Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[davidv]

davidv

I was talking about science, not scientists. Scientists are certainly vunerable to error and even deception.

I find it statistically improbable that in the history of what, 265 popes now?, that not even one was an atheist. I believe that the current pope may be an atheist. That’s my faith of course so please don’t assail me.

This is a strange application of the No True Scotsman fallacy. There is no such thing as good science or bad science. Only good and bad scientists.

I think you are still missing my point. What isn’t clear?

What does science do? It is a set of principles and practices. It cannot do anything.

The “door of faith” (Acts 14:27) is always open for us, ushering us into the life of communion with God and offering entry into his Church. It is possible to cross that threshold when the word of God is proclaimed and the heart allows itself to be shaped by transforming grace. To enter through that door is to set out on a journey that lasts a lifetime. It begins with baptism (cf. Rom 6:4), through which we can address God as Father, and it ends with the passage through death to eternal life, fruit of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, whose will it was, by the gift of the Holy Spirit, to draw those who believe in him into his own glory (cf. Jn 17:22). To profess faith in the Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – is to believe in one God who is Love (cf. 1 Jn 4:8): the Father, who in the fullness of time sent his Son for our salvation; Jesus Christ, who in the mystery of his death and resurrection redeemed the world; the Holy Spirit, who leads the Church across the centuries as we await the Lord’s glorious return.
Benedict XVI

Words of a athiest? Not!!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I find it statistically improbable that in the history of what, 265 popes now?, that not even one was an atheist. I believe that the current pope may be an atheist. That’s my faith of course so please don’t assail me.

Assail you? Are you kidding me?

For even thinking anybody would attack you for that, I hereby lobbest the Holy Hand Grenade in thy general direction!

Three shall be the number thou shall count, and the number of the counting shall be, three.

You’re welcome.

Alan

 

[tonyrey]

Interesting questions. There’s a lot of fascinating work and research which has been carried out in this area which answers a number of these questions. Especially regarding what it is in your brain that does the understanding, and where memories are stored etc.*

Some books by Daniel Dennett are both really interesting and also accessible to the layman. Well worth looking into if you have an interest in understanding what consciousness really is and how it arises from the functioning of the brain.

What makes you think Dennett is an eminent authority on the subject? Which of his arguments do you find convincing?

 

[Sample]

david v

Words of a athiest? Not!!

Irrelevant. It’s unlikely what I want to reference would make it past the censors so permit me to be more cryptic. There are hundreds of ex-clergy (not necessarily Catholic) on record stating they were atheist while in pastoral leadership positions. They talked the talk while planning their exit strategy.

The president of the organization has said if free training was available for ex-pastors (theology degrees aren’t of much use outside of a faith organization) he would have ten thousand members tomorrow.

I stand by my faith claim that the current pope may be an atheist, please respect my faith.

 

[Sample]

I was just in another discussion about faith and reason and a Moderator chimed in posting a link to TOU which showed this warning:

This ban is planned to be temporary, but there are to be no public or private petitions that the ban be lifted. It will be lifted only when the mod (yours truly) discerns that the atmosphere in this forum has sufficiently cooled. (MODERATOR)

This warning was from **2005! **

Facinating.

 

[A_G]

A G

I’d like you to consider a thought experiment. If a Hindu started a dialogue with you and after a while said, “well, that answer will not suffice when you experience the holy vision of Brahma the Destroyer” will you take umbrage and quake in your sandals or just shrug off the threat? I feel the same way with your threat. No biggie, I don’t believe that Yahweh exists. But your sentiment is meant to be a kindness I suppose, so I appreciate the thought in that sense.

Fair enough.

.

Thank you. I’d like to mention that I am skeptical of free will. It may very well be an illusion, or actually, an illusion of an illusion.

There is a difference. “Brahma the Destroyer” did not die for our sins. Those of other faiths didn’t either - they are all either non-existant, or dead. Jesus Christ DID die for our sins and He is alive. Big difference. I come in peace. With my earlier comment, I’m not threatening you, please don’t take it in that way. My point is, please know that Christ loves you.

Also, please let’s not drift off topic. I don’t think this has anything to do with the original question. I just realized that we are drifting off topic.

