How far is the average scientist or philosopher from knowing “reality?”

[Robert_Sock]

I believe that even the best scientists and philosophers are far from being able to understand the world around us. For example, I believe that reality cannot be known while living in this world. This renders the knowledge of science and philosophy to be a figment of one’s imagination. Why do we humans believe that we have reality by the tail, and believe that we have the intellect and wit to understand things? It’s mind-boggling to think about what is reality given God alone is reality and that He is far, far away from our understanding. No amount of human wit can grasp the reality of the world around us, yet we make-believe that we can come up with the answers through science and philosophy. All our theories and laws amount to naught in comparison to “reality.”

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I believe that even the best scientists and philosophers are far from being able to understand the world around us. For example, I believe that reality cannot be known while living in this world. This renders the knowledge of science and philosophy to be a figment of one’s imagination. Why do we humans believe that we have reality by the tail, and believe that we have the intellect and wit to understand things? It’s mind-boggling to think about what is reality given God alone is reality and that He is far, far away from our understanding. No amount of human wit can grasp the reality of the world around us, yet we make-believe that we can come up with the answers through science and philosophy. All our theories and laws amount to naught in comparison to “reality.”

You employ the word “reality” with several meanings in your text.

 

[sedonaman]

I believe that even the best scientists and philosophers are far from being able to understand the world around us. For example, I believe that reality cannot be known while living in this world. This renders the knowledge of science and philosophy to be a figment of one’s imagination. Why do we humans believe that we have reality by the tail, and believe that we have the intellect and wit to understand things? It’s mind-boggling to think about what is reality given God alone is reality and that He is far, far away from our understanding. No amount of human wit can grasp the reality of the world around us, yet we make-believe that we can come up with the answers through science and philosophy. All our theories and laws amount to naught in comparison to “reality.”

After a particularly difficult-to-understand lecture, a student in a philosophy class once asked his professor, “Do I really exist?”

The professor replied, “Who wants to know?”

Likewise, you must be a figment of someone’s imagination, but just whose is unable to be determined because we must all be just figments.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

I believe that even the best scientists and philosophers are far from being able to understand the world around us. For example, I believe that reality cannot be known while living in this world. This renders the knowledge of science and philosophy to be a figment of one’s imagination.

Your claim is a bit bizarre, because it sounds somewhat circular. If we are unable to know reality, we are unable to know the truth. But presumably you intend your claim to have meaning—that is, you intend it to reflect something real? If there is no possibility of knowing what is true or real, how can your claim have any coherence? To say, in other words, “reality is unknowlable,” would seem to imply that you wanted that statement to represent something real. It’s a paradox giving us ultimately non-meaning.

But rather, on the contrary, as St Thomas tells us, “we can know the truth in reality.” If we could not, we would not be able to know anything with any kind of certainty, including the existence of God through natural reason. And while you may think that faith, without any assurance of reality might suffice, faith itself would be totally detached from what is real and therefore irrational.

God is the supreme reality of realities, and in knowing God, we can and do know what is real. Philosophy is not an abstraction; it is a gift from God that we might know Him through what is real. Pope St Benedict put it very well in a March 2011 speech:

“Neither material things, nor money, nor buildings, nor any of the things I can possess constitute the essential, or reality. The reality of realities is God. This invisible reality, seemingly far from us, is the reality. Learning this and thus changing the direction of our thinking, to truly assess how the real, which must orient all things is God, it is the words, the word of God. This is the criterion, God, the criterion of all that I do. This really is conversion if my concept of reality is changed, if my thought is changed. And this must subsequently penetrate each individual aspect of my life: in my judgement of every single thing to take as my criterion what God says about it.”

 

[runningdude]

I believe that even the best scientists and philosophers are far from being able to understand the world around us. For example, I believe that reality cannot be known while living in this world. This renders the knowledge of science and philosophy to be a figment of one’s imagination. Why do we humans believe that we have reality by the tail, and believe that we have the intellect and wit to understand things? It’s mind-boggling to think about what is reality given God alone is reality and that He is far, far away from our understanding. No amount of human wit can grasp the reality of the world around us, yet we make-believe that we can come up with the answers through science and philosophy. All our theories and laws amount to naught in comparison to “reality.”

As a scientist -er, engineer - myself, I think your making way too broad a generalization. Scientists and philosophers can have such a broad backgrounds, that its impossible to speak of an “average” viewpoint.

Most scientist study a very tiny niche in their field, and are perfectly happy to acknowledge the limitations of their field. Their are a great many scientists who are also deeply religious, and very, very few who are outspoken atheists. Scientist in general, treat there work as simply work, and it don’t let it unduly affect their personal faith.

