Is science overrated?

[Swami]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Please feel free to provide any book references that provide clarity on these topics. Thank you. Cheers

[For_The_Kingdom]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Please feel free to provide any book references that provide clarity on these topics. Thank you. Cheers

I will answer this question without the watered-down answers that you are getting from the naturalists on here. Not to say that their answers are incorrect...however, their answers aren't correct enough.

The reason science can't answer those questions is because...it simply can't.

Origin of the universe: Science can only study the material/physical universe...so how can it answer questions regarding the origins of the physical universe, if there was a point at which no physical universe existed? You can't use science to explain the origins of its own domain.

Origin of life: I think science may actually be able to explain the origins of life one day..however, it will never be able to explain the origins of SENTIENT life, which ties into the origin of consciousness. Consciousness/thoughts aren't made up of matter. It is immaterial. And the immaterial is outside of sciences' jurisdiction. If you see Casper float through your wall..how can you scientifically explain this? There is no material "stuff" to work with...and science depends on material "stuff" to work with. This also applies to the origin of the universe above.

If there is no "stuff", there is no "science".

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 30 by For_The_Kingdom]

I think science may actually be able to explain the origins of life one day..however, it will never be able to explain the origins of SENTIENT life, which ties into the origin of consciousness.

Why on earth do you believe that consciousness is something magical and unexplainable by science? I suppose once you cross into the realm of belief in spirits and supernatural beings and events, then the door is wide open to virtually anything. But to date there has never, ever been even one demonstration, measurement or observation that has shown the existence of a supernatural being or event of any kind. Given that, what justification is there for humans to continue to believe in these things?

Sentient life came about once brains had developed sufficiently to carry out the complex tasks that cumulatively define "the capacity to feel, perceive and experience subjectively (ie. sentience)" Somewhere along the path from single-cell organisms to modern humans, a brain evolved with capacity that crossed the fuzzy threshold between nonsentience and sentience. I'd argue that this IS science explaining sentient life ... it is simply a step in the evolutionary process of brain development where capacity crossed a human-defined threshold.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 31 by DrNoGods]

I think science may actually be able to explain the origins of life one day..however, it will never be able to explain the origins of SENTIENT life, which ties into the origin of consciousness.

Our pal FtK must be a prophet of some sort. He just HAS to be able to see into the future, to know with such confidence what will and will not be discovered through science.
This attitude is what I'd expect of someone from the 1300s, claiming that science will never discover how the sun goes around the earth.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 30 by For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom: "If there is no 'stuff', there is no 'science'."

Or to put it another way, science cannot explain the non-existent. For that you need theology.

[benchwarmer]

it will never be able to explain the origins of SENTIENT life

So you agree that science may one day explain the origins of life, but not sentience? That's a little odd. Here comes my favorite kind of question to you: What exactly is 'sentient life' in your view? Are we using dictionary definitions or something else?

From Google:

sen·tient
ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.

Basically, if a life form has the necessary receptors and some form of neural network, it should be sentient right? Clearly we can examine any life form and look for these things. Thus if we can trace how life began and sort out when the first nerve cell appeared and when the first neuron appeared then we should be able to tell when sentience arose.

Even today, there are life forms at all stages of 'sentience'. It then becomes an exercise in defining exactly what you mean by this word. i.e. are dogs sentient? fish? flies? bacteria? The only way to know would be to have a crystal clear definition and then examine various life forms to see if they meet that criteria. Sounds like a whole lot of science to me.

Of course if one is happy to guess and make stuff up, religion is the tool of choice.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by DrNoGods]

Given that, what justification is there for humans to continue to believe in these things?

The action of showing something to be right or reasonable isn't held in beliefs, whether from theism or scientism.

Beliefs are simply based upon how individuals choose to interpret what they see and experience. So in that, it is a matter of deducing whether the interpretations are actually right, or at least reasonable.

Mainstream popular science hasn't established with any real certainty that consciousness is emergent of the brain, and isn't likely to any time soon.
What it has been able to do is show correlation, and correlation would be what one could reasonable expect to find in relation to brain and consciousness interactions.
But it is not yet right to interpret the correlations as being evidence that consciousness is therefore an emergent property of the brain. The reasonable position has to align with the facts. The facts are we have no way to tell for sure if that is actually the case.

... it is simply a step in the evolutionary process of brain development where capacity crossed a human-defined threshold.

