So the story goes. Not everyone believes it, and it appears that "we" can only know after our resurrection...and thus is evidence that we cannot solve "the final mystery."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science cannot solve the final mystery
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
We Never Know
No Slack
If there is a final mystery. That mystery so far is only known to exist in the mind by faith and belief, not evidence.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
And of course religion doesn't solve the final mystery either. All it does is proposed to solve one mystery by offering up an even bigger mystery as the solution, which of course is no solution at all.
Exactly why I lack a belief. Personally, I'm not sure any "truth" will be known. Maybe, if there is any existence after death, we will be just as ignorant of the truth as when we were born. Or not. Still what you and I currently believe will not alter the truth one bit. So why invest in any belief?
I did not say any different
Religion can be about "That" - God. Or religion can be about '"You". Which is mystery?
Max Planck said the mystery includes us.
We Never Know
No Slack
Planck said “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
Key word nature. Nothing about supernatural.
Maybe there is no final mystery. And if there were, who is it going to solve it, in your opinion?
Ciao
- viole
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Yes and that uncertainty is also interesting...can the knower and the known be considered as separate?
I have other reasons, perhaps, that lead me to believe that rationality is directly reflective of the nature of what rationality is being used to model. If we happen to think of rationality as being somehow independent of the reality in which it finds itself embedded then we might not realize that rationality is evolved to work in the reality in which it exists.
Strange loops.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
If you do find that please let me know.
I was reading one or another book (they are currently in storage while I am moving) that discussed how persistent systems seemed poised at a position (in phase space?) between order and chaos and maybe even at a measurable position. Sucks not having my books available...
To me this suggests that perfect order is fragile...and so is pure rationality without a series of irrational axioms that slowly grows as the depth and scope of a system of knowledge grows. And it also suggests that people who think they have all the answers never actually do.
EDIT: A quick summary of some of Kauffman's thinking (one of the books I was suspecting):
Chapter 20 "ORDER FOR FREE" | Edge.org
Last edited:
It may be a property of reality that we cannot fully solve the final mysteries the universe... but that does not exclude the possibility that others in the universe CAN do so...
Exactly.....
Self referentialism isnt logic which is basically what he said.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
A religion without a god is just a philosophy on life. I know of no philosophy on life that provides answers to all mysteries.
Well thats closer!!!!! And true!!!!
Well said. Although i am pretty sure fans if science and fans of religion argue over which absolutist is correct.Yo. Yo.
I have red flagged an uncharacteristic unthinking statement of yours. Science does not make absolute statements. We make and WE ARE THE ULTIMATE MYSTERIES.
Art is interpretation of that mystery
Religion is recognition and appreciation of that mystery.
I take my lead from Einstein, who in turn took inspiration from Spinoza.
Omg someone said art here. That is absolutely against forum. Policy. No art alowed just pure logic!!!
sealchan
Well-Known Member
It appears to be outside the scope of our rationality mathematics included, to determine if a rational system of knowledge can achieve a final understanding or not.
We may be reduced to having to oscillate between metaphysical metaphors.
That feels poorly worded and was either created or is being spun to suggest something that isn’t actually true. I see no reason to refer to “science” in this context. The statement “Humans cannot solve…” would express the same thing without opening for the anti-science spin. It does seem true that we can never know everything and the fact that we’re part of everything is one of the reasons.
It also isn’t clear what is meant by “the ultimate mystery of nature” either. That needs some wider context on the quote which the linked article doesn’t give (apparently it was taken from the foreword of a book). Again, there is the implication of something relating to “spirituality” or religion but no indication whether that was intended or not, either when it was initially written or as it is being presented here.
Quotes presented without context so often suffer these issues (or misuses?), especially in abstract and philosophical contexts so don’t really offer anything that can be reasonably discussed on their own.
Humans no being able to solve the ultimate mystery of nature first, is the sky is Carolina blue on a clear day at noon on the forth of July. On the other hand it is no mystery at all and our physical existence is simply eternal and as we see it and described by science. Our physical existence simply exists nothing less and nothing more.