As for a philosopher, it all depends on his alignment with the church. An orthodox philosopher will have a better understanding of the world than a non-Catholic or non-Christian philosopher. A philosopher, by the nature of his work, is more likely to put his personal faith in his writings, which makes his or her conformity to church teaching all the more necessary to measure his objective understand of “reality”.

To answer the question, it wholly depends on the individual. The fields are very broad, and general attitudes would likely reflect the attitudes of the general population as a whole.

 

[carn]

I believe that even the best scientists and philosophers are far from being able to understand the world around us. For example, I believe that reality cannot be known while living in this world. This renders the knowledge of science and philosophy to be a figment of one’s imagination. Why do we humans believe that we have reality by the tail, and believe that we have the intellect and wit to understand things? It’s mind-boggling to think about what is reality given God alone is reality and that He is far, far away from our understanding. No amount of human wit can grasp the reality of the world around us, yet we make-believe that we can come up with the answers through science and philosophy. All our theories and laws amount to naught in comparison to “reality.”

Define reality.

If defined as material reality, science can understand a lot there. You cannot put a man on the moon or level a city in an blink of an eye without understanding a lot of things about matter.

Philosopher of course cannot know much about reality, because its hard to muse about reality when you have to first reason every morning, that the nagging feeling you perceive from the region what less strigent and possibly imaginary people call “stomach” could be somehow connected to the brown long thing still on that other thing and that sopmehow by using that sharp something on that brown is a reasonable way to make your thinking clearer.
Pseudo-philosophers often claim mauch knowledge about reality.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Your claim is a bit bizarre, because it sounds somewhat circular. If we are unable to know reality, we are unable to know the truth. But presumably you intend your claim to have meaning—that is, you intend it to reflect something real? If there is no possibility of knowing what is true or real, how can your claim have any coherence? To say, in other words, “reality is unknowlable,” would seem to imply that you wanted that statement to represent something real. It’s a paradox giving us ultimately non-meaning.

Yes, we can know some truth and reality, but this truth and reality is a drop in the bucket compared to the truths and reality that we do not know. For example, what if you were to find out that there exists an underworld of vastly more intelligent human beings that make technology (such as computer tech.) come about? Would not this additional knowledge necessarily make your current knowledge of our earthly reality much different than what you once supposed?

God is the supreme reality of realities, and in knowing God, we can and do know what is real.

Can we possibly know God in that great a way? For example, the creation of the world is very real, but we remain ignorant on the reality of how God created the world. Indeed, we remain ignorant of the goings on in Heaven even though we believe that such a state of existence really exists.

Bottom line: Except in insignificant instances, we are ignorant as to what is reality!

 

[Robert_Sock]

Define reality.

I chose a more general definition of reality from the Oxford English Dictionary: The state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

Hi Robert;

Thanks for the clarification. What a very interesting post! I am quite fascinated by questions of reality and I thank you for posting this.

Would not this additional knowledge necessarily make your current knowledge of our earthly reality much different than what you once supposed?

Yes, I think you have a point: there is always the chance we might have gotten things wrong and we need to correct our thinking. Just the other day, I was reading that some scientists were claiming that coffee is good for you. They were saying something totally different a few years back! There are all kinds of examples like this which supports what you are saying, and shows that human reason is fallible on its own.

But I should also point out that this kind of knowledge is not philosophical knowledge. Philosophical knowledge, as Aristotle tells us, aims at discovering what he calls ‘first principles’ and then building on this to build a reliable picture of reality. This kind of knowledge is reliable and doesn’t change—even if we were to discover your underground computer tech. For example, mathematical knowledge, or the fact of God’s existence, is not going to change regardless of the discoveries we make in the universe.

Can we possibly know God in that great a way? For example, the creation of the world is very real, but we remain ignorant on the reality of how God created the world. Indeed, we remain ignorant of the goings on in Heaven even though we believe that such a state of existence really exists. Bottom line: Except in insignificant instances, we are ignorant as to what is reality!

You are absolutely right of course, again. We cannot possibly have total knowledge of God’s nature. But again, this fact does not mean that we can’t know anything true about God. We can, for example, know that He exists. We can know other things, too, that are revealed to us, especially through the person of Jesus Christ.

So while I agree with your broad strokes, are you also wanting to suggest that we cannot know things about God and reality through revelation and the Church?

 

[tonyrey]

Define reality.

If defined as material reality, science can understand a lot there. You cannot put a man on the moon or level a city in an blink of an eye without understanding a lot of things about matter.

