that Kim's chain of reasoning has flaws.
But by the same argument: How could we rule the existence of god out? I think the burden of proof lies on the other side: A materialistic view explains our behavior very well (and better each day) - so why do we need the concept of souls or of god?
If anyone can come up with physical evidence for a soul, I will believe in its existence - otherwise no!

You're right, we can't rule out the existence of the supernatural. But when we have not a shred of evidence to look that way, it is futile to fabulate about it. For, given the time to do so, I could fabulate a surplus of quadrazillion irrelevant supernatural alternatives, but would have no clue on what basis to choose one.