Metaphysical standards vs empirical standards

[Confused]

Most religious and science gurus will likely agree the greatest problem with blending science and religion may be found in a single principle: A is A. Or: Reality is real. To attempt to use nature to prove the supernatural is a violation A is A. It is an attempt to make reality unreal. A cannot also be non-A. Nature cannot also be non-nature. Naturalism cannot also be supernaturalism.

Pope John Paul II argued in his 1996 encyclical "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth" that the only way science and religion can be reconciled is if the body and soul are ontologically distinct, that is, they exist in different realities. Evolution created the body and God created the soul. He writes:
"With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, and ontological leap, one could say. Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness, and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creators plans."

His ultimate claim is that believers can have both religion and science as long as there is no attempt to make A non-A, to make reality unreal, to turn naturalism into supernaturalism. God is outside the dominion of science and science is outside the realm of God.

I wasn't sure which forum this was most appropriate for since it includes both science and philosophy, especially since Pope John Paul II was heavily influenced by Aristotle and Aquinas. But I think the debate question implied to me that it belonged in philosophy (though I dread it).

1) Is it possible, based on Pope John Paul II explanation to reconcile the two distinct fields of study between theology and science.

2) At what point would we consider the separation of the physical realm of science and spiritual realm of theology. Is it possible to to even envision a separation in these realities. I am not wanting so much to focus on the soul vs science. Rather what he quantifies as metaphysical knowledge. Can we use empirical standards of science to quantify the physical realm while using metaphysical standards of knowledge as quantified by Pope John Paul II to find this invisible separation between science and religion without one violating the other?

[Confused]

Could we not consider the mathematical equations as metaphysical. They are essentially something that we can calculate, but not show in real life.

Sign me up for Metaphysical Mathematics 101!

I have a hard time believing that mathematics could ever harbor or lead to metaphysical properties (irrational & imaginary, sure). But since I brought it up, I would further clarify that though conceiving of and actually having a dimension that is unmeasurable could be indistinguishable from a metaphysical realm with regards to measurement, I don't think that qualifies as actually being metaphysical, as its existence would already have been proven. Its properties would remain a mystery for a long time, however, possibly leading some to propose religious denominators for it.

I would have to pass on metaphysical math 101. I have a hard enough time keeping up with QED. Now your in the bunch and I find that between QED, Bugmaster, and you, I have enough on my plate. But I think I could classify metaphysical as irrational and imaginary to a high degree. I will have to finish my thoughts with QED on supervenience before I can go any further on that thought though. I am not sure posting during my 24 hr rotations in the Philosophy form is the best idea.

[Confused]

What about supervenience? Can there be a "2" when there's only one thing in the universe?

Ok, had some time to gather thoughts, yet no sleep. Roatation is almost over!!!!!

I think you might be able to make a very weak argument of supervenience between physical and metaphysical if we say that the metaphysical is dependent on the physical, by this we mean that to become metaphysical, something had to have been of the physical first (but that isn't necessarily a fact, but one can probably make a logical argument that after death, the body transcends to the metaphysical based on theolgy) so we cannot have A (metaphysical) as a matter of logic without B (physical).

But when we look at science and religion, we can't apply supervenience because we can't say that by a matter of logic or laws of nature we cannot have A (science) without B (religion) because neither science nor religion are interdependent upon each other.

Whew. Ok. Now, be nice in your cricism as you tear me apart, K. Member, I am not the bad person (although some might disagree ).

[Confused]

ST88:
Confused wrote:
2) At what point would we consider the separation of the physical realm of science and spiritual realm of theology.

I can think of only one circumstance in which science would be able to explain theology, and that's when the metaphysical becomes physical. That is, if a common "spiritual" realm was found to be influencing our world from, say, the eleventh dimension. For all intents and purposes, empirical study of this dimension would be just as impossible as study of a metaphysical dimension and, who knows, might have some of the same effects. God might be the human mind's representation of a conscious being (or an unconcsious meta-process) living in another realm entirely. That would be an argument that there is no such thing as metaphysics because what we would have thought as metaphysical would actually be encompassed in how the universe worked.

What if the physical became the metaphysical? As I was responding to QED on supervenience your post flashed in my mind and it made me wonder. Suppose upon conception, everything is physical. The persons consciousness/conscience/soul/whatever is nothing more than neurochemical reactions of the brain etc.... Now, if we assume that this is the starting point in the journey of existence, then could we say that upon death of the physical, all lifes experiences and the state of consciousness that created these experiences then transcends to another realm (heaven, hell, planet of the pink unicorns, whathaveyou) in which the state is now one of metaphysical (consciousness/conscience/soul/whatever). In such a case, it isn't the metaphysical interacting with our world, rather the physical interacts with the metaphysical during the process of transcending from the physical to the metaphysical. Now this wouldn't necessarily be influencing our world, instead our realm would be influencing their realm. Yes, I know, science fiction. We may not be able to test it or prove it, but we can speculate about it.

[Confused]

Could we not consider the mathematical equations as metaphysical. They are essentially something that we can calculate, but not show in real life.

Sign me up for Metaphysical Mathematics 101!

