When science does not work

[Rufus21]

I follow science where one should follow science and I follow religion/revelation where science does not work.

Can someone give an example of a situation where science doesn't work?

I've heard people say that science cannot handle situations outside the natural world, but there is no indication that religion can either. In fact, neither can offer any evidence that a supernatural realm exists in the first place. So what are some situations where science does not work but religion does?

[bluethread]

And let's not forget the folks who simply don't want to have offspring. There's nothing wrong with that.

Hold it you just said in response to bjs, "That was the original purpose, yes?" and "The underlying meaning of life would be the same now as it was almost 4 billion years ago." Setting aside the fact that no one can scientifically test what happened 4 billion years ago, if that is the meaning of life, then not doing that would be living a life without meaning.

[Rufus21]

Setting aside the fact that no one can scientifically test what happened 4 billion years ago...

Why not? Just recreate those conditions and drop in some bacteria. Do you think it hasn't been tested already?

...if that is the meaning of life, then not doing that would be living a life without meaning.

Maybe read the very next sentence I wrote? Or the paragraph before it? Or my previous post?

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 21 by bluethread]

Dunno why you're getting hung up on that. Life exists because organisms reproduce. If someone chooses not to reproduce, they aren't contributing to passing down their genetic data. You appear to be insisting that there is some obligation or imperative. Any "purpose" to life is consequential; that is, it arises from the conditions surrounding life, because life is essential in order to have any meaning for life. Tautological, but necessary. People who don't have kids simply aren't contributing to the continuation and diversification of life, that doesn't mean that they are meaningless.

The meaning of life, and meanings which arise during life, can be separate things. This is what makes your question nonsensical, as if not conforming to one singular purpose negates all other functions of a multifaceted organism. It doesn't.

[Rufus21]

I started a new thread to discuss the meaning of life:

viewtopic.php?p=889818#889818

So to keep this thread on track, does anyone have any examples of situations where science doesn't work? Examples of religion finding answers where science isn't applicable?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by Rufus21]

What exactly do you mean by 'science doesn't work'?

So far I've only seen examples of where lack of understanding, failing to take into account all variables, or simply not knowing how something works equates to science not working.

Science is both a method and a body of knowledge. The method works just fine, but may not yield everything you desire. That doesn't mean it "doesn't work", it just means you have not been able to observe that which you are after.

Regarding "What is the meaning of life" and other such questions. Who says life has a meaning? If it has no meaning, then there would be now way to find out what the meaning is. One would first have to define what it means for "life to have meaning" and then maybe one could try to observe evidence of that.

To answer some of the previous posts from various people:

Chemical equations may fail when impurities are present.
Physics may fail to take into account dynamic or friction from lubrication.

These are not 'failures' of science. These are failures to take into account all variables. If one takes into account impurities or presence of friction/lube, then scientific observation will not 'fail'.

What is the meaning of life?
Does truth matter?
What is good and right, and what makes it so?

Who says life even has a meaning? Does truth matter to who? Define 'good' and 'right'. Your definitions will answer your question and 'make it so'. Once you answered those questions, you could do some observations (using science) and see what comes out of that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting science is the path to answering all questions. Maybe that is what is meant by this OP. i.e. what questions can science not currently answer. Science can only deal with observation and well defined terms.

Questions science probably won't be able to answer:
1) Do leprachauns enjoy pink kool-aid?
2) Is 42 the best number?
3) Purple or mauve?

[bluethread]

Setting aside the fact that no one can scientifically test what happened 4 billion years ago...

Why not? Just recreate those conditions and drop in some bacteria. Do you think it hasn't been tested already?

How do you know want those conditions were? Also, what specifically would that test?

...if that is the meaning of life, then not doing that would be living a life without meaning.

Maybe read the very next sentence I wrote? Or the paragraph before it? Or my previous post?

I read those, but I was hoping that you would provide a clearer explanation of how activities that make it possible for others to have meaningful lives translates into having a meaningful life. Can the meaning of life be vicarious?

[bjs]

The purpose of life is to reproduce with genetic variability. At least according to the guys in white coats. I like to believe there's a lot more to it than that, but those are meanings and purposes that I add to my own life.

Ok. How do you know that the purpose of life is to reproduce with genetic variability? I understand that most life forms do this, but what scientific evidence is there that this their purpose? The “guys in white coats� that I have known have never claimed that the meaning of life is to reproduce.

It would also paint a pretty bleak picture for people who do not have the ability to reproduce.


Ultimately I don't think anyone would dispute that there are questions which science currently hasn't answered. But that obviously doesn't imply that we should look to religion (which one?) instead.

If I may, I do not think that the issue is that there are questions which science currently hasn’t answered. Rather, there are questions which are outside the purview of science. When we take up issues like the meaning of life, the nature of truth, or the validity of ethics then we take up questions that the scientific methods was not designed to answer.

Science can reveal what living things do, but not if such actions do are do not have any meaning beyond the action itself. Scientific study can reveal what people think is right or wrong, but it can never tell if such things really are right or wrong.

The scientific method is extremely useful in many ways, but it has its limitation. Thinking that science can answer every question is foolish, if not outright dangerous.

[Rufus21]

How do you know what those conditions were? Also, what specifically would that test?

I’m actually interested in learning more about that myself. Let’s follow this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=889870#889870

...I was hoping that you would provide a clearer explanation of how activities that make it possible for others to have meaningful lives translates into having a meaningful life. Can the meaning of life be vicarious?

Answered here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 871#889871

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 21 by bluethread]

Dunno why you're getting hung up on that. Life exists because organisms reproduce. If someone chooses not to reproduce, they aren't contributing to passing down their genetic data. You appear to be insisting that there is some obligation or imperative. Any "purpose" to life is consequential; that is, it arises from the conditions surrounding life, because life is essential in order to have any meaning for life. Tautological, but necessary. People who don't have kids simply aren't contributing to the continuation and diversification of life, that doesn't mean that they are meaningless.

You seem to be saying that since continuity of existence is necessary for life, that is the meaning of life. Well, the Sun has continuity of existence due to hydrogen fission and fusion. However, few, if any, would say that the Sun is life, let alone say that those processes are the meaning of that "life".

The meaning of life, and meanings which arise during life, can be separate things. This is what makes your question nonsensical, as if not conforming to one singular purpose negates all other functions of a multifaceted organism. It doesn't.

[/quote]

So, it appears that you are telling me that I should not have said that their lives are meaningless, because other things might give them a sense of meaning in their personal lives. Well, that is one way of looking at that statement. However, a personal sense of meaning in their personal lives is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the meaning of life in general. As you said, "People who don't have kids simply aren't contributing to the continuation and diversification of life". If that is the case they are not doing that which gives meaning to life on this planet, presuming what the OP proposed is indeed the meaning of life.

[Rufus21]

I follow science where one should follow science and I follow religion/revelation where science does not work.

Can someone give an example of a situation where science doesn't work?

So far the only response has been the meaning of life, which many people have different opinions on and several people don't believe it even exists.

Are there any better examples, or is the original quote not accurate?