Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[AlanFromWichita]

AlanFromWichita;9324884:

If you suggest to yourself that you will submit to the will of God by obeying the intents of the spirit no matter what reality you are experiencing, then you’re gold. God’s in every reality we’re ever in, and more, of course!! In one dimension God would have me carry out this experiment, but sure as hell not through this body on planet Earth as long as He still gives me free will.

My turn not to understand. It sounds way deep but I couldn’t catch the meaning.

I was suggesting that faith can permeate different states of awareness, and the Spirit, being in and beyond any particular state I might be in, has full access. I trust that the Spirit will see to it that I don’t make dumb decisions in the physical realm, for example, just because I think I’m dreaming.

So if I’m presented with a decision that would hurt me, it’s “no.” If I’m in a dream, and don’t know I’m in a dream, it’s still “no.” I’ve never really bought into the “pinch me I’m dreaming” thing. Hallucinations aren’t necessarily all that cooperative to give you an easy button to press to find out if they are real; I can hallucinate pain from a pinch as well as I can come up with the idea to pinch in the first place. And I’m using “hallucinations” to mean any experience that, let’s say, doesn’t statistically compare with those of the rest of us. Like you can hear voices I don’t hear because you’re crazy, or maybe because you’re asleep – same effect either way. You don’t want to make dumb decisions in those states, because you just don’t know which hurts you. For myself, a few times when very psychotic, I did things that hurt me or caused damage and later was amazed that I had done so – luckily not very often. And it’s always “seemed like the right thing to do, at the time.”

And I trust the Holy Spirit does take care of us, to guide us away from dangerous decisions we make just because we are temporarily unable to evaluate their consequences due to temporary state of mind issues. If that hadn’t been the case, I’d have been dead before I even got out of college. Like driving hundreds of miles overnight and not remembering because of having been slobbering drunk? And never got hurt nor hurt anyone else? Yeah, I do have a guardian angel, too!

Side topic: Man, I am sooo glad to be free from the grips of alcohol habit! :extrahappy:

This is really tricky and I’m learning it as I go. I’ve never before tried to put these things into words, so bear with me please while I bumble through this.

And I like your cartoon. I think I’ll SPAM it over to FB.

Alan

 

[Sample]

Well, science is the only method I’m aware of that has a mechanism for removing human bias and makes predictions to an accuracy of seven decimal places. Faith, on the other hand, can be said to be pretending to know something that you don’t know.

I’m curious about the implicit suggestion in the question that science might not explain reality. Wherever did you get that idea?

 

[tonyrey]

Well, science is the only method I’m aware of that has a mechanism for removing human bias and makes predictions to an accuracy of seven decimal places. Faith, on the other hand, can be said to be pretending to know something that you don’t know.

I’m curious about the implicit suggestion in the question that science might not explain reality. Wherever did you get that idea?

Should one choose a life partner, friends, a job or even somewhere to live on the basis of accuracy of seven decimal places?

Wherever did you get the idea that science might explain the whole of reality?

 

[Gaber]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/skynet.png
xkcd.com/1046/

Wow. Yep. the least explored and most valuable attribute of awareness is its aspect of reflexivity. It is a wonderful thing to look at: “If I see my thoughts, are my thoughts what I am? Or am I that which, unchanging, sees the thoughts?” Because the thoughts always change. but the part that sees the thoughts, that is “I.” It doesn’t change. God doesn’t change. So, do I look for God in my thoughts by chasing them around? Or do I look for God where there is what is most like God, since it is said that I am made in the image and likeness of God?

 

[Sample]

Should one choose a life partner, friends, a job or even somewhere to live on the basis of accuracy of seven decimal places?

Wherever did you get the idea that science might explain the whole of reality?

I need to answer your second part first. I’m not aware of any reputable scientist, nor I, who makes the claim that science might explain, as you say, the “whole of reality.” Please acknowledge that strawman.

If by “whole of reality” you mean something real other than what is available to our physical senses then this is a knowledge claim. Please describe that particular aspect of “whole reality.” Then, please explain how this knowledge is accessible to you but not others.

My point with scientific accuracy was to demonstrate that it is a reliable tool to discern facts. Not all disciplines can claim seven decimal places of predictive power. However, if you want to use faith in discerning information regarding the topics you mentioned (friends, jobs, etc.) go ahead. I certainly wouldn’t.

I would rather make decisions based on reasonable expectations based on prior evidence.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I need to answer your second part first. I’m not aware of any reputable scientist, nor I, who makes the claim that science might explain, as you say, the “whole of reality.” Please acknowledge that strawman.

