An explanation is a vital tool in our pursuit of understanding the world around us. Its primary purpose is to demystify complex phenomena, making them more accessible and comprehensible. When we provide an explanation, we're essentially breaking down a complex concept into simpler, more manageable parts, enabling others to grasp the underlying principles and mechanisms.
Top-down explanations start from a higher-level perspective and work their way downward to explain the behavior or properties of a system. In this approach, the emphasis is on the overarching principles, goals, or external interventions that guide or shape the behavior of the system. Top-down explanations often involve positing higher-level entities or forces that influence the behavior of lower-level components.
Bottom-up explanations, on the other hand, start from the fundamental building blocks or individual components of a system and work their way upward to explain the emergent properties or behaviors of the whole system. This approach focuses on the interactions and processes among the individual components and how they give rise to complexity without invoking external influences.
Daniel Dennett's concept of a "crane" corresponds to a bottom-up explanation. Cranes are mechanisms or processes rooted in natural principles that gradually build complexity and solve problems. In the context of evolution, cranes refer to mechanisms like natural selection, genetic variation, and self-organization that work at the level of individual organisms, genes, and environmental interactions. These mechanisms accumulate over time to explain the emergence of complex phenomena, such as the diversity of life forms. Cranes exemplify the power of bottom-up explanations that do not rely on external interventions.
A "skyhook," according to Dennett, is a top-down explanation that invokes supernatural or unexplained interventions to account for complex phenomena. Skyhooks propose the existence of higher-level entities or forces that shape or guide the behavior of systems. In the context of evolution, skyhooks might refer to ideas like intelligent design, where an external intelligent agent is posited to have directed the development of life forms. Dennett's criticism of skyhooks is that they lack explanatory power because they introduce more questions than answers. They do not provide a detailed account of the mechanisms underlying complexity and often rely on mysterious or untestable claims. A skyhook is an imaginary device suspended high in the sky, seemingly defying the laws of physics, that is used to explain how things happen without any apparent connection to natural mechanisms. In the same way, supernatural explanations propose the existence of entities or forces that transcend the natural world and interact with it in ways that go beyond our understanding of natural laws.
However, when we examine the idea of a skyhook or supernatural explanation closely, we encounter a paradox. While these explanations might initially seem to provide answers to mysteries, they often end up creating even more questions and complexities.
In essence, rather than demystifying the universe, supernatural explanations often complicate matters by introducing new layers of uncertainty and unexplained phenomena. These explanations don't offer a true understanding of the underlying mechanisms; instead, they rely on vague notions that evade detailed scrutiny. Just like the concept of a skyhook doesn't provide a coherent explanation for how objects are suspended in the sky, supernatural explanations fail to provide a satisfying framework for understanding the complexities of existence.
This shorting coming goes beyond the mere failure to adhere to an ethic of parsimony, such as Ockham's Razor, and entails the active derailment of inquiry.
In contrast, scientific and secular explanations strive to uncover the underlying principles and mechanisms that govern the universe. While science acknowledges that there are still mysteries to be solved, it operates within a framework of observable evidence, testable hypotheses, and a commitment to understanding the natural world through empirical investigation. By focusing on natural explanations, we can avoid the pitfalls of introducing unnecessary complexities that come with supernatural explanations and instead strive to unravel the genuine mysteries of our world. Secular explanations that exclude supernaturalism are better equipped to demystify our experiences.
Naturalistic explanations are grounded in empirical evidence, observations, and data collected through systematic and rigorous methods. This empirical basis allows for a deeper understanding of phenomena, as it relies on tangible evidence that can be examined, tested, and verified by multiple individuals and across various contexts.
Secular explanations adhere to the laws of nature and the principles of science. This consistency provides a reliable framework for explaining and predicting phenomena, enabling us to understand the underlying mechanisms and patterns governing various experiences.
Secular explanations often involve simplifying complex concepts by breaking them down into understandable components. By focusing on natural processes, these explanations avoid the need to introduce additional layers of complexity that come with supernatural entities or forces.
Secular explanations contribute to the unification of knowledge across different fields of science. They provide a common language and framework for understanding various phenomena, allowing us to make connections between seemingly unrelated experiences and discover overarching principles.
Secular explanations are typically formulated in a way that allows for testing and falsification. This means that if new evidence arises that contradicts the explanation, it can be revised or refined to better align with the new information. This self-correcting nature of secular explanations leads to a more accurate understanding of the world over time.
Secular explanations are open to revision in light of new discoveries and insights. As our understanding of the natural world advances, these explanations evolve to accommodate the changing landscape of knowledge.
The secular approach transcends all identity categories such as race, religion, age, sexual orientation, making them accessible and applicable to people of diverse backgrounds. They provide a common ground for understanding experiences that transcends individual belief systems. Devote religionists like Francis Collins, former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, can attest to the power of adopting a professional stance of methodological naturalism while holding supernatural beliefs that inform his private life.
Secular explanations encourage curiosity and a spirit of inquiry. By focusing on natural mechanisms and processes, or "cranes" as Dennett calls them, they inspire individuals to explore and seek deeper insights into the world around them from a bottom-up perspective. Secular explanations extend to questions of morality. While supernaturalism is adept at creating compelling mysterious, it is wholly inept at demystifying such questions. Whether there are "universally" generalizable moral truths or not, we can be sure, if there are, the best way at getting at them will be through secular inquiry that excludes supernatural interpretations. Attempting supernatural explanations can be considered fallacious when it comes to inquiry and the pursuit of understanding natural phenomena as they can impede genuine progress. Attempting supernatural explanations can lead to a halt in inquiry. If a phenomenon is attributed to a supernatural cause, there's no motivation to explore further, understand the underlying mechanisms, or seek natural explanations. This stunts the growth of knowledge and inhibits scientific curiosity. The term "supernatural explanation" presents an inherent contradiction—a juxtaposition of words that, upon closer examination, highlights the inherent incompatibility between the concepts of the supernatural and of explanation. Explanation, in its true essence, seeks to unravel the intricacies of the natural world through empirical inquiry, evidence-based reasoning, and the discovery of underlying mechanisms. On the other hand, the supernatural resides beyond the realm of the natural, often invoking mysterious forces or entities that transcend the observable and measurable.
In the context of inquiry, it is a pretty ugly truth that a "supernatural explanation" stands as an oxymoron, challenging the very principles upon which the bottom-up approach is built. Science relies on testable hypotheses, predictive models, falsifiability, and the systematic pursuit of knowledge grounded in naturalistic explanations. Supernatural explanations, by their very nature, do not adhere to these principles, as they often elude testing, defy natural laws, and lack the mechanistic detail that constitutes a valid explanation. Supernatural explanations are indeed bittersweet, offering solace and meaning while clearly obscuring objective truth.
The term "supernatural explanation" ultimately falls short of meeting the criteria required for genuine understanding which includes the ability to establish reliable expectations and predications about future experience. To embrace the essence of explanation is to embrace the pursuit of natural causes, the exploration of mechanisms that operate within the fabric of our observable universe and play out in actual practice, and the continuous journey of unraveling the mysteries of our world through evidence-based inquiry.
Produced by Clint Warren - Aided by ChatGPT
Comments