Replies

Did you understand a single thing I wrote in my last????

I did. And I addressed it all.

What I understand is that you are looking to science for answers that the scientific method cannot provide, and you blame (if that is the right word) science for not being able to answer those questions.

Science, of any discipline, is no more and no less than a description of the physical universe. No matter how you pose the questions, you aren't going to get any more than that out of science. I have the impression that you want science to affirm your faith--it cannot do that!

Yes, I am passionate about science; the physical world holds wonders beyond imagination. I am also quite aware of what science is, of the types of questions the scientific method can and cannot answer. Decades ago, I learned to accept the fact that science simply is not the tool to answer questions about faith. It is normal to have doubts, to wonder if, in reality, this physical world is the only existence we will ever know. But what I decided, long ago, is that even if we cannot prove in a tangible manner (in other words, by using the scientific method) that there is a basis for our faith--that it really is possible to trust in Jesus and to be assured of a place in Heaven--there is no reason to live as if we don't have that assurance. Science simply cannot answer metaphysical or philosophical questions, and we must accept that:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

I like to think that I know the difference.

Dear exDemMom, I have no problem with the idea that science "is no more and no less than a description of the physical universe." I do have a problem with the idea that the entire universe reduces to the physical, or the material; that there is nothing more to it than that. Even an atheist should know better. (If he didn't, how could he explain himself?)

If I needed science to affirm my faith, then my faith wouldn't be "faith."

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. — Hebrews 11:1

Setting religion aside here, I believe the universe has a metaphysical extension. I do understand that science does not and cannot address this aspect of the universe. And that's okay. We have philosophy — and theology — to do that.

To me, whose background is in philosophy, history, and culture, the two most foundational questions one can ask were originally posed by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a great German mathematician and philosopher: (1) Why are things the way they are, and not some other way? and (2) Why is there anything at all, why not nothing? Obviously, these are not scientific questions. But this doesn't mean they do not refer to something real; that they are not worth asking. They are, of course, metaphysical questions, the answers to which seem ever elusive.

As a working scientist, such questions are, of course, irrelevant to what you do. But in a certain sense, these open-ended questions refer to the very context in which everything in the universe happens, including the conduct of science.

I don't mind that science must confine itself to the phenomenal. What alarms me is the seeming hostility of some scientists towards all things nonphenomenal. I sense this in the attitude of Nobel Laureate molecular biologist Jacques Monod, for example, who evidently believed that the universe is essentially matter + "pure, blind chance."

Or the seeming hostility of evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin regarding nonphenomenal aspects of reality.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

And he seems to know the downside of this sort of thing:

… When faced with questions that they really don’t know how to answer — like “How does a single cell turn into a mouse?” or “How did the structure and activity of Beethoven’s brain result in Opus 131?” — the only thing that natural scientists know how to do is turn them into other questions that they do know how to answer. That is, scientists do what they already know how to do.

Forgive me, but this looks like rigging the game to me.

In effect, this last quote seems to be an admission that life and consciousness cannot be directly addressed by science at all. Which may very well be true. After all, both are "intangibles," non-observables.

And yet we have biologists who insist that consciousness (mind) is "merely" an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. IOW, they are telling a "just-so story": they don't have a clue what consciousness is (or life for that matter), so they simply reduce it to emanations of brain activity. Jeepers, that doesn't strike me as even a good guess.... I doubt it is a testable one.

My concern here is the impact this sort of thing has on the culture in which we live. Science enjoys such prestige nowadays, that most of the public simply, uncritically accepts what scientists say as "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

When I asked if you understood "a single thing I wrote in my last," it was with respect to the issues of nonphenomenal reality I was trying to raise. I apologize for my rudeness to you, ExDemMom. It was both uncalled for (your essay/post at #151 was wonderfully informative) and unhelpful.

You said you didn't know who Owen Barfield was. He was a highly-influential British philosopher whose main work was devoted to the evolution of consciousness, "exploring its development through the history of language" as his Estate's website puts it. His book, Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry —

...is about the world as we see it and the world as it is; it is about God, human nature, and consciousness. The best known of numerous books by the British sage whom C.S. Lewis called the "wisest and best of my unofficial teachers," it draws on sources from mythology, philosophy, history, literature, theology, and science to chronicle the evolution of human thought from Moses and Aristotle to Galileo and Keats. Barfield urges his readers to do away with the assumption that the relationship between people and their environment is static. He dares us to end our exploitation of the natural world and to acknowledge, even revel in, our participation in the diurnal creative process.

— as the book description goes.

He is dealing with a much "larger universe" (so to speak) than that accessible by means of the scientific method.

Robert Godwin is a clinical and forensic psychologist and philosopher.

Jeepers, I hope you don't disparage these outstanding thinkers simply because they're "philosophers!"

Thank you so much, ExDemMom, for your excellent essay/posts!