Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[Sample]

I don’t accept Stephen J. Gould’s term of NOMA, non-overlapping magisteria. Science is corrosive to any religion with faith-based claims.

And if it isn’t then the science isn’t being properly done!

Darwin’s theory of evolution and its mechanism of action (natural selection) does account for all of life’s complexity and sophisticated Catholic theologians accept this. I too don’t want to derail this thread, but appealing to personal credulity when it comes to difficult subjects is a non-starter and should be called out as such.

 

[davidv]

I don’t accept Stephen J. Gould’s term of NOMA, non-overlapping magisteria. Science is corrosive to any religion with faith-based claims.

And if it isn’t then the science isn’t being properly done!

Darwin’s theory of evolution and its mechanism of action (natural selection) does account for all of life’s complexity and sophisticated Catholic theologians accept this. I too don’t want to derail this thread, but appealing to personal credulity when it comes to difficult subjects is a non-starter and should be called out as such.

The only science that is corrosive to Catholism is that which is not pursuing truth.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

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

Amen to that.

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.

I see. For me, if I’m investigating something I really want to conquer, I’ll listen to opinions from all sorts of different views. In engineering I found that the best ideas often come from those who aren’t in engineering at all, who are not “qualified” but have hands on experience and good intuition. I talk to my psychiatrist about my spirituality, and I talk to my pastor about my mental health. Between them, they give me a lot to go on.

Kind of like Star Trek NG. We have the counselor as empath to read feelings. We have Data to do hard calculations. We have the engineer and the doctor. And when confronted with a mystery they all look at it and have something different to offer.

Alan

 

[Sample]

The only science that is corrosive to Catholicism is that which is not pursuing truth

davidv

Are you suggesting the science that vindicated Galileo had no corrosive effects on the Catholicism?

Certainly the Church is not 100% innocent for all the beliefs that were once held by the faithful as truth but now are taught as allegory? For instance, Augustine believed in a literal Adam & Eve. Just last week, perhaps two weeks now, Cardinal Pell of Australia acknowledged there never were literal people called Adam and Eve but rather emphasized the religious nature of the story.

Knowing how the fact of evolution operates, there could never have been a first human like Adam. That certainly corroded prior beliefs held for millennia. Some are now questioning the logic of Original Sin if there never was a literal Adam who, ironically, was punished for pursuing knowledge.

Science has eroded the “moment of conception” fallacy from being a previously held plausible claim to now, a strict faith claim. Yes this sounds counter-intuitive but science is like that. Science goes where the evidence is which, I admit, isn’t always comfortable for primates with big brains. Knowing there is no evidence for a so-called moment of conception (fertilization is a multi-staged, complicated process lasting not a moment but rather hours and perhaps days) doesn’t that erode the Catholic-fostered belief of a so-called conception moment? The Church, imho, needs to drop the conception fallacy promotionals and develop a belief that there is some sort of Yahweh-chosen “ensoulment” as that would be outside the eroding skill of science.

I’m sorry, but unless I grossly misunderstand the point you tried to make with merely 15 words, I disagree. Science, as I’ve shown, is corrosive to religion. The mere fact that there is such a thing as the god-of-the gaps argument is a testament to that reality.

 

[Sample]

OrdinaryMelkite,

You said in an earlier post science wasn’t your thing. If you aren’t scientifically literate why do you feel you are qualified to point out what you believe are scientific failings? You certainly would raise an eyebrow, would you not, if a Buddhist said Catholicism wasn’t her thing and then proceeded to say, “yeah, Catholicism doesn’t solve the problem of evil in the world.”

Please stop talking about science, and I promise I won’t talk about baking.

 

[Sample]

I’d like to ask, are there any trained scientists involved in this discussion? It is a discussion pointedly about the method of science. If there are no scientists around, I’ll be on my way.

 

[tonyrey]

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

And the late Christopher Hitchens, of course.

LOL.

He’s on his way out already! The brief experience he has sampled here has been too much for him.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Science has eroded the “moment of conception” fallacy from being a previously held plausible claim to now, a strict faith claim. Yes this sounds counter-intuitive but science is like that. Science goes where the evidence is which, I admit, isn’t always comfortable for primates with big brains. Knowing there is no evidence for a so-called moment of conception (fertilization is a multi-staged, complicated process lasting not a moment but rather hours and perhaps days) doesn’t that erode the Catholic-fostered belief of a so-called conception moment? The Church, imho, needs to drop the conception fallacy promotionals and develop a belief that there is some sort of Yahweh-chosen “ensoulment” as that would be outside the eroding skill of science.

