The Science Illusion

@QE

Are you one who believes that science is the absolute answer to all your questions and there is no need to look beyond science for answers?

Actually I don't, and if it wasn't for some following statements I would not feel concerned and I'd stop here.
For being precise: Science can not even say why at a given moment one cow says "Mooh" and the other cow doesn't.
How can you even assume that a rational person can [claim to] explain "everything" ?
-------------------------------------------------------

However, as with anything human, science too has its limitations and cannot be relied upon to provide an absolute way of guidance.

You're correct by stating that science has it's limitations.
Regarding "guidance"; actually: Science does not give any guidance at all !.
I don't even see why you mix the term "guidance" and science. Could you quote [an example of] somebody doing so ?
And what do you mean by: "absolute guidance" ?

Not that I am not willing to talk about moral systems, if you wish we can do this elsewhere - but don't link it to science !
-------------------------------------------------

For example, science is not capable of establishing scientific evidence either in support of a self-creating universe or counter to the idea of an ultimate Creator. Now to argue that the concept of an ultimate Creator is rejected because there is no scientific evidence is like saying that our radar can only catch so many signals so there are no other signals! Any other argument in this regard that is devoid of scientific evidence cannot be qualified as anything more than personal opinions.

I agree with you in so far that "nothing comes from nothing", and I disagree with all those claiming it.
But trying to insinuate from this, that a creator has to exist is of course nonsense.

When you see a child being killed by a disease, do you really feel at ease believing that "God killed the child" ? Isn't it easier to accept (as brutal as it still is) that the child caught a disease (like malaria) and died as a consequence of it - or do you still want to argue that god directed the mosquito to the two year old child to kill it ? Why ?
We know how (infectious) diseases spread, why should we invoke God on this level ?

Same for the universe. I think that the universe was created on the basis of everlasting rules (= physical laws), which did exist forever and that are likely to exist [forever] in the future. Even if a superior being created our universe, this being would still have to abide to these laws.
Opposite to the example of infectious diseases above, we do -indeed- not (yet) know for sure which rules lead to the existence of our universe (and how).
But in contrast to your claim that there are none,we do have theories, or, alternatively: this explanation on how it formed. Again I would disagree with the title of the first link: the wording "formed from nothing" is indeed misleading.

So why do I favour this explanation(s) over "God made it" ?
I once read that there are about 2000 religions in this world. All of them claim "My god did it" - no exception (well, almost).
At best, only one can be correct. This looks like an inflationary and bad start for religion as an explanation, doesn't it ?

The model of everlasting rules is sooooo much simpler (remember Occams razor ?).

-----------------------

To start:
Similar to my model- you make the following assumptions :

- God is eternal (Similarly I say these laws are eternal)
- God has created the universe and eventually us. - Again I use a similar logic by saying that these underlying eternal physical laws lead to the existence of our universe and eventually to our existence.

So far we have a similar line of reasoning and we're on draw.

But besides that, your "model" introduces/needs a lot of additional (but unnecessary) assumptions:

- There is a personality(!) called Allah or God who likes to create universes (why ?).
- He created our universe.
- Amongst the zillions of Galaxies he has created, he has chosen/created a special one (that does however look as a normal galaxy from the outside).
     Amongst the millions of normal stars in it, he has again chosen one solar system at this galaxy's fringe to harbour life on a planet called earth.
- After billions of years of the earth's existence he finally decides to create intelligent beings on this earth, but only for the very purpose to make them say: "God, you're the best !"
- This God is almighty and omniscient, but he doesn't know what his intelligent creatures will decide next minute.
- He and his creatures call this paradox "free will".
- Since almighty God seems to be unable to hardwire the knowledge of his own existence into his creatures brain, he also likes to create special people called prophets, that ought to tell other people about his existence and that he[God] is indeed very special.
- In a cruel game he also creates thousand of false prophets and it is the people's job to find the correct one(s).
- He sends people that do not believe the right prophets (or failed to identify them) to eternal roasting. The others are put to a place called heaven - unroasted.
- But before he does so, he kills all of us, but only to resurrect us at a day called the day of judgement. So why does he kill us in the first place ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I could carry on for much longer, but I guess you've got the picture by now.

Wouldn't you agree that my model is much simpler and thus more likely to be the correct one ?

Of course you can still say Occam's principle is wrong/useless, but in this case, pleeeease, do not use words like Quran, Islam and Religion in one line with the word "Science".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope people are able to come out of this illusion and see the reality of a better choice available soon.

So do I:    Airmano


Edited by airmano - 18 October 2016 at 12:01am

Are you one who believes that science is the absolute answer to all your questions and there is no need to look beyond science for answers? Then probably you are suffering from what we can call as �The Science Illusion�.

To make it very clear from the outset, the problem lies not with science but in the way people understand and apply it. Science is a great tool developed by man that has helped him understand this wonderful universe to a limited extent, and has made our lives more convenient to a large extent.

However, as with anything human, science too has its limitations and cannot be relied upon to provide an absolute way of guidance. The scientific method of establishing scientific evidences to support or counter a claim simply fails to work outside its limited realm. For example, science is not capable of establishing scientific evidence either in support of a self-creating universe or counter to the idea of an ultimate Creator. Now to argue that the concept of an ultimate Creator is rejected because there is no scientific evidence is like saying that our radar can only catch so many signals so there are no other signals! Any other argument in this regard that is devoid of scientific evidence cannot be qualified as anything more than personal opinions.

That being the state of facts, it seems a few proponents of science in this part of the forum are still away from this reality of the limitation of science, and are still under the wrong impression that science as an absolute way of guidance is an intellectually superior option. The hilarious part is when people take things for granted under this �Science Illusion� so much that they start feeling that they are privileged to pass judgements as though they are the custodians of reasoning for everything and anything in this universe.

I hope people are able to come out of this illusion and see the reality of a better choice available soon.