But if we are looking for understanding, if we want science to offer a full description of the workings of natural phenomena, an ontology is required; physics requires a metaphysics, and will therefore inevitably borrow from religion, even if only as metaphor.
Why?
My question is relate to what I had highlighted in bold.
Physics can use metaphysics or it can leave out metaphysics altogether.
Metaphysics isn’t a essential requirement, whether you use or not in physics.
Metaphysics is a philosophical position that are concerned with the existence of reality, and then applying some “first principle” to this so-called “position”.
Physics don’t necessarily deal with the “first principle” badge.
In physics, you would attempt to explain what the observed phenomena is and how this phenomena work. Then you would test this explanation with observations of the evidence.
Then there are two possible outcomes and conclusions you can reach, once you have examined and analyzed all the evidence and data from such tests:
- ...the evidence have tested the hypothesis (explanations) and found the explanations to be improbable, false/wrong...which would mean you would throw out the “refuted” hypothesis;
- ...the evidence have tested the hypothesis, and found the explanations to be probable, true/correct...which would mean you have “verified” the hypothesis, and the hypothesis could be a candidate as a future “scientific theory”.
Metaphysics don’t require testing, don’t require physical evidence to be considered the first principle to be “true”. Metaphysics require only reasoning alone, to reach a conclusion.
This is why metaphysics is a philosophy, not a science, because metaphysics don’t follow the requirements of science, where the explanations required -
- to be “falsifiable” and
- to be tested in the second stage of “Scientific Method”.
Metaphysics don’t even require to meet the first requirement, Falsifiability of the hypothesis.
In physics, as it is with all other branches of Natural Sciences, every theories - and every explanations and every predictions within that theories - are all provisional.
Meaning, existing scientific theory can be corrected, modified, updated, or even replaced by tested better alternative theory, as long as you have evidence and data to support these changes.
With Metaphysics, as long as you have formulated the first principle, it either don’t require change or it cannot be changed...that is a complete antithesis to Natural Sciences.
And another “why” question to you: why must Metaphysics leads to “religion” - you wrote:
“...and will therefore inevitably borrow from religion...”
Why must physics and metaphysics “inevitably borrow from religion”?
Not everything is about religion...not even with metaphysics.
Religion have to with belief and worship of some sorts of supernatural being, which some would refer to as deity or spirit.
There is a branch of Metaphysics, called Metaphysical Naturalism. This type of Naturalism, disregards all forms of the supernaturals.
Anyway, physics (not talking about metaphysics), don’t require religion or religious belief, and it certainly don’t require to borrow anything from religion.