I wouldn’t say science explains all of reality at this time. I will claim that science per se does not mind and in fact lives and grows by investigating anything, anything at all. Even totally subjective things. Even fantasy. Science is just as interested in your dream about an angel as is religion or philosophy.

That said, philosophy and science are not distinct, by nature. In fact, the highest experts in science get a Ph.D. – Doctor of Philosophy. If we’re going to make this artificial distinction, then we have to define it very specifically or we’re just having a strawman food-fight.

My point with scientific accuracy was to demonstrate that it is a reliable tool to discern facts. Not all disciplines can claim seven decimal places of predictive power. However, if you want to use faith in discerning information regarding the topics you mentioned (friends, jobs, etc.) go ahead. I certainly wouldn’t.

I would rather make decisions based on reasonable expectations based on prior evidence.

As an electrical engineer, I’ve worked with up to seven places, when working with semiconductors. You have to subtract two very large numbers and get a meaningful quantitative difference out that far.

I’m not impressed, though. Science can’t tell me with even one or two decimal places of certainty, whether it’s going to rain tomorrow. It can’t tell me the odds within two places, whether the woman at the bar will talk to me. It is working on it, though – through “game theory” like Professor Nash in “A Beautiful Mind.”

How big a deal a certain mathematical accuracy or precision is, is highly dependent on the particular quantity being measured.

Still love trumps it all, according to Scripture:

1 Cor 13:2
And if I … comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge … but do not have love, I am nothing.

Alan

 

[inocente]

But I think you just gave an excellent proof that philosophy cannot even begin to explain reality: philosophers can’t even agree on which is closest to the truth out of two such utterly different ways of looking at the world as theism or materialism.
tonyrey;9326421:

If that is the case we need to proclaim “Credo quia absurdum” for lack of rational justification!

Methinks that’s a false dichotomy. Paul himself says that our faith doesn’t rely on taking any philosophical position at all, that it’s all straw, foolishness compared to Christ crucified - 1 Cor 1:18-31.

 

[inocente]

I was suggesting that faith can permeate different states of awareness, and the Spirit, being in and beyond any particular state I might be in, has full access. I trust that the Spirit will see to it that I don’t make dumb decisions in the physical realm, for example, just because I think I’m dreaming.

So if I’m presented with a decision that would hurt me, it’s “no.” If I’m in a dream, and don’t know I’m in a dream, it’s still “no.” I’ve never really bought into the “pinch me I’m dreaming” thing. Hallucinations aren’t necessarily all that cooperative to give you an easy button to press to find out if they are real; I can hallucinate pain from a pinch as well as I can come up with the idea to pinch in the first place. And I’m using “hallucinations” to mean any experience that, let’s say, doesn’t statistically compare with those of the rest of us. Like you can hear voices I don’t hear because you’re crazy, or maybe because you’re asleep – same effect either way. You don’t want to make dumb decisions in those states, because you just don’t know which hurts you. For myself, a few times when very psychotic, I did things that hurt me or caused damage and later was amazed that I had done so – luckily not very often. And it’s always “seemed like the right thing to do, at the time.”

I think I understand the “seemed like the right thing to do, at the time”. I had a period of mild clinical depression, which is common but still hell, and in depression it made perfect rational sense that I (and everyone else) was worthless, while now it makes no sense at all. It’s strange to realize our whole worldview can change just through an imbalance of chemicals like serotonin which can be fixed by a medication.

This is partly why supernatural explanations don’t cut it for me. An alternative explanation is that revelation changed you, the Spirit has rewired you for good, so Christ can never leave you. Might sound a bit sola fide to a Catholic.

Side topic: Man, I am sooo glad to be free from the grips of alcohol habit!

Yep, the first time I didn’t have a drink at a party, and watched as people started slurring their words and losing their balance just so they could have a hangover, that was a big eye-opener.

*This is really tricky and I’m learning it as I go. I’ve never before tried to put these things into words, so bear with me please while I bumble through this. *

Personally, I know now that my depression was caused by doing too much, I got burned out, and due to fear of it happening again I’m now very wary of spiritual introspection. I think that what is really real to each of us can’t be put into words anyway, reality ultimately transcends words, so bumbling is good, it means you’re keeping it real to yourself and not losing the meaning by theorizing it away. If that makes any kind of sense.

 

[inocente]

Wow. Yep. the least explored and most valuable attribute of awareness is its aspect of reflexivity. It is a wonderful thing to look at: “If I see my thoughts, are my thoughts what I am? Or am I that which, unchanging, sees the thoughts?” Because the thoughts always change. but the part that sees the thoughts, that is “I.” It doesn’t change. God doesn’t change. So, do I look for God in my thoughts by chasing them around? Or do I look for God where there is what is most like God, since it is said that I am made in the image and likeness of God?

