Is everything really explainable by science?

[grannymh]

But importantly, even if science can’t explain everything about the world outside of our heads, that doesn’t make the existence of supernatural things any more likely to be true.

One can use what is inside of our heads to figure out the existence of immaterial/spiritual reality. The human intellect has the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[AntiTheist]

One can use what is inside of our heads to figure out the existence of immaterial/spiritual reality.

Claims about the world outside of our heads require evidence drawn from the world outside of our heads. And certainly the claim that a disembodied intelligence exists is a claim about the world outside of our heads.

If you just want to argue that god only exists in your head, like all the other ideas, thoughts, and feelings, you have, then I’m in total agreement – god is an idea.

But if you actually want to claim that god is an entity that exists outside and apart from your thoughts – well, then, you’re making a claim about the objective world, which is squarely within the domain of science.

 

[grannymh]

Claims about the world outside of our heads require evidence drawn from the world outside of our heads. And certainly the claim that a disembodied intelligence exists is a claim about the world outside of our heads.

If you just want to argue that god only exists in your head, like all the other ideas, thoughts, and feelings, you have, then I’m in total agreement – god is an idea.

But if you actually want to claim that god is an entity that exists outside and apart from your thoughts – well, then, you’re making a claim about the objective world, which is squarely within the domain of science.

Would you mind rereading my post 21 again?

I wasn’t talking about a disembodied intelligence, nor a god in my head, nor any domain, nor did I claim any particular results coming from mental activity.

Thank you,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[rvilbig]

Claims about the world outside of our heads require evidence drawn from the world outside of our heads. And certainly the claim that a disembodied intelligence exists is a claim about the world outside of our heads.

If you just want to argue that god only exists in your head, like all the other ideas, thoughts, and feelings, you have, then I’m in total agreement – god is an idea.

But if you actually want to claim that god is an entity that exists outside and apart from your thoughts – well, then, you’re making a claim about the objective world, which is squarely within the domain of science.

What’s interesting about the human mind is that it interacts with the “outside world” and can affect changes in the matter it inhabits. This reveals an interesting property of matter: it has multiple potential outcomes to its equations, only one of which may be actualized when chosen by a conscious will (this is quantum mechanics). Christians recognize that the conscious will behind the rest of nature is God’s, as Cardinal Newman wrote:

“The assent which we give to the proposition, as a first principle, that nothing happens without a cause, is derived, in the first instance, from what we know of ourselves ; and we argue analogically from what is within us to what is external to us. One of the first experiences of an infant is that of his willing and doing; and, as time goes on, one of the first temptations of the boy is to bring home to himself the fact of his sovereign arbitrary power, though it be at the price of waywardness, mischievousness, and disobedience. And when his parents, as antagonists of this wilfulness, begin to restrain him, and to bring his mind and conduct into shape, then he has a second series of experiences of cause and effect, and that upon a principle or rule. Thus the notion of causation is one of the first lessons which he learns from experience, that experience limiting it to agents possessed of intelligence and will.” (Grammar of Assent, p. 66)

In other words, the fact that our conscious will is required for the operation of our bodies necessitates that there be a conscious will directing the rest of the matter of the universe, since the matter of our bodies is not different from the matter of the rest of the universe. And so, just as I know that you, AntiTheist, exist apart from my thoughts and that you animate a body and type on a computer keyboard, so also I know that God exists apart from my thoughts, because the properties of the matter of the universe (QM, specifically) requires it. Make sense?

Hopefully this was helpful.

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[Shiranui117]

I would posit no, for obvious reasons:

Science cannot explain the various Mysteries that we are always witness to: It cannot explain the Mystery of the Holy Trinity, the Mystery of the Eucharist, it cannot tell us what awaits us, be it damnation to Hell or the bliss of Heaven, after this life, it cannot explain the human soul, or any soul for that matter, it cannot satisfactorily explain emotion or conscience or faith or self-sacrifice, nor can it explain many other Mysteries and gifts to us that we have been given.

 

[inocente]

I would like to read it. But for some reason I keep getting 404 Error.

The link still works for me, but I found this “reprint” on the Dawkins site for you.
richarddawkins.net/articles/472352-it-takes-faith-to-have-a-child-faith-in-mankind-s-purpose

 

[inocente]

This quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer from theopedia is interesting. He argues we should embrace science, not oppose it.

…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.

 

[stephe1987]

Of course we should embrace science! God gave us brains for a reason!

I oppose a few topics believed by most scientists, pending further evidence (macroevolution, multiple universes, alien life, etc.), but I am all for curing diseases and things like that.