Philosopher of course cannot know much about reality, because its hard to muse about reality when you have to first reason every morning, that the nagging feeling you perceive from the region what less strigent and possibly imaginary people call “stomach” could be somehow connected to the brown long thing still on that other thing and that sopmehow by using that sharp something on that brown is a reasonable way to make your thinking clearer.
Pseudo-philosophers often claim mauch knowledge about reality.

If philosophy gives us such little insight into reality then science gives us even less because science is based on philosophical principles - and restricted to physical reality. Science didn’t create itself…

 

[Robert_Sock]

So while I agree with your broad strokes, are you also wanting to suggest that we cannot know things about God and reality through revelation and the Church?

Thank you for your kind remarks!

Yes, I surely do believe that we can know things about God and reality through revelation and the Church!

 

[ricmat]

I believe that even the best scientists and philosophers are far from being able to understand the world around us. For example, I believe that reality cannot be known while living in this world. This renders the knowledge of science and philosophy to be a figment of one’s imagination. Why do we humans believe that we have reality by the tail, and believe that we have the intellect and wit to understand things? It’s mind-boggling to think about what is reality given God alone is reality and that He is far, far away from our understanding. No amount of human wit can grasp the reality of the world around us, yet we make-believe that we can come up with the answers through science and philosophy. All our theories and laws amount to naught in comparison to “reality.”

I agree with all you say, except that I’m a bit more optimistic for philosophy. Primarily because philosophy includes transcendent concepts, and science limits itself to what can be measured.

Scientific explanations of reality are models. Years ago, the atom was considered the smallest particle. Then came sub-atomic models. Then came sub-sub-atomic particles. So what the heck is a sub-atomic particle? A probability wave is one model. So what the heck is a probability wave? No problem, that equation over there defines it. So the electron is a mathematical equation. Is that reality?

Western medicines model of the human body would say “take pill X and it will cure your disease”. Eastern medicine’s model of the human body would say “eat the following Z to increase the flow of chi from point A to B, and your yin and yang will be balanced, and that will cure your disease”. And in terms of success rate, both work. Which offers the best view of “reality?” Beats me.

No doubt some folks will see the above as fightin words. But I’m just thinking out loud.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I agree with all you say, except that I’m a bit more optimistic for philosophy. Primarily because philosophy includes transcendent concepts, and science limits itself to what can be measured.

Yeah, I probably should not have attacked philosophy.

 

[tonyrey]

Yeah, I probably should not have attacked philosophy.

You would have had no reason to be here if you had continued to disparage it!

 

[carn]

If philosophy gives us such little insight into reality then science gives us even less because science is based on philosophical principles - and restricted to physical reality.

And philosophy is not?

The phiolosopher cannot reason about anything if he does not derive from the observation, that the last 1000 days eating some bread made that hunger feeling go away and enabled to concentrate more on thinking, that eating a bread today would be a good idea if he wants to gather some insights into the deeper meaning of reality.

And science does not need any assumptions except that such patterns occur and can be derived. So all philosophers at all times accepted the basics of science long before they wrote their first word.So if they then write words about why obeservation and so on do not allow to conclude things about reality, they are simply dishonest and i ignore them.

Therefore according to my impression there are very few if any serious philosophers. Either they are inconsistent or they accept science basics as an unproven assumption anyway or they spend a lot time each morning trying to decide what to do about that feeling in their stomach.

 

[tonyrey]

If philosophy gives us such little insight into reality then science gives us even less because science is based on philosophical principles - and restricted to physical reality.

Philosophy is certainly not restricted to physical reality. If it were you would have no control over your thoughts and conclusions…

The phiolosopher cannot reason about anything if he does not derive from the observation, that the last 1000 days eating some bread made that hunger feeling go away and enabled to concentrate more on thinking, that eating a bread today would be a good idea if he wants to gather some insights into the deeper meaning of reality.

Reasoning does not depend on physical events but on insight, intuition and inspiration.

And science does not need any assumptions except that such patterns occur and can be derived. So all philosophers at all times accepted the basics of science long before they wrote their first word.So if they then write words about why obeservation and so on do not allow to conclude things about reality, they are simply dishonest and i ignore them.

Science is based on the assumption that reality is intelligible.

Therefore according to my impression there are very few if any serious philosophers. Either they are inconsistent or they accept science basics as an unproven assumption anyway or they spend a lot time each morning trying to decide what to do about that feeling in their stomach.

Those who reject philosophy are inconsistent because all their conclusions have no rational foundation. Logic doesn’t depend on what happens in a test tube!

