attempt to understand

Post Reply New Topic

Elaborate.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem- we can't prove everything.

That depends on the situation. For example, euclidean geometry is known to be complete. In a sufficiently powerful system, it may be impossible to formally decide certain propositions, but it is not clear to me that this is equivalent to saying that some physical laws may be unknowable.

As far as physical laws, from an epistemic standpoint I would say that none of them are completely knowable. We operate on our current best understanding, which may or may not be wrong in some manner. Also, we have no way of proving that the future will continue to be like the past, and, since we do not possess all existing data, we can not say with absolute certainty that all phenomena conform to what we call physical laws. We can only say that our observations thus far seem to line up with the physical laws that have been put forward. For all practical purposes, this is fine, but it not sufficient for absolute claims.

Right, physical laws fall prey to the usual uncertainty of all positive claims, but this requires no appeal to Herr Goedel. Nonetheless, it is entirely possible that we may know all physical laws, the problem is that we may never know that we know them.

But, to get back to the original premise, a miracle is defined as a violation of known scientific laws. In other words the laws must be known and confirmed and miraculously violated. To extend miracles into unknown phenomena merely puts the whole thing in a different context.

Re: miracles. Meh.

To shamelessly substitute another's words where I should really have my own: "'Supernatural' is a null word."

Sand, this is a pointless claim. If observed phenomena contradict known scientific laws, the laws are rejected and new ones thought up. Thus, by the way in which scientists operate, a "miracle" by definition could not occur, even if it did occur. Old data can constantly be reevaluated in light of a new set of "natural laws."

I have no argument with that. It merely places all occurrences within a scientific framework. The concept of a miracle is rather incisive as it denies the basic premise of science that all phenomena can be fitted into a scientific outlook. The frontier of science is the struggle to integrate strange observations such as dark matter and energy into the laws of what is known or to extend those laws so that they remain valid. Religion, in its acceptance of miracles, more or less dismisses that fundamental concept and classifies some phenomena as either unknowable or a willing act of their current god who can violate scientific order unexplainably.

Apologies for posting on topic.

I don't think I could be called religious, and I'm not comfortable with the word spiritual, but I've always felt an overpowering certainty that there was a realm of existence that goes far beyond the physical world we perceive with our senses and the technological extensions of those senses. It might be called a higher order of reality, with the physical world being a superficial manifestation of a small part of it.

In a loose metaphor that shouldn't be taken too far, a Buddhist once talked about a blind person being able to feel sunlight on their skin, even though they can't see it.

I realize some other people don't have this impression of things, and I'm not trying to convert anybody.

I don't see it as a weakness. It isn't that I lack the courage to face somebody else's concept of reality. It's simply my view of the life experience.

It's something I wonder about, but I don't have a theology. I believe that whatever it is that might be called the ultimate reality is beyond the capacity of the circuitry of the human brain.

Whether "reality" is or is not beyond human capability to understand is indeterminate. Science in general makes no general conclusions in the effort, merely keeps probing and discovering and erecting integrated models that make observed reality comprehensible. To stop probing is to accept defeat and science does not do that.

Double post.

Last edited by CanyonWind on 12 May 2009, 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Don't get me wrong. Science is loads of fun. All kinds of fascinating stuff I'd otherwise have no way of knowing about.

Snowball Earth comes right to mind, all life on earth reduced to some thermal vents beneath oceans frozen over with a kilometer of ice. That and some photosynthetic bacteria living on top of glaciers.

Then the world turns into an oven, then it freezes again, three or four more times. Then the Cambrian Explosion and life takes off again, racing in all directions.

That one's far from certain, and so are a lot of others, but it's wonderful stuff.

Loving something doesn't require believing that it's all there is. But like I said, I'm not trying to convert anybody. I'm just talking about my own way of looking at things.

There will be no understanding if you refuse to learn.

hence why i am on this journey; understanding is a key point, but it is difficult as many people see faith, (not just religious faith) in many different and seemingly contradictory mind frames; often sayin it is "personal, and not easy to descibe"...

I am just trying to see as many peoples views of it, to try and understsand it for myself; admittedly a statistical approach, but it is how my brain works through such things

When I was Christian (childhood-young adulthood), I don't see how I could accurately answer the question "Why do I choose to follow my religion." It was not a choice, it was how I was raised and even in our low-church setting where on the surface we are encouraged to live lives of free thought and critical thinking, when it came to religion the underlying tone remained: "You will go to hell if you even think to look behind the curtain and question whether or not the Wizard of Oz is really a wizard." I spent 25 years ducking paradoxes in my religion without really stopping to ask why, because to ask that question means to invite the possibility that my religion was wrong, which would mean certain alienation from family and community.

So when, as a young adult, my paradox-o-meter finally overloaded and I gathered the courage to ask why I followed a religion when it contradicted the logic and reason by which I lived every other aspect of my life, some of my top reasons were, (all of which amount to what-is-comforting about belief in god):

- Because Mommy and Daddy told me to (comforting that they had the answers so I didn't have to find them on my own).

- Because I have a human need to feel 'blessed.' Of all the billions of people on the planet, I have the correct truth and most of the rest don't. Feeling of superiority. A super-powerful being likes me better than you and will reward me thusly.

- Fear of punishment if I don't believe (either from God or from secular sources).

- Fear of alienation from a society that is made up of many more believers than non-believers (a well-founded fear. I never got discriminated at work or over housing for being Christian. I have for being non-Christian).

- Because it is less work; answers are provided for me rather than me having to explore answers for myself.

- Because no one wants to die, yet death is inevitable. So the idea of a perfect afterlife is logically more comforting than not knowing or even the mere possibility that there is nothing beyond this life.

- When I feel helpless or out of control of a situation, it is comforting to think there is a super-powerful something out there I can ask for help. If my problem is solved, it is only natural to want to believe that I made that happen, say by convincing that super-powerful something to help me.

Imagining myself coming from a non-religious background to being saved/born-again/otherwise choosing religion, I suppose I would do so for similar reasons as above.