 

[Sair]

david v

Irrelevant. It’s unlikely what I want to reference would make it past the censors so permit me to be more cryptic. There are hundreds of ex-clergy (not necessarily Catholic) on record stating they were atheist while in pastoral leadership positions. They talked the talk while planning their exit strategy.

The president of the organization has said if free training was available for ex-pastors (theology degrees aren’t of much use outside of a faith organization) he would have ten thousand members tomorrow.

I stand by my faith claim that the current pope may be an atheist, please respect my faith.

There is indeed such an organisation, but it maintains its secrecy rather admirably. From what I’ve been told, it primarily serves protestant pastors, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say there are not at least a few Catholic priests who would prefer not to maintain the illusion. As early as the 18th century, there were such - like Jean Meslier, a Catholic priest in France, whose book Testament gives a thorough-going account of his reasons for dissenting from the faith, yet feeling obliged to continue the pretense…

 

[Candide_West]

What makes you think Dennett is an eminent authority on the subject? Which of his arguments do you find convincing?

Well you can look up his credentials on the Internet quite easily.

Incidentally his books don’t really provide arguments as such, just explanations. It’s not simple stuff, but very interesting if you can get your head around it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

We keep throwing “authorities” at each other as if we are playing My Dad can lick Your Dad.

Why don’t we speak from the heart? Let’s hear what these people mean to you, not just that they are complicated or over someone’s head or whatever. IMO you should be able to give out small examples of why you like it, or you haven’t truly digested it. Why should anybody invest the time reading a book or author that a poster who disagrees with them says to read – without any notion what it’s about?

Alan

 

[tonyrey]

What makes you think Dennett is an eminent authority on the subject? Which of his arguments do you find convincing?

Reasons are more important than credentials.

Incidentally his books don’t really provide arguments as such, just explanations. It’s not simple stuff, but very interesting if you can get your head around it.

A summary of a sound argument doesn’t need to be obscure…

 

[Sample]

We keep throwing “authorities” at each other as if we are playing My Dad can lick Your Dad. Alan

Where have I done that? That’s not my style. Evidence is my creed, not authority, consensus, tradition or revelation.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Where have I done that? That’s not my style. Evidence is my creed, not authority, consensus, tradition or revelation.

NP. The comments were not inspired by you.

Alan

 

[brumano]

Is the natural world not reality

Sarah x

The natural world is not all of reality, and science hasn’t even begun to explain a small fraction of the complete explanation for it. honest scientists will always be able to say; there’s just so much that we just don’t know.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The natural world is not all of reality, and science hasn’t even begun to explain a small fraction of the complete explanation for it. honest scientists will always be able to say; there’s just so much that we just don’t know.

Every good answer creates 100 new questions.

 

[tonyrey]

Where have I done that? That’s not my style. Evidence is my creed, not authority, consensus, tradition or revelation.

**Physical **evidence is your creed! Do you reject scientific authority? Or the authority of your own judgment?

 

[atheistgirl]

The natural world is not all of reality, and science hasn’t even begun to explain a small fraction of the complete explanation for it. honest scientists will always be able to say; there’s just so much that we just don’t know.

I disagree the natural world is not all of reality, but I do agree, and have said elsewhere here, we will probably never stop discovering more and more about this natural world. There will almost certainly always be more we just dont know. Yet.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

I disagree the natural world is not all of reality, but I do agree, and have said elsewhere here, we will probably never stop discovering more and more about this natural world. There will almost certainly always be more we just don’t know. Yet.

Then what makes you think the sole reality is “natural” (whatever that may mean…)?

I note that you didn’t specify scientific discoveries!

 

[atheistgirl]

I note that you didn’t specify scientific discoveries!

I wouldn’t have thought at this stage of our friendly and enjoyable exchanges I’d have had to specify scientific discoveries

Science. Now that’s Proper Rock N Roll :egyptian:

The final, and only, frontier

Sarah x

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I wouldn’t have thought at this stage of our friendly and enjoyable exchanges I’d have had to specify scientific discoveries

Science. Now that’s Proper Rock N Roll :egyptian:

The final, and only, frontier

Sarah x

Sarah, have you seen any scientific videos about alleged “mystical experiences” and brain wave patterns? How about the ones that show how anxiety and other emotions can influence the waveshape of the EKG? How about the electromagnetic fields from the heart and how they interact with others nearby? Certainly Star Trek NG wouldn’t have been the same without Troi, right? Empathy is scientifically observable and subject to experiment. Science likes to look at brain wave patterns of people doing various activities including religious, to try to figure out what makes us tick.

