1. 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!

Featured If Science Can't Answer it...

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Nakosis, Aug 2, 2022.

  1. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    30,535
    Ratings:
    +14,476
    Religion:
    Atheist, Advaita (Non-duality), Orthodox Hindu
    That seems to be the case with universe extending:

    "Size: 94 Billion Light Years. The most distant objects in the Universe are 47 billion light years away, making the size of the observable Universe 94 billion light years across."
    Cosmic Times
    (i.e., 94 x 5.88 trillion miles - NASA + Quora)
    That was in 2017. James Webb may extend the boundaries even further.
     
  2. RestlessSoul

    RestlessSoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    4,972
    Ratings:
    +4,149
    Religion:
    Agnostic Lapsed Catholic
    Can science help us feel the nearness of our creator? Can it help us love our enemies and forgive those who have harmed us? Can it help us find us serenity in the midst of calamity? Can it silence the chattering ego, which shuts us off from our true selves, and from each other?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    21,596
    Ratings:
    +5,630
    Religion:
    Islam
    The issue with that is, most of philosophy on morality came from religion and religious philosophers. So making that kind of divide is arbitrary wishful thinking.
     
  4. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    21,596
    Ratings:
    +5,630
    Religion:
    Islam
    There are also many who make just plain false "explanations", meaningless, and making facade claims as if they are found in reality. The group mentality in that camp is disturbingly bias. In order to follow through with prophets like Dawkins and other mentors on the internet, people make arbitrary facade claims as if they had divine inspiration.
     
  5. RestlessSoul

    RestlessSoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    4,972
    Ratings:
    +4,149
    Religion:
    Agnostic Lapsed Catholic

    That scientific theories make predictions about properties of the material world, and that complex technologies can be developed by the application of those theories, does not necessarily mean that those theories reveal truths about the fundamental nature of the world.

    Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking shared an ambitious vision; that physics could one day offer a complete description of the universe we live in. Both were frustrated by it’s inability to do so in their lifetimes.

    Astronomer Arthur Stanley Eddington was more sanguine; he saw the relationship between man and nature as a kaleidoscope of symbolism “transmuted by the alchemist, mind…the stuff of the world is mind stuff.” Proponents of the relational interpretation of QM (see Helgoland, by Carlo Rovelli) would have many things in common with Eddington’s perspective.

    Science has given us technologies, some good, some potentially catastrophic. We can say it works. We can’t really say on any profound level, what it is that works. We cannot answer the questions mankind has been asking in different formats for millennia;

    “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about it’s own existence? Or does it need a creator…and who created him?”
    - Stephen Hawking

    An atheist reading this post might wish to point out Hawking’s own avowed atheism. But that’s not the point; Hawking kept asking the big questions, and never ever tried to pretend that science had yet answered them. That’s partly what made him such a great scientist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. KWED

    KWED Scratching head, scratching knee

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2021
    Messages:
    6,424
    Ratings:
    +4,464
    Religion:
    None
    Depends what you mean by "answers".
    I suspect the responses you are referring to there are more in the nature of "opinions" rather than "explanations.
     
  7. KWED

    KWED Scratching head, scratching knee

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2021
    Messages:
    6,424
    Ratings:
    +4,464
    Religion:
    None
    But you are assuming that life necessarily does have meaning and purpose.
    However, there is no evidence or rational argument that it does.
    If the current explanations for the universe, life, etc are correct, then life doesn't have any inherent purpose or meaning other than the drive to reproduce, and whatever subjective meaning we give it through our ability to think abstract thoughts.
     
  8. KWED

    KWED Scratching head, scratching knee

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2021
    Messages:
    6,424
    Ratings:
    +4,464
    Religion:
    None
    But there is no "evidence", just unsupported claims, opinions, anecdote, etc.
     
  9. blü 2

    blü 2 Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    10,914
    Ratings:
    +7,185
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    No, as I understand the word 'purpose', the sun does not exist for a purpose.

    For the sun to have a purpose, something capable of purpose ─ of thought, desire, design and effective ability ─ is required to have caused the sun to exist.

    We know of no such real something, and we know of no reason why such a something might want, need or love a sun.

    Or a planet 92 m miles from it with water and abiogenesis and oxygen and so on.

    On which humans might or might not come to exist some three or four billion years down the track.

    It seems hugely more reasonable that the sun and the earth are just accidents within a set of accidents that allow life to form.

    If our sun has such a purpose, well, the universe contains maybe something like 20 septillion stars ─ what is each star that isn't the sun for?
     
  10. lewisnotmiller

    lewisnotmiller Grand Hat
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    Messages:
    22,827
    Ratings:
    +15,997
    Religion:
    atheist
    I'm an atheist. If I can take a moment to quote myself within this very thread...

    Science can answer questions, which is why I pushed back on your post.
    Science can't answer all questions, and trying to use it to do so is fraught with risk, in my opinion.

    Reductionism, for one.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  11. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    3,526
    Ratings:
    +1,538
    What is your best evidence for spiritual and paranormal?

    What is being opposed to scientism? You use a computer, a modern marvel of science? Are you ok with progress and tech from science and why if you are opposed to scientism?
     
