And bumping up against limitations and going down dead-end alleys because a particular theory theory leads in that direction. Even the math is limited, because we cannot create an entirely consistent system. Our tools extend our perceptions, but we stiull can "see"only so far into the ultra small and the ultra big.
I am not catholic but he is my favorite priest…Geometer
You know, of course, that Roger Bacon was a Franciscan priest.
And, of course, you know that the atom is mostly empty space … a nucleus surrounded by orbits of “electrons” … a statistical distribution of electrical charges. The space between the nucleus and the orbits is huge in comparison to the size of the nucleus. It’s the electron configurations and combinations that yield color and material characteristics … melting point and such. But the charge of the electrons fends off infringement by other adjacent atoms. What appears to be solid, isn’t … you and I are a bunch of electric charges with vast amounts of empty space … designed in certain configurations by God.A very good point.
Ironically the minuscule atom is now regarded as the building block of everything that exists - including the mind that discovered it. So we finish up with a collection of atoms that know they and other collections of atoms exist! They can even control themselves!!!
Not quite. Science and experimentation is based on causality. You can call it “faith” in the loose sense of the term, but really it is based on causality because so far it has never failed us in all of recorded history. If you can figure out a way to break causality, it would be an interesting journey indeed, but seeing as we have not broken it in a permanent way yet (and we have tried) I don’t see this changing.Science is based on faith in the power of reason and the intelligibility of nature.
Almost. Some would say causality was created by the big bang along with everything else. Subtle difference I’ll admit.liquidpele
each nation’s interests are so closely interwoven with all the others
Some would say causality was broken at the Big Bang, before time began. What say you?
A fascinating point. Whatever became of materialism?And, of course, you know that the atom is mostly empty space … a nucleus surrounded by orbits of “electrons” … a statistical distribution of electrical charges. The space between the nucleus and the orbits is huge in comparison to the size of the nucleus. It’s the electron configurations and combinations that yield color and material characteristics … melting point and such. But the charge of the electrons fends off infringement by other adjacent atoms. What appears to be solid, isn’t … you and I are a bunch of electric charges with vast amounts of empty space … designed in certain configurations by God.
Imagine that. God designed us to be mostly empty space with a statistical distribution of electrical charges. Pretty clever.
That’s what happens with a God Who happens to be Infinite.
[Meditate on the concept of Infinity for a while. It will blow your mind.]
[There is mathematical infinity and physics infinity … and then there is God’s Infinity.]
Another problem with psychology and all the other fuzzy siences (socialogy, political science, etc.) is deveolping reproducable experiments and mathimatical descriptions. This is why physics, chemistry, and (to an extent) biology are so well defined and other sciences less so.
, either my mind burns out or I might object to a continuation.
.Arrgh, why do people insist on making statments like this? Because one athiest friend didn’t like a particular piece of music?
. It is through a creative process, that we come up with our hypothesis in the first place. And it is through a submission to something much bigger than ourselves(for science, truth about the physical world) that enables us to ultilize our imagination and hence verify it.I don’t think respecting what science can and has achieved is predjudiced. I’m not sure where one would even come up with this idea.
. Science “almost” gives me faith 
You must have misinterpreted me. My question “Why this strange prejudice that the physical sciences provide the best explanation of reality?” refers to the physical sciences providing the best explanation of **reality as a whole, **i.e. the belief that everything including persons can ultimately be explained in terms of atomic particles.I don’t think respecting what science can and has achieved is predjudiced. I’m not sure where one would even come up with this idea.
Science is a dedication to truth, and at least for me quite an extrodinary achievment. Humans have an outstanding capacity to lie to ourselves. That we even created a system that would attempt to negative this capacity shows me how amazing human beings can really be. What we can and do give up, for the sake of something more(truth, love etc) is remarkable.
Science does not claim to know everything or anything for that matter. It is a search for truth following procedures that have been developed over time, to negate out tendancy to believe what we want.
People seem to really dislike science. Everytime I see a child saved through medicine, or an early warning system allow humans to move away from an active volcano I am reminded of how extremely successful and important it is to human life.
I have my theories on why people dislike science so much, but it is hardly predjudiced to accept and appreciate what scientific methods have discovered for humanity.
And, being a creation of humanity science ultimately shows us what we are capable of when we put something above our own measly selves. Humans are rather extrodinary creatures, despite all of our problems
Cheers
I went with what you said. Not with what you meant to say
Be more careful in future. I know I try to be.Yes, I think our capacity for scientific understanding does raise the question…how the hell could we do it?
Again I agree with you. We have a lot of common ground but in the end it’s love that counts more than anything else. Discussion about how it originated is less important than how much it dominates our daily lives.
Math is a game with rules we have defined. To prove something in math means checking if it complies with our rules.
I could kiss you. But I won’t, don’t worry. What you say here is exactly what Thomas Aquinas, as well as the whole Church, has said. The question of God’s existence versus the question of God’s nature are two entirely different questions. The former is a philosophical question and the latter is strictly and solely a theological one (i.e. a thing wherein the answer lies in revealed truth).
Actually, there was even a Greek philosopher by the name of Empedocles who postulated the theory of evolution around the year 500 BC. Saint Augustine, in 500 AD, also seems to think about the possibility as well.
Amen. I agree. What you say here is marvelous. However, I would say that “Science” in its more traditional usage dating from Aristotle until … sometime early 20th century maybe … the term has been used to mean "an organized body of knowledge." Nowadays, “science” just means the physical sciences. It used to include (and I would say that it still should be used this following way) systemized philosophy, theology, history, economics, etc. *So what you said above here, Dameedna, is true for all these other fields of knowledge. * Organizing knowledge in such a way is to deter our inclination and capacity to lie to ourselves. Amen. Aristotle would be kissing you right now too.
Maybe … would you not say that part of the role of science is to come up with theories? That’s what scientists seem to do a lot. If so, then theories have their place in science. There are such things as Scientific Theories.
I think what you are saying here is true. *Guns don’t kill people, people do. * That doesn’t mean guns are the problem. So given that guns aren’t the problem, should we rely on gun-makers for moral guidance on the use of guns? Just like how some people suggest we should rely on scientists (of the physical sciences) on the use of their science? Or should we listen to others knowledgeable of a different knowledge? Good question.