I have a hard time believing that mathematics could ever harbor or lead to metaphysical properties (irrational & imaginary, sure). But since I brought it up, I would further clarify that though conceiving of and actually having a dimension that is unmeasurable could be indistinguishable from a metaphysical realm with regards to measurement, I don't think that qualifies as actually being metaphysical, as its existence would already have been proven. Its properties would remain a mystery for a long time, however, possibly leading some to propose religious denominators for it.

Ok, still don't want to take MM 101, but since we are here......

Are there not many things in physics/cosmology that we cannot prove with any of our physical senses to exist in reality, but we can with mathematical equations. Yes, we can predict with accuracy with these equations, but we still can't put them into reality to show them. I ask this because I am honestly curious about it. Philosophy is one of my absolute worst areas and it took me a long time reading just posts between many of those who post here before I had enough knowledge to know what I needed to research an d learn before I dared post in here. So, as a consequence, I am still learning. The intimidation factor in this forum is at a bare minimum 98%. So bare with me if you would.

[Furrowed Brow]

Are there not many things in physics/cosmology that we cannot prove with any of our physical senses to exist in reality, but we can with mathematical equations.

Short answer: no. Mathematics offers formulae and models, and very precisely details their implications. Take Netowns Fg = Gmm/d2. There is a lot of math that backs that up. But what imakes it applicable to reality are our observations of reality. Same goes for General Relativity, which has even more math.

If we think about superstrings. These if they exist, will be of a size that it is likely we shall never be able to oberve them. However we can prove that if a particular string exists it would have so and so characteristics. Characterisitcs that can or cannot explain much that we do observe. But we cannot on a piece of paper prove that the string exists.

[Confused]

Are there not many things in physics/cosmology that we cannot prove with any of our physical senses to exist in reality, but we can with mathematical equations.

Short answer: no. Mathematics offers formulae and models, and very precisely details their implications. Take Netowns Fg = Gmm/d2. There is a lot of math that backs that up. But what imakes it applicable to reality are our observations of reality. Same goes for General Relativity, which has even more math.

If we think about superstrings. These if they exist, will be of a size that it is likely we shall never be able to oberve them. However we can prove that if a particular string exists it would have so and so characteristics. Characterisitcs that can or cannot explain much that we do observe. But we cannot on a piece of paper prove that the string exists.

You win. I will have to pass this one over in silence

[ST88]

What if the physical became the metaphysical?

This would be a grand idea, indeed, and I believe is the basis for most religions, begining with animism & ancestor worship. This, I believe is also the argument for ghosts and can't be refuted.

In such a case, it isn't the metaphysical interacting with our world, rather the physical interacts with the metaphysical during the process of transcending from the physical to the metaphysical. Now this wouldn't necessarily be influencing our world, instead our realm would be influencing their realm. Yes, I know, science fiction. We may not be able to test it or prove it, but we can speculate about it.

Isn't it pretty to think about such things? The way we think is so tied to what we think about (& how we remember other people) that it can seem perfectly plausible that our thoughts & feelings will survive our bodies. And speculation about such things surely can do no harm as long as dogmas aren't created as a result. But everything we know about biology suggests that our thoughts & feelings die with us. There is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise, and like you say, is purely speculative.

[Confused]

What if the physical became the metaphysical?

This would be a grand idea, indeed, and I believe is the basis for most religions, begining with animism & ancestor worship. This, I believe is also the argument for ghosts and can't be refuted.

In such a case, it isn't the metaphysical interacting with our world, rather the physical interacts with the metaphysical during the process of transcending from the physical to the metaphysical. Now this wouldn't necessarily be influencing our world, instead our realm would be influencing their realm. Yes, I know, science fiction. We may not be able to test it or prove it, but we can speculate about it.

Isn't it pretty to think about such things? The way we think is so tied to what we think about (& how we remember other people) that it can seem perfectly plausible that our thoughts & feelings will survive our bodies. And speculation about such things surely can do no harm as long as dogmas aren't created as a result. But everything we know about biology suggests that our thoughts & feelings die with us. There is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise, and like you say, is purely speculative.

Yes, QED did manage to point out that imagination can lead to harm in the form of dogmatic thoughts that infringe upon humanity. While I enjoy a good game of "what if" it is still nothing more than a game of the imagination. While some may actually lead to progress, most lead to digression and gross manipulation.

[achilles12604]

Are there not many things in physics/cosmology that we cannot prove with any of our physical senses to exist in reality, but we can with mathematical equations.

Short answer: no. Mathematics offers formulae and models, and very precisely details their implications. Take Netowns Fg = Gmm/d2. There is a lot of math that backs that up. But what imakes it applicable to reality are our observations of reality. Same goes for General Relativity, which has even more math.

If we think about superstrings. These if they exist, will be of a size that it is likely we shall never be able to oberve them. However we can prove that if a particular string exists it would have so and so characteristics. Characterisitcs that can or cannot explain much that we do observe. But we cannot on a piece of paper prove that the string exists.

I'm glad that I'm not totally off my rocker with regard to this line of thinking. Ahh. a breath of fresh air. I do so enjoy agreeing with the opposing viewpoint. I clears the mud a little in my own mind.