Agreed, as a Sikh song says, look in the mirror to see your divinity. Or Psalm 46 - Be still and know that I am God.

Sometimes that cartoonist blows me away. I mean look at this for poetry …

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
xkcd.com/162/

 

[Sample]

As an electrical engineer, I’ve worked with up to seven places, when working with semiconductors. I’m not impressed, though. And if I … comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge … but do not have love, I am nothing.

Alan

Thank you for your perspective. Love is not an experience restricted from me. For what it’s worth, in my experience, engineers seems to be over-represented in the faith category when compared with those trained as scientists. I don’t have hard data on that, but I’m always intrigued and perplexed when I meet an engineer who is also a person of faith.

 

[Gaber]

Agreed, as a Sikh song says, look in the mirror to see your divinity. Or Psalm 46 - Be still and know that I am God.

Sometimes that cartoonist blows me away. I mean look at this for poetry …

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/angular_momentum.jpg
xkcd.com/162/

I love this one, too:flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/444946736/

My normal approach is usless here. I tried doing the math the way the world wanted me to. But God kept putting His finger in everything, and calculating became quite useless. He/She tickled me everywhere in my seriosity. Then She took me wildly, and in public. I’ve never been the same since, always smiling and grinning like an idiot, appearing drunk to everyone, save God, who only knew I was in Love.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I think I understand the “seemed like the right thing to do, at the time”. I had a period of mild clinical depression, which is common but still hell, and in depression it made perfect rational sense that I (and everyone else) was worthless, while now it makes no sense at all. It’s strange to realize our whole worldview can change just through an imbalance of chemicals like serotonin which can be fixed by a medication.

This is partly why supernatural explanations don’t cut it for me. An alternative explanation is that revelation changed you, the Spirit has rewired you for good, so Christ can never leave you. Might sound a bit sola fide to a Catholic.

Here’s where I differ in viewpoint. Medicines can help the symptoms of depression, but I challenge they do not “fix” it such as renewing our mindset can. That is really all Jesus is trying to teach us to do, with all of His ideas about how to envision and behave in the kingdom.

My psychiatrist said that he looks at medicine like a cast on a leg. The cast holds things together and prevents further damage, but the leg must heal itself.

Personally, I know now that my depression was caused by doing too much, I got burned out, and due to fear of it happening again I’m now very wary of spiritual introspection. I think that what is really real to each of us can’t be put into words anyway, reality ultimately transcends words, so bumbling is good, it means you’re keeping it real to yourself and not losing the meaning by theorizing it away. If that makes any kind of sense.

My point exactly. We don’t usually get psychotic because of a chemical imbalance. My theory is that once we become frantic, such as by dealing with a-holes coming from all sides, the stress causes a chemical imbalance in us.

I love what you said about bumbling and keeping it real. You are absolutely making perfect sense to me. I think we have much to discuss, maybe outside this thread.

Alan

 

[A_G]

According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”

Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:
Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society.

Science is study to understand, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.

Science is wonderful because it helps us to observe and learn about the universe. God created science for our benefit, and therefore science and religion are not and should not be at war (as some people feel).

So, Can science REALLY explain Reality? In answer to this question, no. Remember the saying, “Science only goes so far, then comes God.”

 

[Sample]

According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”

Science is study to understand, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.

So, Can science REALLY explain Reality? In answer to this question, no. Remember the saying, “Science only goes so far, then comes God.”

Well, according to Websters, here is the definition of Catholic:

Cath·o·lic
noun \ˈkath-lik, ˈka-thə-\

1: a person who belongs to the universal Christian church

1. a member of a Catholic church; especially: roman catholic

You said science is study to understand how the physical world works. Is there any other type of world besides physical? Can you present the evidence for such a claim (if indeed you are making it) and if not, might you kindly reconsider your understanding of the definition?

 

[tonyrey]

I need to answer your second part first. I’m not aware of any reputable scientist, nor I, who makes the claim that science might explain, as you say, the “whole of reality.” Please acknowledge that strawman.

Have you never heard of the ToE?

If by “whole of reality” you mean something real other than what is available to our physical senses then this is a knowledge claim. Please describe that particular aspect of “whole reality.” Then, please explain how this knowledge is accessible to you but not others.

Everyone has direct and immediate of their thoughts and feelings that **cannot **be observed by physical senses.

My point with scientific accuracy was to demonstrate that it is a reliable tool to discern facts. Not all disciplines can claim seven decimal places of predictive power. However, if you want to use faith in discerning information regarding the topics you mentioned (friends, jobs, etc.) go ahead. I certainly wouldn’t.

