If Science Can't Answer it...

[Aupmanyav]

But don't read that the way you see it, and as you usually understand it. Read it, instead, as "it might just be the case that in a quantum universe, it is impossible that a state of nothingness could remain, that nothingness itself may well be unstable." And if that's the case, well, when nothing becomes unstable and results in something, well, there are no limits to where that something can go.

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.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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?

 

[firedragon]

Neither.
Science can't answer questions of morality or law. For those we have philosophy and jurisprudence. That doesn't mean that religion can answer important questions for humanity.
Religion can answer questions about belief - which may be important for some believers, just not for humanity.

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.

 

[firedragon]

You might think that is "condescending," but the plain truth is that a lot of people cannot understand many processes, and fall back on meaningless or just plain false "explanations" employing attribution to divine design and power.

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.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Since quite some time ago. You don't see the irony of asking that question via an electronic device connected to a power grid, international communications systems, etc?

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.

 

[KWED]

Then the question has no value. According to Richard Dawkins.

Science does answer some "why" questions, including questions about the purposes of things. Those it does not answer may simply be unanswerable. The questions "what is the purpose of a light bulb?," "what is the purpose of a firefly's light,?" and "what is the purpose of the sun?" all look like the same sort of question superficially, but are importantly different. The first invites an answer in terms of the intentions of those who make and use light bulbs. The second is a question in evolutionary biology. The scientist can provide answers to both of these. The third question is not of the sort that science answers, but this does not trouble Dawkin's scientist, for he denies that this question is meaningful at all.

Following on this, Dawkins wondered whether there were any deep, important questions that science was incapable of answering. He supposed that there might be, citing as an example the question of what determined the fundamental constants of physics. But, he claimed, such gaps in scientific explanation should provide no comfort to theologians who wished to claim a distinctive sphere of competence for religion. For if any area of study were to deliver answers to these questions – questions Dawkins labeled "the deep questions of existence" – it would be science, not religion.
Lecture II: The Religion of Science

Do you agree?
Or do you think religion holds some meaningful answers for humanity?

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.

 

[KWED]

Science can and step-by-step does answer all questions about the structure of physical reality.

It can't answer, prove, questions about the meaning and purpose of life without reducing it to biological reproduction etc which is not a true answer to that question.

So I disagree with Dawkins:

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.

 

[KWED]

I believe from the spiritual and paranormal evidence

But there is no "evidence", just unsupported claims, opinions, anecdote, etc.

 

[blü 2]

Science does answer some "why" questions, including questions about the purposes of things. Those it does not answer may simply be unanswerable. The questions "what is the purpose of a light bulb?," "what is the purpose of a firefly's light,?" and "what is the purpose of the sun?" all look like the same sort of question superficially, but are importantly different. The first invites an answer in terms of the intentions of those who make and use light bulbs. The second is a question in evolutionary biology. The scientist can provide answers to both of these. The third question is not of the sort that science answers, but this does not trouble Dawkin's scientist, for he denies that this question is meaningful at all.

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?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

I'm an atheist. If I can take a moment to quote myself within this very thread...

If science can't answer it...then I'll use the non-scientific resources, my own experience, and general rules of thumb I apply to life to answer it.

One of my general rules is that binary thinking is limiting and wrong. I personally see limited value in religion for me. That doesn't mean I think science has the answers to everything. Indeed, I see that line of thinking as potentially dangerous and lacking in nuance.

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.

 

[joelr]

Well Dawkins is the poster boy for the contentious word 'Scientism'.
No, I am opposed to Scientism.I believe from the spiritual and paranormal evidence that we are more than physical creatures and possess psychic/spiritual/clairvoyant senses that can tell us things the physical senses and instruments of science cannot at this time. Hence, I think religion/spiritual teachings can provide direction for answers physical science cannot yet address.

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?

 

[RestlessSoul]

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?

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?

