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

[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?

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.

Was that the point? Compared to most scientific research, such is token. Perhaps that might change?


The article appears to be about and area of the brain which is identified as active during activity which is linked to 'spirituality' or 'transcendent' moments (beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience.) which in this study amounts to the feeling of being connected to something greater than just one's individual subjective 'normal' experience. Even in that, they also include in the examples given, "a stadium full of sports fans"...indeed, perhaps overall 'a sense of belonging which gives one purpose and meaning'...

Beyond mental health, scientists study spirituality because the human quest for meaning is timeless and universal. By cultivating spiritual experiences in addition to strengthening our intellectual abilities, people can lead emotionally richer lives and develop more open minds, scientists say.

It is heartening to read that some scientists are enabled to work on such projects. Spiritual people have been declaring the same thing for eons.

It certainly trumps the usual diatribe of those who use scientism as a means of telling people there is no purpose or reason for life or more emotionally richer lives and open mindedness re spiritual experience.

What interests me too is how certain areas of the individual brains are all used for these different purposes. One wonders why this would have to be the case, as it appears the brain is quite uniform and while it is sensible to delegate such areas for different things (like a file system) it is interesting as to what the reason might be as to why specific areas of all brains are reserved for these particular things, and are the same for every individual.

Wouldn't one expect these to be varied? Like blood types are varied...etc....

[For_The_Kingdom]

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?

I will ask you the same question I will ask anyone else...and HAVE asked before. If you have an unlimited supply of human brain matter, and you have the skills to be able to shape/mold this brain matter into a perfectly shaped human brain..you have the brain..but..

Where would you get the consciousness? And to make it even more easier for you...in this scenario, you also have this unlimited amount of chemicals (electrons, neurons, etc).

You have EVERYTHING that you need at which you "claim" is needed for mental processes. Now, again I ask...where is the consciousness coming from??

Until you can answer that, then EVERYTHING you say is absolutely worthless. You can't get the job done, and neither can science.

Thoughts are immaterial, and science cannot save the naturalist here.

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.

Go in a lab and produce a "thinking" brain, then. I mean after all, you have all the answers, right? You can't do it, can you? So, until you can go in the lab and get results, then spare me all of the bio-babble.

Until then, you are stuck believing in the illogical concept of a mindless/blind process (nature), being able to not only configure matter into what we call a "brain", but also get this chunk of matter to be able to think (sentience).

So this mindless/blind process did something that rational thinking human beings with vision is unable to do.

You can't pay me ENOUGH to believe that any of that mess is naturally possible...and intelligent design theorists are looked at as the irrational ones? Please.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 40 by William]

It is heartening to read that some scientists are enabled to work on such projects. Spiritual people have been declaring the same thing for eons.

It certainly trumps the usual diatribe of those who use scientism as a means of telling people there is no purpose or reason for life or more emotionally richer lives and open mindedness re spiritual experience.

The term 'spiritual' reminds me of a description often applied to Seinfeld: a show about nothing.

[For_The_Kingdom]

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

Did science prove X to be non-existent? Or, is this yet another empty assertion by the naturalist.

I got my money on the latter.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[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.

No doubt. Naturalism is a self-refuting concept.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 41 by For_The_Kingdom]

Until then, you are stuck believing in the illogical concept of a mindless/blind process (nature), being able to not only configure matter into what we call a "brain", but also get this chunk of matter to be able to think (sentience).

As distinct from an invisible magic man that scooped up a pile of dust, breathed on it and turned into a fully formed living human being. Have you seen that happen lately?

[Swami]

[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.

What you just posted explains little to nothing. People want to push the idea that science has it all figured out but it is the IMPORTANT questions that count the most. Some of these questions speak directly to our being but yet we have no answers from the guys with labcoats. They readily admit to being stumped. Having that in mind I would not be so arrogant as to rule out what religion and experience has to say on the matter.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If you see Casper then there is something detectable for science to investigate.

Ok, so please explain to me what experiment can you conduct...which will adequately explain how a ghost is able to float through a solid wall.

Go ahead, explain. Do the science.

You see, all of this "we can do this, we can do that. It works like this, it happens this way, etc, etc etc".

All of that stuff sounds good.

But when it comes to actually putting those words to "work"...and doing the actual "science" to back up the "it happens this way" talk..they (naturalists) got NOTHING.

It is all just talk.

[William]

[Replying to post 42 by brunumb]

The term 'spiritual' reminds me of a description often applied to Seinfeld: a show about nothing.

Thanks for that example It is precisely what I was referring to when I said;

It certainly trumps the usual diatribe of those who use scientism as a means of telling people there is no purpose or reason for life or more emotionally richer lives and open mindedness re spiritual experience.

Perhaps though, you might have another word to use which describes the same 'feeling of connection' that you gave the link to, which the article speaks of?

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by For_The_Kingdom]

Where would you get the consciousness?

Consciousness is where the consciousness comes from. Generally this consciousness of referred to as 'GOD'. In relation to your specific question, individuate consciousness is an aspect of this overall GOD-consciousness.

Of course, generally Christians cannot accept this explanation any more than atheists, but obviously for different reasons.

Christianity has had to split this consciousness into two competing entities, were one of those entities will win and the other will lose.

The main reason for this appears to be because without the villain, Christianity cannot exist.

Thus, Christianity cannot explain where this 'other' consciousness comes from other than 'GOD' created it from 'somewhere' other than GODs-self.

Which is illogical as a philosophical and theistic argument.