I would argue that there is more evidence now than ever before for the existence of God. Atheists used to believe the universe was eternal (infinite amount of time for life to evolve), until we learned it had a beginning. The “cycles of Big Bangs and collapses” theory has also been proven false from the lack of mass in the universe (not to mention the problem of the universe being able to start over after such a collapse). The fine-tuning and uniformity that are so evident in the universe. If even one constant changed, life wouldn’t be possible. The universe seems to have been created this way on purpose. Humans arrived at exactly the right time for scientific progress. A lot of scientists actually do believe in god, but deny that he is a personal god. They believe he created the universe and left to go somewhere else, not concerned about us humans.

 

[grannymh]

The link still works for me, but I found this “reprint” on the Dawkins site for you.
richarddawkins.net/articles/472352-it-takes-faith-to-have-a-child-faith-in-mankind-s-purpose

Thank you. It presented another path to understanding human nature. I find myself meditating on it.

“It could equally be said that it takes faith to have a child in the first place: faith that we are here for a purpose, that we are part of a larger story that began long before we were born and will continue long after we are no longer here, that we have duties to the past and to the future that are not of our making — faith ultimately in the love that brings new life into being, that is the trace in us of that infinitely larger love that, we believe, brought the universe, and life itself, into being.” From link above “It Takes Faith to Have a Child, Faith in Mankind’s Purpose.” Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth

– The trace in us of that infinitely larger love – In other words, we are made in the Image of God

Perhaps what has happened is that science was corrupted by Cartesian extreme dualism.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[grannymh]

This quote by Dietrich Bonhoeffer from theopedia is interesting. He argues we should embrace science, not oppose it.

My computer is in a better mood this AM, so I saved the link from theopedia.

Of course, we should embrace science in the way it was originally meant to be used.
Scientific investigations, in essence, are meant to seek the truth of our material/physical surroundings and the truth of life, all life, including human life in its true, fully complete form. Truth is not a stop-gap. It is comprehensive.

Perhaps, the damage to science occurred because people confused seeking with actual explanations in material/physical terminology.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[zamboni]

Does the soul exist or is it just a faith-based hope enabling those who believe to hold on to the premise that there is a life beyond the one we all share at this very moment as we dwell in this transient state of mortality.)

The RNA in our bodies functions the same way that I would expect a human soul to work. We are wired for sound, in a manner of speaking, through our RNA, since it operates like a recorder of events - of data – of what happens within and outside of our bodies, then sending messages back out to our DNA based on the information it collects.

It also carries the data recorded by our ancestors, going all the way back to the original data — or code — written by the original programmer, or compiler:

God.

People who say they remember living past lives are probably just hearing the echo from the data deposited in their RNA by their ancestors.

RNA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rna

Messenger RNA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_rna

 

[grannymh]

The RNA in our bodies functions the same way that I would expect a human soul to work. We are wired for sound, in a manner of speaking, through our RNA, since it operates like a recorder of events - of data – of what happens within and outside of our bodies, then sending messages back out to our DNA based on the information it collects.

It also carries the data recorded by our ancestors, going all the way back to the original data — or code — written by the original programmer, or compiler:

God.

People who say they remember living past lives are probably just hearing the echo from the data deposited in their RNA by their ancestors.

RNA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rna

Messenger RNA: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_rna

Interesting comments. I would appreciate a bit more information about your expectations of a soul. I assume this is the spiritual soul which enables us to know and love God. From what I gather about RNA, its role remains in the anatomy. However, human nature is spiritual/material.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[AntiTheist]

In other words, the fact that our conscious will is required for the operation of our bodies necessitates that there be a conscious will directing the rest of the matter of the universe, since the matter of our bodies is not different from the matter of the rest of the universe.

But the matter of our bodies – and specifically our brains – is in a different arrangement than the other matter in the universe (say, for example, the arrangement of matter in the water bottle next to me right now). It is this different arrangement that gives rise to a consciousness and a conscious will.

The fact that we have a conscious will doesn’t indicate that all other matter has a conscious will, even though matter is matter…it’s the arrangement of it that counts.

And so, just as I know that you, AntiTheist, exist apart from my thoughts and that you animate a body and type on a computer keyboard, so also I know that God exists apart from my thoughts, because the properties of the matter of the universe (QM, specifically) requires it.

You’re big on this “quantum mechanics proves god” stuff, aren’t you? You see the exact same thing in those blasted New Agers, who seem to think that QM means that “The Secret” is real or that “magick” is real.

All QM proves is that matter works in different ways at subatomic levels. You can’t logically get from that to “therefore, god exists.” Sorry.

Stephe1987:

Atheists used to believe the universe was eternal (infinite amount of time for life to evolve), until we learned it had a beginning. The “cycles of Big Bangs and collapses” theory has also been proven false from the lack of mass in the universe (not to mention the problem of the universe being able to start over after such a collapse). The fine-tuning and uniformity that are so evident in the universe. If even one constant changed, life wouldn’t be possible. The universe seems to have been created this way on purpose.