What’s the big deal? Is there anything the church says is OK before the “moment of conception” but not after? How is the idea of a “moment of conception” misleading anybody, and btw tell me precisely how long a “moment” is. Within seven digits, please – after all this is science we’re talking, right? I think it’s somewhere between “a sec” and “a jiffy,” myself.

I’m sorry, but unless I grossly misunderstand the point you tried to make with merely 15 words, I disagree. Science, as I’ve shown, is corrosive to religion. The mere fact that there is such a thing as the god-of-the gaps argument is a testament to that reality.

Science is corrosive to religion? Are you saying religion is less because of science? Let’s listen to one of the great minds of science. Of course if it doesn’t make your point you can reject it:

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

Please explain where the scientific evidence shows Einstein to be wrong on this.

I’d like to ask, are there any trained scientists involved in this discussion? It is a discussion pointedly about the method of science. If there are no scientists around, I’ll be on my way.

I am. Are you? If not, then you have my permission to be on your way.

Alan

 

[tonyrey]

The mere fact that there is such a thing as the god-of-the gaps argument is a testament to that reality.

The mere fact that there is such a thing as “science will explain everything” argument is a testament to the falsity of scientism - given that it cannot even explain itself!

 

[Sample]

How is the idea of a “moment of conception” misleading anybody

Because it’s a fallacy.

Please explain where the scientific evidence shows Einstein to be wrong on this

False equivalence.

I am.

Can you highlight any mistakes you’ve made recently in this forum that directly relate to shortcomings in scientific literacy rather than faith?

Does it matter to you if I am a scientist? Let me know why it should. It does matter to me when self-professed non-scientists nevertheless appear to think that gives them license to make claims about a method they know little about and furthermore, and here’s the kicker, be supported by you, a self-professed scientist. Can I get an amen Alan?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The mere fact that there is such a thing as “science will explain everything” argument is a testament to the falsity of scientism - given that it cannot even explain itself!

Wait a minute. Who said science “will” discover all of reality? That’s stupid. :whacky:

I thought the question was, “can” it explain reality.

There is no such thing as “all” of reality unless you start defining zoom levels quite precisely, and what constitutes “all” because “all of reality” can’t be described using the alphabet in any number of scientific, philosophical, religious, and other types of claims. And if it could be, it would change, once having been described. (Quantum physics shows this actually happens on a subatomic basis – and we’ve known about it for decades – particles behaving in a simpler way when watched than not.)

I mean if you zoom out far enough, all I have to do is say “God is Love, and Jesus is God” and I’ve captured Christianity. “Stuff is” captures science. There. The rest is all details.

Have a nice day!

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Because it’s a fallacy.

So … you don’t know the answer?

False equivalence.

So … you don’t know the answer?

Can you highlight any mistakes you’ve made recently in this forum that directly relate to shortcomings in scientific literacy rather than faith?

No. Are you planning to show me how it’s done?

Does it matter to you if I am a scientist? Let me know why it should. It does matter to me when self professed non-scientists nevertheless appear to think that gives them license make claims in a field they know nothing about and furthermore be supported. Can I get an amen Alan?

Amen.

So are you a “trained scientist?”

Alan

 

[Sample]

The mere fact that there is such a thing as “science will explain everything” argument is a testament to the falsity of scientism - given that it cannot even explain itself!

Solipsistic-like constructions are not helpful. If you deny the corollary between science and the god-of-the gaps argument, fine. I would then disagree.

Scientism? Sounds like a religious codeword that comes up whenever one applies rationality and standards of evidence to faith.

 

[Sample]

So … you don’t know the answer?

So … you don’t know the answer?

No. Are you planning to show me how it’s done?

Amen.

So are you a “trained scientist?”

Alan

Well Alan, it’s obvious I am a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as such, you know what that means. I will be unable to see the error of my ways but, paradoxically will still overestimate my confidence in a subject that, objectively, others would say I am most ignorant about. Let me spare you from wasting your time with me.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Well Alan, it’s obvious I am a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, as such, you know what that means. I will be unable to see the error of my ways but, paradoxically will still overestimate my confidence in a subject that, objectively, others would say I am most ignorant about. Let me spare you from wasting your time with me.

Nice.