 

[carn]

Philosophy is certainly not restricted to physical reality.

Considering that so far only people with functioning brains came up with philosophical ideas and “people” with dead brains do not voice or write down philosophical ideas, that assumption seems questionable.

If it were you would have no control over your thoughts and conclusions…

Why?
I just know, that whatever “i” is, its functioning depends a lot of the functioning of what i call “my physical body”. How can one conclude, that it does not depent solely on that body?
In that case human philosophy would be restricted to physical reality, as all thoughts would be nothing but specific interactions inside a human brain.

Reasoning does not depend on physical events but on insight, intuition and inspiration.
Science is based on the assumption that reality is intelligible.

Yes.
And every philosopher eating a bread so hunger does not distracts him from thinking assumes that reality, specifically the aspects relevant for his nutrition, are intelligible. If not, why should he eat if he is hungry?

Those who reject philosophy are inconsistent because all their conclusions have no rational foundation. Logic doesn’t depend on what happens in a test tube!

And how can you decide based on logic alone, that your hunger goes away when you eat that bread?

Logic does not work without assumptions. And the moment you do anything,even just thinking, you already assume something (e.g. that you are capable of thinking). And as i know of no philosopher who starved (and hereby i assume that my knowledge in that respect is sufficient), because he was uncertain about the existence of bread and its relevance for hunger, i logically conclude, that they all accepted the existence of a real world beyond their minds and they accepted that this world is guided by at least partly intelligible rules (e.g. if you do not eat, you stay hungry).

 

[tonyrey]

Philosophy is certainly not restricted to physical reality.

You are assuming that mind = brain. You are also assuming that the only rational beings are human beings - without explaining how the power of reason originated.

If it were you would have no control over your thoughts and conclusions…

Why?I just know, that whatever “i” is, its functioning depends a lot of the functioning of what i call “my physical body”.

“a lot” is not “all”.

How can one conclude, that it does not depent solely on that body?

In that case human philosophy would be restricted to physical reality, as all thoughts would be nothing but specific interactions inside a human brain.

Reasoning does not depend on physical events but on insight, intuition and inspiration.
Science is based on the assumption that reality is intelligible.

Yes

That is a metaphysical principle without which science wouldn’t be possible.

And every philosopher eating a bread so hunger does not distracts him from thinking assumes that reality, specifically the aspects relevant for his nutrition, are intelligible. If not, why should he eat if he is hungry?

Animals eat but they don’t assume reality is intelligible! They eat instinctively.

Those who reject philosophy are inconsistent because all their conclusions have no rational foundation. Logic doesn’t depend on what happens in a test tube!
And how can you decide based on logic alone, that your hunger goes away when you eat that bread?

Neither hunger nor any other physical state explains logic.

Logic does not work without assumptions. And the moment you do anything,even just thinking, you already assume something (e.g. that you are capable of thinking).

Which is not scientifically explicable.

And as i know of no philosopher who starved (and hereby i assume that my knowledge in that respect is sufficient), because he was uncertain about the existence of bread and its relevance for hunger, i logically conclude, that they all accepted the existence of a real world beyond their minds and they accepted that this world is guided by at least partly intelligible rules (e.g. if you do not eat, you stay hungry).

I haven’t questioned the existence of a real world. I have simply pointed out that physical causes do not explain insight and the power of reason.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friends ,

… reality = love , and non - reality = evil , every conceivable reality in our world and god follows these principles when properly understood , there is tons more to this but these are the ultimate conclusions in our world , as to god is love divine revelation says this and it seems true in our world , and our world has temporarliy been turned into no - reality or the delusion due to the problem of evil here until that is fixed , but really god is just unkowable and we will never scratch the surface knowing god for eternity but will continuously learn more , that is my opine in brief dearest friends …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[babylonsfalling]

I believe that even the best scientists and philosophers are far from being able to understand the world around us. For example, I believe that reality cannot be known while living in this world. This renders the knowledge of science and philosophy to be a figment of one’s imagination. Why do we humans believe that we have reality by the tail, and believe that we have the intellect and wit to understand things? It’s mind-boggling to think about what is reality given God alone is reality and that He is far, far away from our understanding. No amount of human wit can grasp the reality of the world around us, yet we make-believe that we can come up with the answers through science and philosophy. All our theories and laws amount to naught in comparison to “reality.”

I’ve long thought that we’ve been way too impressed with our presumed knowledge of how things work. We may have scratched the surface of knowledge but I’m sure we’re clueless as to the totality of what lies beneath.

It just seems that what we do know about the universe is about zero compared to the infinity of things we don’t know.