Non sequitur

I

would rather make decisions based on reasonable expectations based on prior evidence.

On what do you base your “reasonable expectations”? Science?

 

[tonyrey]

Methinks that’s a false dichotomy. Paul himself says that our faith doesn’t rely on taking any philosophical position at all, that it’s all straw, foolishness compared to Christ crucified - 1 Cor 1:18-31.

A false deduction:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

St Paul was not denying the value of** all** reasoning; otherwise he would have been contradicting the teaching of Jesus who constantly gave reasons for believing:

Look at the lilies and how they grow. They don’t work or make their clothing, yet Solomon in all his glory was not dressed as beautifully as they are. And if God cares so wonderfully for flowers that are here today and thrown into the fire tomorrow, he will certainly care for you. Why do you have so little faith?

 

[Sample]

Have you never heard of the ToE?

Well, ToE’s are endeavors within the purview of physics. You are demonstrating an incorrect understanding of a hypothetical ToE. A ToE, for example, is not expected to explain how chemistry became biology. Furthermore, ToE’s are not even are a promised end-game in the pursuit of knowledge. It is perfectly acceptable to conjecture (and is) that human intelligence may never succeed in fulfilling the wants and desires of a mass of jelly inside our cranium. Ironically, faith is actually the method of pretending to know something that one doesn’t know whereas methodological naturalism vis-a-vis the scientific method is scrupulously honest and claims without evidence/plausibility fail.

Everyone has direct and immediate of their thoughts and feelings that cannot be observed by physical senses.

I don’t understand this. It’s missing a word after immediate I presume. Regardless, are you saying there is something more, in principle, than physical material in the brain? Please clarify your sentence at least or be my guest and elaborate. There is no evidence to indicate self-awareness isn’t observed by one’s physical senses. On the contrary, neuroscience has taught clinicians precisely which physical parts of the brain must be damaged to illicit changes in mood (among other feelings).

Non sequitur.

Fair enough.

On what do you base your “reasonable expectations”? Science?

Evidence. Or, if I must elaborate, knowledge and evidence that fits with reality attained by critical thinking and not being subject to emotion or authority (which never makes a claim true or false in its own right) but rather logic and reason.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

My heartfelt opinion on the value of debating science v. philosophy was perfectly summed up by The Zax, by Dr. Seuss.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Have you never heard of the ToE?

Everyone has direct and immediate of their thoughts and feelings that **cannot **be observed by physical senses.

Non sequitur

IOn what do you base your “reasonable expectations”? Science?

Obviously Sample has never heard of those obscure scientism advocates Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, Tony.

And the late Christopher Hitchens, of course.

LOL.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

What’s with all the limited thinking?

Science looks at ALL of reality. Its ability to actually explain any given thing varies from one thing to the next.

Philosophy looks at ALL of reality. Its ability to actually explain any given thing varies from one thing to the next.

It isn’t like somebody came out of the sky and dealt these up. Science and religion are simply subspecies of the same concept. Back in the day, science, math, and philosophy were grouped together. We differentiated into different divisions, neither division with the Whole Truth but each thinking it’s better than the other.

But today we’re so “specialized” that we think we each have the Holy Grail on the Whole Truth, when in reality, we (science and philosophy) are branches off the same tree, neither a self-sufficient way to describe reality.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” – Albert Einstein.

So for science to say it doesn’t need religion, is for the eye to say to the foot, “I don’t need you.” This is the limited, divisive, calculus, dualistic approach to Truth that Jesus is trying to help us get past.

Alan

I agree somewhat with you, Alan-------the thing is, Science can’t even explain the “reality” it attempts to explain very well.

An example:
The Eye.

I’m not going to attempt to go over the whole rigamarole that involves in evloutionary science over exactly how the Human Eye could have evolved if strictly (again, strictly) explained within an evolutionary, godless framework.
I can’t understand most of it, I’m afraid-----like I noted in an earlier post, science is not really my thing.

From what I understand, though, of the people who criticize the application of the example of the Human Eye as somehow “proof” of strictly godless evolution-the people who I have read pretty much have made arguments that have made me understand that those arguments are very weak at best.

(I’m not trying to derail this thread I started into a discussion of evolutionary theory, BTW. Just showing an example of the poor ability of science to even explain the “reality” it claims to be able to explain).

I agree with you that Religion and Science DO go together and SHOULD complement each other---------I just think that they complement each other in their own specific ways and should not “overlap”-----science should should relegate itself to explaining the mechanisms as to how organisms and natural systems work, while religion and philosophy should concern themsleves with answering what the reality that contains those organisms and systems IS.