stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 15,844
- 1,698
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Scientists these days seem to think that they can claim a grand unprovable model explaining origins, cosmology, or even human nature, is science. That the process and probabilities with which their consistent theories explain things are sufficient grounds for estimating a thing to be true.
This is a metaphysical claim and not a scientific one. The science method is limited to measuring only naturalistic phenomena in quantitative terms within a closed physical world. Therefore It leaves a lot out regarding how we can know reality if reality also includes conscious experience and other ways of knowing. So methodological naturalism is more about epistemology (about how we should know reality) and from that its a short step to make ontological claims about reality, That's more a belief based on an assumption about what reality is. As science has been so successful it has gained popularity and become a dogma similar to religious belief.When did the empirical method and facts give way to speculations?
Science is good at describing the the world/universe in physical/naturalistic terms. But I think think this is a description of some sort of interface that we create to help us live ion the world. Being an interface its like a surface representation of a deeper reality that we cannot comprehend. Quantum physics seems to support this. What that deeper reality is we are still trying to work out.To what extent is science relevant to life, what is it helpful for, and regarding to what can it be ignored?
Maybe its got something to do with conscious experience where our experience can reveal more transcendent truths that has influence on the world. Maybe its Mind or Information itself which are fundamental. This seems to be a common thread throughout our history where we try to articulate this deeper reality in religion, art, stories passed down throughout time out who we are and our place in the scheme of things beyond what we see. I don't believe this appeal to something beyond what we see is an illusion or imaginary but something real and part of being who we are.
Science gives a description and doesn't tell us what is. So ideas like who we are, where do we come from and is there anything beyond what we see are beyond science. But as the world is so obvious too us and science is so good at mapping that out for good reason its easy to step over the line for people to claim that science is revealing reality itself and whatever it reveals is reality.Should we mainly ignore it on origins but pay attention when it speaks of viruses and vaccines for example?
I don't think we can separate philosophy from science because we cannot separate the scientists from the science method. Everything is conscious experience and of Mind. Science is based on the assumption that there is a real world out there beyond our Mind. But we cannot know this because we cannot get outside our Minds. Everything is in the Mind and our conscious experience is all we have. So the only thing we know is real is our experience of the world and I think this tells us something about the world beyond scientific materialism.
I once read that we don't perceive the world as physical objects. We first see meaning in the world and that is how we map it out. So an object like a cup on a table is seen as its meaning, it represents something deeper like food for life. Its not the object of a mountain we see but its majesty and as an obstacle and that's why people want to conquer them. That's why reality is not just about 'matter' but also about 'what matters' to us. This is just as powerful as the idea that reality is material objects as far as understand the world and ourselves.Since science can neither prove nor disprove theories of origins like the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and the grand theory of common ancestry why do we spend so much time discussing these life-irrelevant theories and so little simply marveling at the wonder of life, the universe, and everything?
Original comment from which this thread originated:
What I think is interesting is that as we have advances we are narrowing down things to the big questions like how did the universe and life come about. But at the same time I think this is where science is limited. In fact science has revealed a strange world at the point near something from nothing which steps beyond classical understandings of the world and now it seems are forced to introduce counter intuitive ideas about explaining these findings.
So in some ways we need science to bring us to these limits for us to begin to be open to alternative ideas about what makes up reality.
Upvote
0