That’s all science stuff, but it is giving science an insight on the mechanism of religious experience in various types of humans. I’ve been a science lover for 53 years. I’ve only really studied and experienced “mystical stuff” for 11. I personally have reconciled them in my mind, like looking at reality with stereo vision and asking whether the right or left is more important.

Alan

 

[sw85]

Wow, I completely forgot about this discussion.

The point was to respond to the general flavour of this thread, in which many of those posting seem to hold science in very low esteem, since it is “merely” concerned with physical reality - such subjective philosophical discussions as people have regarding the interpretations and alternative relationships between various empirical findings would, I assume, be regarded as “non-physical” by those who consider science in this light.

I would suggest there are those who indeed do believe science to be worthless when it comes to considering questions of spirituality, for example, or the existence or otherwise of gods.

OK, consider again what we mean by “science”: an epistemological methodology concerned with the natural world. If spirituality is not concerned with the natural world (hint: it isn’t, hence "spirit"uality), then clearly science shouldn’t have much to tell us about spirituality.

Not nothing, of course. It can provide context.

What I would ask is that if such is the case, how exactly does one discern the content of a field of study such as spirituality or theology? What is it, exactly, that makes theology, for example, different to something like literary criticism?

Is this a serious question?

Consider two possible points of view on the proposition that we are spiritual beings: one point of view - the supernaturalist point of view - takes as a fundamental premise the idea that there is some aspect of the human animal (not that they’d call us that!) that is not physical, that is, in fact, not in any way bound by laws of physics and yet is able to act to control the actions of the body it inhabits; and also able to sense the “higher” things of the universe, such as love, beauty, justice (which have an ideal existence all of their own) and connect with God, who is “pure spirit”, whilst we are adulterated by the flesh.

That is not, in fact, the “fundamental premise” of theistic thought, but a conclusion of it. Are you familiar with the Platonic/Aristotelian origins of Christian thought?

You shouldn’t be bashing schools of thought you’re not very familiar with.

An alternative point of view does not adopt the premise that we are supernatural, but instead starts from the assumption that whatever we are, we are susceptible to explanation.

This can just as easily be said of the Platonic/Aristotelian origins of Christian thought.

Some would see the latter approach as “reductive”, or somehow belittling to human experience - if we are not really connecting with other spiritual entities, then we don’t really have spiritual experiences at all! Well, actually we do - it’s just that these experiences might not be what we imagine them to be. That doesn’t mean that they don’t matter to us, nor does it mean we should shy away from investigating them by whatever means we have to hand, for fear of shattering our own illusions. What happens if a scientific, natural philosophy approach doesn’t tell us what we want to hear? Do we reject it and just invent, on an ad hoc basis, the content of our philosophy from then on?

If you think all of theism (which predates the scientific method by, oh, eight or nine millennia) boils down to “I don’t like the conclusions of science” you should really not be posting here. Ignorance of the subject matter is not conducive to a good discussion of, like, anything.

Do we say, “Well, that explanation didn’t satisfy me - it must be that there are some other things going on that science just can’t discern”? What does it mean, after all, to seek the truth if not to allow ourselves to be confident that our perceptions and expectations correspond to what is really going on in the world?

I’m certainly not saying that. I don’t think anyone who really knows what they’re talking about says that.

There simply is no reason to believe that science explains all of reality, at least not one that I’ve ever heard, and I’m a pretty smart cookie. “If it can’t be observed empirically it must not be assumed to be true” is a methodological limitation, not an ontological conclusion. Again, this statement cannot operate as anything but a methodological limitation, or else we would run into the awkward problem of not being able to observe empirically the truth of the statement “if it can’t be observed empirically it must not be assumed to be true” and thus being unable to assume its truth. That problem is awkward precisely because it implies self-contradiction – and a thing which is self-contradictory cannot possibly be universally true!