  12. RestlessSoul

    RestlessSoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    4,972
    Ratings:
    +4,149
    Religion:
    Agnostic Lapsed Catholic

    Are you okay with the existence of nuclear weapons powerful enough to destroy every living thing on earth? Why not, as a devotee of scientifism? Is the H bomb not a marvel of modern science?
     
    #52 RestlessSoul, Aug 3, 2022
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2022
  13. RestlessSoul

    RestlessSoul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2021
    Messages:
    4,972
    Ratings:
    +4,149
    Religion:
    Agnostic Lapsed Catholic

    Yeah, you can quote yourself if you like, why not? ;)

    In science, philosophy, and just about every discipline, isn’t it more important to keep asking questions, and acknowledging the limits of one’s knowledge, rather than be content with answers which are inevitably incomplete?

    I would say it’s a (common) misapprehension of the spirit of scientific enquiry, to assert science gives answers which are incontrovertibly correct. The ground is always shifting under our feet.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  14. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Subway Stalinist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    65,218
    Ratings:
    +23,590
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    I think it's time for the Steven Novella quote again:

    "What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"

    We run into plenty of situations in our lives when we don't have enough information or time to apply the full rigor of science to a question we need to answer.

    However, any time someone - as you have - claims to be answering factual questions that "answers physical science cannot yet address," we should recognize that what they're really saying is:

    - their "answers" haven't had - and can't have - rigor applied to them, and
    - they're selling you a bill of goods.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. 1213

    1213 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Messages:
    4,710
    Ratings:
    +953
    Religion:
    Disciple of Jesus
    I can accept that the question has no value for him. For me it has value, because it shows how poorly he understands and knows. :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. cOLTER

    cOLTER Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2020
    Messages:
    2,650
    Ratings:
    +797
    Religion:
    Disciple
    Science is not capable of analyzing spirit. Religion does operate in a realm of its own.

    "Mechanisms do not absolutely dominate the total creation; the universe of universes in toto is mind planned, mind made, and mind administered. But the divine mechanism of the universe of universes is altogether too perfect for the scientific methods of the finite mind of man to discern even a trace of the dominance of the infinite mind. For this creating, controlling, and upholding mind is neither material mind nor creature mind; it is spirit-mind functioning on and from creator levels of divine reality." UB 1955
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,294
    Ratings:
    +900
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Do you love me, Mr. Dawkins?

    Is the question of no value?

    Sometimes, atheists--who are usually HIGHLY intelligent, say stupid things.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Yerda

    Yerda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    9,400
    Ratings:
    +2,232
    Religion:
    Nothing in particular
    Not at all. Science is one of the best things people have ever come up with but there are plenty of meaningful questions and subjects of discussion that science can't really touch.

    Consider the question, should same sex marriage be legal?

    I'm not sure the answer to this can be determined by experiment or illuminated by mathematical modelling. We have to reason our way to an answer by other means. Many issues that arise of a legal, moral, or aesthetic nature are similar.

    Maybe. I think we should stop looking at religious "modes" of communicating as primarily aimed at answering questions or providing empirical and historical context or even having a truth-value in most senses of the word. There is meaningful content in the holy books, imo, but not much of that nature.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. wellwisher

    wellwisher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    1,547
    Ratings:
    +519
    Religion:
    Catholic
    There is pure science and there is applied science. Pure science observes reality and then tries to explain physical reality as it is. Applied science, on the other hand, takes that knowledge and extends it into areas and things that are not natural or are artificial, such as computers or Hot Pocket breakfast snacks.

    Applied science is more willful and deliberate than pure science. It helps to shape physical reality, based on ideas and goals. Applied science depends on consciousness to come up with new why's and hows and then turn these into reality.

    The pure scientist observes and forms a theory for what is already here; naturally. The applied scientists uses this as a platform to add new things to reality. Applied science actually leads pure science, in the sense, most of the newest observations in pure science, depend on evolving tools that applied scientists and engineers design. If pure science had stayed pure, it could only use our fives senses. Applied science asked why not extend the natural senses with tools and machines? This why allows for deeper understanding, by means of showing the once hidden details. The pure science of optics was applied, to make a telescope and microscope, which then opened up observational reality, for other pure scientists.

    In that sense, all Religions with a creator story, suggest that God is more like an applied scientist, than a pure scientist. He began to plan the idea of a material universe, when the universe was still void. He had a problem, and a goal in mind, and figured out a solution to make a material universe appear; brooding over the deep.

    Like a computer, that is not natural and did not always exist, the universe first appeared as a singularity and from there it evolved via many parallel paths. This happens only after an original conscious deliberation and planning. It is no different than a modern applied scientist, designing and then building a futuristic eco-dome; a universe in a microcosm.

    Pure science cannot yet agree on a definition for consciousness. Applied science has not yet made the right tool to observe and explain from the outside. However, all of us can observed and use our ownconsciousness as a tool for many applied purposes. It is not necessary to label or catalog consciousness, to be able to apply it with will and choice. It all begins by asking why or why not.

    There is no artificial thing on earth that did not start with consciousness. It therefore seems logical that all the natural things also began with a form of applied science consciousness, asking why or why not and then forming a plan, based on the previous foundations of knowledge.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  20. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    22,908
    Ratings:
    +11,907
    Religion:
    None
    Natural and artificial are opposites.
    Therefore it's logical they start the same way.
    Right.
     
Loading...