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 Science cannot solve the final mystery

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by atanu, Jun 17, 2019.

  1. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,719
    Ratings:
    +2,746
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    #1 atanu, Jun 17, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
    • Like Like x 10
    • Winner Winner x 4
  2. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,573
    Ratings:
    +9,345
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    I don't think this follows, logically.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. Altfish

    Altfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,245
    Ratings:
    +6,413
    Religion:
    Humanist
    • Like Like x 8
    • Funny Funny x 1
  4. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Crazy Diamond

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    55,737
    Ratings:
    +18,542
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    Just because today science lacks the answers doesn't mean tomorrow it will as well.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,573
    Ratings:
    +9,345
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    So humans can't study humans, a thing can't study itself?
     
  6. atanu

    atanu Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,719
    Ratings:
    +2,746
    Religion:
    Hindu Sanatana Dharma
    Why?
     
  7. charlie sc

    charlie sc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2019
    Messages:
    1,097
    Ratings:
    +360
    Religion:
    Atheism
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Unguru

    Unguru I am a Sikh nice to meet you

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2018
    Messages:
    345
    Ratings:
    +129
    Religion:
    Sikh
    Just because you underestimate religion doesn't mean that you're right.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Useful Useful x 1
  9. Altfish

    Altfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,245
    Ratings:
    +6,413
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Name me one thing religion has answered that science hasn't answered better.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    3,503
    Ratings:
    +1,876
    Religion:
    None
    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. :cool:
     
  11. Valjean

    Valjean Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    21,573
    Ratings:
    +9,345
    Religion:
    Vedanta (reform)
    See post #5.
     
  12. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Be your own guru

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    19,841
    Ratings:
    +7,867
    Religion:
    I am an advaitist Hindu pagan and a strong atheist.
    We are much closer to the solution of the mystery of nature with Quantum Mechanics. Existence and non-existence are just phases. RigVeda knew it, Krishna explained it, but we stubbornly cling to 'maya' (existence), not understanding that it is just a phase.

    "sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛdi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"

    (Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.)
    https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

    "Avyaktādīni bhūtāni, vyakta-madhyāni Bhārata;
    avyakta-nidhanāny eva, tatra kā paridevanā?"

    (All created things are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, O scion of the Bhārata tribe; and unmanifest again when annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?)
    Bg 2.28
     
    #12 Aupmanyav, Jun 17, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  13. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    615
    Ratings:
    +232
    Religion:
    Catholic
    The last frontier of science is human consciousness. Science can explain the tiny details of matter, as well as the origins of the largest galaxies. However, there is no consensus definition for consciousness, even though consciousness is the tool which does all the observing and theorizing.

    How can a consciousness, that cannot agree on what consciousness is, use consciousness to explain things? Ultimately, all that we observe, theorize and know filters through that which is not fully understood. Conceptually, we cannot properly calibrate consciousness, to make sure that the science theory, which is used to define reality, does not have a biased system wide error.

    As an analogous example, say we went to an analytical lab and told everyone, "do not calibrate any instrument, for one year, just run your tests as normal". Would this lab be considered reliable, if everything, but calibration, is done by the book? The graphs may look the same but will be staggered.

    The ancients had a better handle on how consciousness worked, since the required introspection needed for meditation, contemplation, and prayer, was a way to self observe, and learn about the various input and output characteristics of their own consciousness. This introspection procedure is not considered valid science, since each set of individual results cannot be verified, externally, by the sensory systems of others, since it is all done internally. The scientific method had not been able to define consciousness using this extroverted method. Religion, on the other hand, is built on key people who were able to calibrate. Calibration is a different type of procedural science.

    Let me give a practical example of the nature of the calibration problem. When the brain creates memory, emotional tags are added to the sensory content when it is written to the cerebral matter. Our memory is composed of both content and emotional valence. Our strongest memories, have the strongest feeling tones; marriage, children, glory days, graduation, first kiss, trauma, etc.

    This schema is useful to the animal brain, since if the animal encounters a similar situation, already in memory, the feeling tag is triggered and they will react to the feeling, without having to think. If they see a food item that was once good, they feel good, again, about the new item, and will quickly eat.

    In the bible, the symbolism of Eve and Adam, eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil results in them being removed from paradise. This symbolism implies they were initially in calibration; natural instinct, but somehow their action caused their consciousness to come out of calibration. Death appears because lack of calibration makes even logical judgments end up with errors.

    The tree of knowledge of good and evil is symbolic of law. Law teaches us right from wrong or good from evil. It does this by setting up a polarization of emotions connected to the two side of the law. If we follow the good side of the law there is a good feeling tag, and if we disobey there is a negative feeling tag; fear. Since a law is one thing, that has two conflicting feelings, the result is not natural for the animal brain, since it creates conflicting emotions. If a law was created that said no black shoes on Wednesdays, since this is evil, some people would become conflicted since this makes no sense.

    If the animal saw a food item, and felt it was good, but also very scaring in terms of consequences, they would not know what to do. This is very inefficient, in terms of neural energy, and will cause a damming of brain energy. This began subjectivity; calibration was lost. People are stuck trying to rationalize the proper action while under the spell of conflicting emotions.