Have a nice day! :tiphat:

Alan

(And just when I thought we were moving ahead… )

 

[tonyrey]

Furthermore, ToE’s are not even are a promised end-game in the pursuit of knowledge.

Not promised but so firmly believed by some physicists they are prepared to devote their lives to it.

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.

A category into which physicalism fits perfectly! How do you detect that a person is composed of nothing more than purposeless particles?

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.

My omission is not difficult to complete…

I am saying that the mind consists of far more than a mass of jelly inside our cranium which is unaware that it even exists!

There is no evidence to indicate self-awareness isn’t observed by one’s physical senses.

Do the physical senses have concepts?

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).

Has neuroscience has taught clinicians precisely which physical parts of the brain must be damaged to change your beliefs?

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.

1. In which part of the brain are knowledge, evidence, logic and reason located?
2. Do they consist of electrical impulses?
3. Is a person a biological robot?

 

[Sair]

Scientism? Sounds like a religious codeword that comes up whenever one applies rationality and standards of evidence to faith.

Pretty much!

 

[Sair]

Has neuroscience has taught clinicians precisely which physical parts of the brain must be damaged to change your beliefs?

That presupposes that damage is necessary for beliefs to change. It is not - exposure to different experiences and ways of explaining the world are quite effective enough in this regard. Having said that, damage to parts of the brain actually does manifest as changes to beliefs and perceptions, amongst other symptoms such as loss of memory and inability to recognise familiar people and places. Do you suppose that somewhere underneath these changes there is the “real” person struggling to get through?

1. In which part of the brain are knowledge, evidence, logic and reason located?

From what I’ve read, the frontal lobes play a major role.

1. Do they consist of electrical impulses?

Amongst other physical phenomena, yes.

1. Is a person a biological robot?

And if a person were a biological robot, why do you assume this would make them any less a person? Presumably all the capacities we associate with personhood would still be present - we just wouldn’t associate them with an independent, nonphysical soul but would suppose they are the result of intricate physical interactions both within the body and between the body and its environment. If it were somehow proven beyond doubt that all our faculties are the result of physical phenomena, how would this change your understanding of what “personhood” entails?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Not promised but so firmly believed by some physicists they are prepared to devote their lives to it.

I resolved to at least resolve all the fields involved – religion, science, math, etc. The idea was to follow up on what certain Thought Revolution leaders such as Jesus and Einstein.

I’m done with this project; based on my belief I saw the light a few months ago and I’m still recalibrating my mind and reality to better adapt to talking to others about it. ToE is no huge deal to conceive of, once you’ve tasted the kingdom. I first heard of ToE in 1982 when I was working as a military design engineer for Boeing and a physicist sat down with me for an hour or two and explained all this stuff to me. I started working on the theories in earnest less than 10 years ago. In order to even come close, I’ve had to study science, religion, philosophy, and other sources of good thinking from some of the stars in each field.

Do the physical senses have concepts?

Has neuroscience has taught clinicians precisely which physical parts of the brain must be damaged to change your beliefs?

1. In which part of the brain are knowledge, evidence, logic and reason located?

1. Do they consist of electrical impulses?

1. Is a person a biological robot?

Good questions. I recently saw a video, and I’m trying to find it to link to it but as of now I haven’t. It showed a scientist who did all sorts of work probing brains and stuff, and spent his career trying to find the “decision maker” in the body. It isn’t in the brain, or in the heart.

For example, they found they could stimulate certain nerves and a subject’s arm rose. When they asked what happened, he said, “my arm went up.” They told him to try to resist it, and move it somewhere else… so they turned on the signal, the arm started to rise, and the person was able to resist it and move to the side. So stimulation in the brain area that commanded the arm was not the same as the “decision maker” about where the arm should go.

The observer is still unobserved by science. Doesn’t mean we won’t find it, just that we haven’t found one yet – all we’ve found it all the places it isn’t.

Alan

 

[A_G]

Well, according to Websters, here is the definition of 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?

The physical world is the world we now live in. It was created by God in the begining. Just read the book of Genesis. So can I present evidence of there being life beyond death (a spiritual world, if you like) ? - Yes. Holy Scripture, the Word of God is my proof. The Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit is my proof. There are also many personal experiences which are personal and my business.

I answered the question, now tell me … If you are not a person of faith, then what brings you here? Ask youself that question. Maybe deep down inside you are seeking Christ. Let me tell you friend, He did die for you and for me.

"Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." John 20:29 * (New Jerusalem Bible)*