You better be careful with those “seems.” They’re not always what they’re cracked up to be.

Seriously, now. The fact that the universe began to assume its current form at some point (The Big Bang) tells us nothing about what the universe was like before the Big Bang and provides no evidence of a supernatural being. And the fact that “if one constant were different, life would not have arisen” proves precisely nothing. If any one thing at all were different – including me not typing this post – the entire course of history would be different. This is a very popular theme in a lot of sci-fi stories that involve time travel. You can’t select one thing that you like – the arising of life on this particular planet at this particular time – and then evaluate things as if that thing were a goal all along.

I like to use the analogy of a bridge hand. Do you know what the odds are of being dealt a perfect bridge hand (ace through king, all of the same suit)? They’re something like one in several billion. But what are the odds of being dealt any other hand of any other assortment of cards (ten of spades, three of hearts, four of spades, etc.)? The odds of being dealt any other hand are exactly the same. Every hand is equally improbable – it’s just that we’ve arbitrarily attached a special significance to the “perfect bridge hand.”

It’s an exact analogy to what you’re doing here: any potential combination of constants is equally unlikely. You’re just taking a result that you like – the arising of life on this particular planet – and arbitrarily making that the goal. In reality, if the constants were different, perhaps a different kind of life would have arisen on a different planet. Or perhaps no life at all would have arisen. It would be a different universe with a different set of possibilities.

None of this implies any kind of creative intelligence.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps, the damage to science occurred because people confused seeking with actual explanations in material/physical terminology.

On a point of clarification. Here’s the full quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer

…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved

theopedia.com/God_of_the_Gaps

He’s appealing to us to find God in the body of scientific knowledge, to embrace that knowledge because all of it tells us of His presence. It’s hard to understate what a radical shift in worldview that is for some Christians.

Now, if you’re saying science itself has been corrupted then that puts us straight back into God-of-the-gaps, the very thing he argues against - we cannot pick and choose because it diminishes God.

But right on sister if you’re saying:

Neither those without the skill to interpret results,
nor those who misinterpret results for their own ends,
neither those who seek to dictate what is supernatural,
nor scientists who pontificate without evidence,
nor anyone else I didn’t think of,
will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:32 NIV, paraphrased just a little

 

[wanstronian]

Science can’t explain everything.

No other discipline, belief system or thought process can reliably explain anything*.

*Disclaimer: I assume we’re talking about natural phenomena here, rather than things like ‘the rules of Scrabble.’

 

[inocente]

Oh snap, the reference in #34 should be Romans 8:38-39. 32 is good too though.

 

[grannymh]

On a point of clarification. Here’s the full quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer

He’s appealing to us to find God in the body of scientific knowledge, to embrace that knowledge because all of it tells us of His presence. It’s hard to understate what a radical shift in worldview that is for some Christians.

Now, if you’re saying science itself has been corrupted then that puts us straight back into God-of-the-gaps, the very thing he argues against - we cannot pick and choose because it diminishes God.

But right on sister if you’re saying:
Neither those without the skill to interpret results,
nor those who misinterpret results for their own ends,
neither those who seek to dictate what is supernatural,
nor scientists who pontificate without evidence,
nor anyone else I didn’t think of,
will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 8:32 NIV, paraphrased just a little

 

[rvilbig]

But the matter of our bodies – and specifically our brains – is in a different arrangement than the other matter in the universe (say, for example, the arrangement of matter in the water bottle next to me right now). It is this different arrangement that gives rise to a consciousness and a conscious will.

Matter does not produce consciousness: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (Jn 3:6). This has been affirmed in modern AI and neuroscience investigations. Consider the Chinese Brain argument, whose conclusion is that arranging matter in syntactic (programmatic) pathways is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics (consciousness). (This is John Searle’s argument)

The fact that we have a conscious will doesn’t indicate that all other matter has a conscious will, even though matter is matter…it’s the arrangement of it that counts.

You’re big on this “quantum mechanics proves god” stuff, aren’t you? You see the exact same thing in those blasted New Agers, who seem to think that QM means that “The Secret” is real or that “magick” is real.

All QM proves is that matter works in different ways at subatomic levels. You can’t logically get from that to “therefore, god exists.” Sorry.

According to Heisenberg, matter is in a state of potency and can only be actualized by something already in actuality. God is the pure actuality that precedes everything (this is a traditional Thomistic argument). So like: is Schrödinger’s cat dead or alive or both or neither? The answer is God decides. Furthermore, many physicists and philosophers of the traditional Christian ilk see quantum mechanics as a continuation of our understanding of God’s immanence. See the works of Wolfgang Smith, Robert John Russell, or Edward Feser, for example.