    The way the brain removed this damming of instinctive energy, due to the mixed emotions and indecision of consciousness, was to repress the half of the binary of law and make only the other half consciousness. We may blindly not wear black shoes on Wednesdays just to stop the conflict. One emotional valiance is more natural. However, the repressed half, needed to know the law, becomes part of an unconscious subroutine, that creates a counter position in the psyche; symbolic of Satan.

    As an example of this affect in science, Genesis, conceptually assumes a deterministic path for the universe, based on logical sequence and progression. This is based on an all knowing God. I am not saying the details of Genesis is the final science. However, modern science assumes the opposite, conceptual path, which is based on random.

    One may asked is the random path real, or is this choice part of a calibration problem due to law? Atheism claims to be connected to science. While atheist law says religion is evil and science is good. Therefore, they cannot use determinism, since that is used by religion, which evil. What is evil needs to be repressed. The result is a lack of calibration. Now there are more one theory for everything, some of which are mutually exclusive, which makes no sense. The Satan subroutine will make this appear consistent, since it helps to unify the binary of law in terms of brain energy in light of the lack of calibration.
     
    #13 wellwisher, Jun 17, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  14. BSM1

    BSM1 Who's a good boy?

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    Messages:
    16,860
    Ratings:
    +7,693
    Religion:
    Buddhistic Panenthetic Jesusonian
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Maximilian

    Maximilian Energetic proclaimer of Jehovah God's Kingdom.

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2019
    Messages:
    941
    Ratings:
    +56
    Religion:
    Proud member of the International Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Wittnesses - jw.org
    And “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” -Maslow


    Stated more explicitly, Scientism or just Radical Positivism is a terribly parochial philosophy of knowledge. On this opinion, there is certainly absolutely nothing good or evil, right or wrong, exquisite or hideous. Even so, can it be tenable to believe that experimental truth is the one and only truth that exists? That simply no aesthetic, moral, metaphysical or otherwise putative facts obtain?


    Abiding by this view, for starters, the Atheist who rapes a little kid to death ( or engages in this: Abortistas atacan a católicos que defendían la Catedral de San Juan ) is doing absolutely nothing wrong. Exactly why ought we agree to such a conclusion resulting merely from an epistemological limit? Isn’t this an indication that you ought to unlock the ambit of your beliefs and incorporate all the other different types of truth that abound?


    Withal, the core principles of Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem altogether gainsays Radical Positivism’s initial assumption. In fact, Science is suffused with assumptions that can never be verified scientifically. The epistemology of radical positivism, as a result, abrogates science itself.


    Take, for instance, the concept of induction. It just cannot be scientifically defended. Attempting to render a conclusive inductive line of reasoning for radical positivism is ridiculous as this begs the question by presupposing the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, to begin with!


    All the more devastating is the fact that radical positivism is self-refuting. At its heart, this pernicious conviction demands that we not accept any belief that cannot be scientifically verified. But what of that very supposition? It cannot per se be scientifically tested out much less corroborated. As a result, we ought not to believe it. Radical Positivism, as a result, asphyxiates itself.


    Alternatively, as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem makes evident, ‘Whatsoever may be bounded cannot explicate itself without referring to that which is without itself - some postulate whose certainty is unobtainable.’


    This is just what famed Physicist and Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell alluded to when he came to the conclusion, “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent, it must have been created.”
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  16. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +152
    Religion:
    not applicable
    Consciousness is that which nature provides to assure the survival of the individual.

    Darwin be damned!
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. beenherebeforeagain

    beenherebeforeagain Rogue Animist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Messages:
    16,996
    Ratings:
    +5,147
    Religion:
    Modern Animist
    Science may or may not be able to solve whatever the 'final mystery' is (and if I'm understanding the linked article, there will always be one more mystery), but it sure can investigate that mystery...whatever mystery it is...

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    13,470
    Ratings:
    +6,489
    Religion:
    None
    You sure like to make things up dont you?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Native

    Native Natural Philosopher

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,578
    Ratings:
    +197
    Religion:
    Animism
    Agreed in this very nice description :)
    The introspective procedure isn´t very much used and considered in the Vestern scientific world and this is why this method is much neglected as a way of gathering knowledge of "this and that", thus calibrating it all to such degree that ancient and native people spoke directly of a connectedness between everything.
    Mind and matter is connected by light and light (as in electromagnetism) is everywhere in micro- and macrocosm. These EM waves really are the "gateway of consciousness" inside and outside everything, small and big.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,760
    Ratings:
    +2,828
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Yo, atanu.

    'The ultimate mystery of nature' is the nature of nature, and the only significant enquiry into that 'ultimate mystery' is science.

    Science, of course, doesn't claim to make absolute statements about its subject matter, simply the best-informed and strongest-based views for the time being.

    And if science can't make absolute statements about reality, no one can.

    (Absolute statements, being imaginary things, can be made about other imaginary things, of course.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...