S
Solus_vistor
Guest
This is one of the world-view presuppositions I described as Sagan’s in my post # 346. The alternative is the assumption of the exsitence of an Extra reality that is not in principle - it is very important that you mention this explicitly - accessible to science. In order to understand the difference between the two presuppositions one has to agree on what is natural (physical, material) reality that is “accessible by science”. That is a philosophy of science question (see below), not answerable directly from within science (physics) only.
Nevertheless, whatever that answer is, everything that science can even potentially access from within some valid (in a sense that also has to be determined) physical theory should belong to this natural reality “in principle accessible to science”. For instance, life on other planets, galaxies, distant parts of our universe light from which will never reach us, existence of other universes (multiverse), time travel and other things one can speculate about that science could sometimes, somehow explain, confirm - including those mentioned by you - all belong to the realm “in principle accessible to science” with emphasis on “in principle”.
So any non-trivial understanding of the supernatural - including the Christian understanding of God - would not be part of that natural reality. I think this is one of the main delusions (pun intended) of Richard Dawkins and others, namely that they assume “God” is “in principle accessible by science” (like e.g. life on Mars) and then provide arguments that this is most improbable.
As to how science/physics can see reality, let me first quote Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, from their book “The Grand Design”:
“According to the idea of model-dependent realism …, our brains interpret the (name removed by moderator)ut from our sensory organs by making a model of the outside world. We form mental concepts of our home, trees, other people, the electricity that flows from wall sockets, atoms, molecules, and other universes. These mental concepts are the only reality we can know. There is no model-independent test of reality. It follows that a well-constructed model creates a reality of its own.”
In other words, there is no need to assume the existence of any theory-independent reality in order to make scientific theories work. It does not follow that such a reality does not exist. It just means that science (physics) does not need the hypothesis of the existence of a theory independent physical world, though the scientist (physicist) will need it in oder to give meaning to his/her pursuit of truth, which is the usual description of his/her work .
This reminds me of the famous Laplace’s answer to Napoleon who asked about God, when listening to his explanation of celestial mechanics: “I did not need that hypothesis” or something similar. Well, today any students of analytical mechanics - believer or non-believer - can explain what Laplace did from within Newtonian physics, without having to assume the existence of God. So this is not an argument against the existence of God any more than what Hawking and Mlodinow claim is an argument against the existence of a theory-independent reality.
Hence, if we believe Hawking and Mlodinow, science works not only without the assumption of the existence of God (as understood e.g. by Christians) but also without the assumption of the existence of any theory-independent reality. The difference is that while on one hand the vast majority of scientists, including theoretical physicists, still believe in the existence of an a priori world their theories model, on the other hand today only a minority of them need to assume the existence of God that none of their physical theories can grasp, not even “in principle”. In both cases motivations that lead us to belief in reality - natural or “supernatural” - lie outside our scientific investigations. “Nori foras ire, in te ipsum redi: in interior homine habitat veritas” (St. Augustine).
In contemporary philosophy of science there are essentially two positions - that of scientific realism (that most of us, including theoretical physicists, subscribe to), and that of constructive empiricism. I shall not elaborate on the latter - this post is long enough without it - except for saying that it seems to be a philosophical completion of the position taken by Hawking and Mlodinow. And that its author, Bas C. Van Fraassen, is a philosopher specialising in implications of quantum physics, and a late convert to Catholicism.
Let me conclude with thanks to Sairs for his insights, and the post that triggered me to try to formulate my own position on these matters.
) – later discoveries cause us to reexamine everything. For those who don’t know what I mean, I’m meaning that Newtonian physics was THE scientific way, truth, and light. Then comes Uncle Al asking the highly explosive question, “what would it be like to ride on a light beam?” Newtonian physics is but an approximation of what we know now, rather than the gospel end-all of science.
A very good example of a non-sequitur “Metal detectors are very good at detecting metal” therefore “metal is all there is.” Unfortunately, many a believer falls for this kind non-sequitur: “Science (e.g. evolution) can describe natural reality, ergo there is no God”, and instead of attacking the false implication, they attack the premise.