Indeed when it comes to human-definitions, we - along with and in relation to the universe - are practically new-born and while so-called 'supernatural' things happen to individuals (such as NDEs) 'the brain is the creator of consciousness' remains simply a widely held belief within scientism, based upon loosely defined ideas as to what consciousness is.

All of us will very likely have departed this reality before the truth of the matter is eventually discovered, and in that - if there is more to life and experience for the individual - we will have our answer then.

But we do not have the answer now. We have belief. Some believe what you do. Death is the end. Others believe it is not, and depending upon their preferences and personalities they gather together and support one another in those beliefs, and attach other beliefs to uphold those beliefs...

Scientism is the forming of beliefs which are based upon interpretations of facts, and when it comes to questions of beliefs about GOD and alternate realities, science is useless as a device in which to show anyone that in fact such things are "merely products of the brain."

What science is useful for in relation to theistic claims is anything which can be demonstrated in the physical world as fact. Thus scientism can say - as an example - that all facts so far uncovered through the physical evidence (science) lead to the most likely conclusion that the planet has never been totally covered in water, with all non-water inhabiting creatures destroyed. Therefore the theistic claim that a GOD drowned the whole world, has to be considered false.

When it comes to claims of experiencing NDEs (for which their are hundreds of such which have been recorded and studied as best as science can do) they indicate that the material interpretation of consciousness being emergent property of the brain is questionable rather than a matter of fact.

While mainstream science continues to focus on the material, for the most part the immaterial is disregarded - apart from consciousness, for obvious reasons.

If science could faithfully replicate in a consistent manner the experiences NDEers report as having, such as encountering 'light beings' who project unquestionable feelings of unconditional love, or feelings of being connected to everyone else as if we were all aspects of each other, or feelings of wholeness and completeness, and other such conditions reported on those very same folk who say they have had the experiences as well as on others who have not, then there might be a far better case for the idea of consciousness being the emergent property of the brain and all that this can then be assumed from that.

Until then, all is a matter of belief one way or the other. The experiences themselves are not ordinarily thought of as something to believe in by those who have experienced them. They are thought of as something which actually happened for real.


Meantime, NDEs perhaps more than anything else, allow one to question basic assumptions about our existence and purpose, whether those assumptions come from theism or scientism.

See post # 20 in the thread Near Death Experiences of Christians and others.

quote from that post;

Evidence of survival from NDEs

Enhanced mental function with impaired brains (Example of this 44:42 in video.)

We cannot explain, using the materialistic model, that 'the mind is what the brain does' when there is no brain function but there is enhanced mind function.

Accurate perception from OOB location (Example 46:23)

Visits with deceased persons, especially those in which accurate information is communicated and deceased persons not known by the NDEer to have died. (Examples 48:32 and 49:00)

The bottom line suggests that mind and brain are not the same thing. The NDEs show that the mind functions well - and even better - when the brain is not functioning.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 30 by For_The_Kingdom]

That's a good and honest response. It's consistent with science not being able to answer these important questions.

[Replying to post 26 by Razorsedge]

To learn about consciousness I've practiced meditation and I've gained great insight.

When you have verified those insights and published them in some peer reviewed journal, I might consider them as gained knowledge. Until then it is no more than personal experience with conclusions based on opinion and possible confirmation bias as far as I'm concerned. My experiences and studies have convinced me that the notion of universal consciousness is what many refer to as just woo.

Scientists are already collaborating with leaders from Eastern religious thinking, mainly Buddhists. Interestingly, there's a huge focus on meditation so it's just a matter of time before scientists start taking these ideas seriously.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 30 by For_The_Kingdom]

If you see Casper float through your wall..how can you scientifically explain this? There is no material "stuff" to work with...and science depends on material "stuff" to work with.

If you see Casper then there is something detectable for science to investigate. Unless, of course, it is just imaginary. But, even then we may develop tools to find out how your brain generates these things. We have been able to generate the 'god' experience already.

[William]

[Replying to post 37 by brunumb]

We have been able to generate the 'god' experience already.

That is an interesting claim. What is the 'god' experience and why was it called that?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 37 by brunumb]

We have been able to generate the 'god' experience already.

That is an interesting claim. What is the 'god' experience and why was it called that?

I can't remember where I originally heard about it. It might have been a reference to Koren's God Helmet. But here is a recent report:
https://qz.com/1292368/columbia-and-yal ... ur-brains/

The point is that science is making steady inroads.