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

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.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe from the spiritual and paranormal evidence that we are more than physical creatures and possess psychic/spiritual/clairvoyant senses that can tell us things the physical senses and instruments of science cannot at this time. Hence, I think religion/spiritual teachings can provide direction for answers physical science cannot yet address.

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.

 

[1213]

...

Then the question has no value. According to Richard Dawkins.​

...
Do you agree?

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.

 

[Colt]

Then the question has no value. According to Richard Dawkins.

Science does answer some "why" questions, including questions about the purposes of things. Those it does not answer may simply be unanswerable. The questions "what is the purpose of a light bulb?," "what is the purpose of a firefly's light,?" and "what is the purpose of the sun?" all look like the same sort of question superficially, but are importantly different. The first invites an answer in terms of the intentions of those who make and use light bulbs. The second is a question in evolutionary biology. The scientist can provide answers to both of these. The third question is not of the sort that science answers, but this does not trouble Dawkin's scientist, for he denies that this question is meaningful at all.

Following on this, Dawkins wondered whether there were any deep, important questions that science was incapable of answering. He supposed that there might be, citing as an example the question of what determined the fundamental constants of physics. But, he claimed, such gaps in scientific explanation should provide no comfort to theologians who wished to claim a distinctive sphere of competence for religion. For if any area of study were to deliver answers to these questions – questions Dawkins labeled "the deep questions of existence" – it would be science, not religion.
Lecture II: The Religion of Science

Do you agree?
Or do you think religion holds some meaningful answers for humanity?

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

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then the question has no value. According to Richard Dawkins.​

Science does answer some "why" questions, including questions about the purposes of things. Those it does not answer may simply be unanswerable. The questions "what is the purpose of a light bulb?," "what is the purpose of a firefly's light,?" and "what is the purpose of the sun?" all look like the same sort of question superficially, but are importantly different. The first invites an answer in terms of the intentions of those who make and use light bulbs. The second is a question in evolutionary biology. The scientist can provide answers to both of these. The third question is not of the sort that science answers, but this does not trouble Dawkin's scientist, for he denies that this question is meaningful at all.

Following on this, Dawkins wondered whether there were any deep, important questions that science was incapable of answering. He supposed that there might be, citing as an example the question of what determined the fundamental constants of physics. But, he claimed, such gaps in scientific explanation should provide no comfort to theologians who wished to claim a distinctive sphere of competence for religion. For if any area of study were to deliver answers to these questions – questions Dawkins labeled "the deep questions of existence" – it would be science, not religion.
Lecture II: The Religion of Science

Do you agree?
Or do you think religion holds some meaningful answers for humanity?

Do you love me, Mr. Dawkins?

Is the question of no value?

Sometimes, atheists--who are usually HIGHLY intelligent, say stupid things.

 

[Yerda]

Do you agree?

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.

Or do you think religion holds some meaningful answers for humanity?

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.

 

[wellwisher]

Then the question has no value. According to Richard Dawkins.

Science does answer some "why" questions, including questions about the purposes of things. Those it does not answer may simply be unanswerable. The questions "what is the purpose of a light bulb?," "what is the purpose of a firefly's light,?" and "what is the purpose of the sun?" all look like the same sort of question superficially, but are importantly different. The first invites an answer in terms of the intentions of those who make and use light bulbs. The second is a question in evolutionary biology. The scientist can provide answers to both of these. The third question is not of the sort that science answers, but this does not trouble Dawkin's scientist, for he denies that this question is meaningful at all.

Following on this, Dawkins wondered whether there were any deep, important questions that science was incapable of answering. He supposed that there might be, citing as an example the question of what determined the fundamental constants of physics. But, he claimed, such gaps in scientific explanation should provide no comfort to theologians who wished to claim a distinctive sphere of competence for religion. For if any area of study were to deliver answers to these questions – questions Dawkins labeled "the deep questions of existence" – it would be science, not religion.
Lecture II: The Religion of Science

Do you agree?
Or do you think religion holds some meaningful answers for humanity?

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.

 

[Audie]

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.

Natural and artificial are opposites.
Therefore it's logical they start the same way.
Right.