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.)
And “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” -Maslow
Stated more explicitly, your 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 to your beliefs 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. Your 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.”