I like to use the analogy of a bridge hand. Do you know what the odds are of being dealt a perfect bridge hand (ace through king, all of the same suit)? They’re something like one in several billion. But what are the odds of being dealt any other hand of any other assortment of cards (ten of spades, three of hearts, four of spades, etc.)? The odds of being dealt any other hand are exactly the same. Every hand is equally improbable – it’s just that we’ve arbitrarily attached a special significance to the “perfect bridge hand.”

It’s an exact analogy to what you’re doing here: any potential combination of constants is equally unlikely. You’re just taking a result that you like – the arising of life on this particular planet – and arbitrarily making that the goal. In reality, if the constants were different, perhaps a different kind of life would have arisen on a different planet. Or perhaps no life at all would have arisen. It would be a different universe with a different set of possibilities.

None of this implies any kind of creative intelligence.

Good point. This is why Ven. Cardinal Newman opposed the argument from design:

“[T]he God of Physical Theology may very easily become a mere idol; for He comes to the inductive mind in the medium of fixed appointments, so excellent, so skilful, so beneficent, that, when it has for a long time gazed upon them, it will think them too beautiful to be broken, and will at length so contract its notion of Him as to conclude that He never could have the heart (if I may dare use such a term) to undo or mar His own work; and this conclusion will be the first step towards its degrading its idea of God a second time, and identifying Him with His works. Indeed, a Being of Power, Wisdom, and Goodness, and nothing else, is not very different from the God of the Pantheist.” (Idea of a University, p 454

This is why the popes stand behind evolution:

“Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the lepard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil.” (Jer 13:23)

The answer is found in the Gospel of John:

" U]nless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (Jn 3:3)

Through baptism, we’re called to evolve into a new creature of God. So join the RCIA and get to confession and mass. Also, I’d suggest reading Dietrich von Hildebrand’s Transformation in Christ and praying the prayer of Saint John Gabriel Perboyre.

Hope this helps,

-Ryan Vilbig
ryan.vilbig@gmail.com

 

[edwest2]

But the matter of our bodies – and specifically our brains – is in a different arrangement than the other matter in the universe (say, for example, the arrangement of matter in the water bottle next to me right now). It is this different arrangement that gives rise to a consciousness and a conscious will.

The fact that we have a conscious will doesn’t indicate that all other matter has a conscious will, even though matter is matter…it’s the arrangement of it that counts.

You’re big on this “quantum mechanics proves god” stuff, aren’t you? You see the exact same thing in those blasted New Agers, who seem to think that QM means that “The Secret” is real or that “magick” is real.

All QM proves is that matter works in different ways at subatomic levels. You can’t logically get from that to “therefore, god exists.” Sorry.

Stephe1987: You better be careful with those “seems.” They’re not always what they’re cracked up to be.

Seriously, now. The fact that the universe began to assume its current form at some point (The Big Bang) tells us nothing about what the universe was like before the Big Bang and provides no evidence of a supernatural being. And the fact that “if one constant were different, life would not have arisen” proves precisely nothing. If any one thing at all were different – including me not typing this post – the entire course of history would be different. This is a very popular theme in a lot of sci-fi stories that involve time travel. You can’t select one thing that you like – the arising of life on this particular planet at this particular time – and then evaluate things as if that thing were a goal all along.

I like to use the analogy of a bridge hand. Do you know what the odds are of being dealt a perfect bridge hand (ace through king, all of the same suit)? They’re something like one in several billion. But what are the odds of being dealt any other hand of any other assortment of cards (ten of spades, three of hearts, four of spades, etc.)? The odds of being dealt any other hand are exactly the same. Every hand is equally improbable – it’s just that we’ve arbitrarily attached a special significance to the “perfect bridge hand.”

It’s an exact analogy to what you’re doing here: any potential combination of constants is equally unlikely. You’re just taking a result that you like – the arising of life on this particular planet – and arbitrarily making that the goal. In reality, if the constants were different, perhaps a different kind of life would have arisen on a different planet. Or perhaps no life at all would have arisen. It would be a different universe with a different set of possibilities.

None of this implies any kind of creative intelligence.

The Church rejects the possibility that things just happened somehow.

I work with some very creative individuals and have some friends who are artists and writers. The question has been asked: Where does creativity come from?

There are only two possible answers. A random set of events over a period of time resulted in an assembly of matter that can create, is one.

The use of a set of playing cards is completely bogus, especially when one looks at universal constants needed to bring about life and then look at life itself.

Divine revelation is another area of reason that we need. It is necessary.

God bless,
Ed

 

[zamboni]

I assume this is the spiritual soul which enables us to know and love God.

Yes, spiritual soul.

I would appreciate a bit more information about your expectations of a soul.

youtube.com/watch?v=r7MiG2fe8lE