Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
The thoughtful and honest observer is always learning more and more of his limitations; he sees that the further knowledge spreads, the more numerous are the problems that make their appearance.
In The Maxims and Reflections of Goethe (1906)
How far can scientific thought really take us?
scientism
Scientism is the viewpoint that science provides the only genuine knowledge of reality. The first rule of scientism is the scientific method. Any thinker starts here to determine if there are answers to death.
Scientism is different than science or being pro-science. It is a worldview which has all of the underpinnings of a religion. It is different than being pro-scientific. For example, many people use biology every day, going to the doctor with physical ailments. But when they need healing and the doctors fail them, do they just give up or do they look for alternative methods? These people are pro-science, but do not necessarily believe in scientism, i.e. that the only answer can be found in science.
Scientism says that death is like falling asleep permanently. In the words of one scientist who faced his imminent death for decades, Stephen Hawkings said,
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail, There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
the beauty of science
I am pro-science. Science works and it is very objective, a true thing of beauty. I am amazed at so many facts about life, how awesome parts of reality all fit together, how math can models anything in life. Science provides a framework that both predicts outcomes and solves problems.
Science is rewarding. It has provided so many answers to society. Individually, great thinkers often live excellent lives. It is very attractive to focus our whole intellect on scientific answers for both the gifts and the answers it provides. People correlate the term "scientific" to objective, unquestionable answers.
Well, it works, typically, until we look too hard. Newton's laws seemed to govern life, until we needed Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and then we need Quantum Mechanics. This is not a criticism of scientific thought, but an acknowledgement that this universe's complexity continues to grow as our learning grows. In 100 years the knowledge humanity will have will far exceed anything we know today.
People are not nearly as objective as science. Our emotions drive our decision much more strongly than our objective intellect. In today's world, "experts" or "science" is used to justify many ideas and decisions that are just not that objective. Again, I quote Stephen Hawkings:
"Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation."
But does it really? Stephen Hawkings answer to the expansion of the universe at the big bang and the improbability of earth is the multi-verse theory. Objectively, there is nothing scientific about the multiverse beyond a theory that we hope to prove. We might be able to create a mathematical model to justify the existence of additional universes, but how do you go beyond the theory and proof it? There is no way to prove it exists because it exists outside of our universe. This leads into the two issues of scientism in a search for answers to death.
You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.
Ayn Rand
THE BEGINNING OF THE END
I really don't know how to answer these two outstanding problems in the scientific utopia.
1) Scientific proofs are to be observable and repeatable. This is the "reality" test. By nature, science is limited to the material. Scientific theories are important as they set a vision for future exploration, but they are only a vision of one possible reality, not reality in itself.
Metaphysical philosophy has a whole series of problems which it postulates science can never prove. How do you prove what someone is thinking? How do you prove that there is no life after death? What is consciousness? There are real life ambiguities which scientific principles can not handle scientifically. Unfortunately, the default explanation then becomes nothing exists except for the material.
Let's take a second look at Stephen Hawkings computer analogy of death in light of this issue.
Hawkings says we are just computers and when the hardware fails, we die. But computers are not just composed of hardware, they are also composed of software. And the software is not solely reliant upon the hardware. I can still play the Command and Conquer games that I bought in the 90's, I can still read the documents I made in open office in the '80s. They are not dead at all to me, though the hardware has been (hopefully) recycled into something else.
Is the computer really gone? The hardware is, but in reality, I don't even care about the hardware. Its the software where the value of the computer lies. And that is still available to me. So did the computer "die"?
In reality, what is life? In Stephen Hawkings case, it is defined by the cold hardware. In my case, it is defined by something much greater than just the hardware. If you are truly a follower of scientism, by definition, you have limited your world to the hardware.
2) Even though scientific principles are wholly objective, scientific theories are not .
When dealing with the larger questions of life, much of today's science are theories. There are theories which give birth to theories which give birth to additional theories. It is important to remember that theories are not facts and almost every theory is either found wrong or modified over time. I am not excited about betting my death on such poor odds.
Theories are very valuable and part of the scientific process. In no way, is it wrong to have theories; they are invaluable because if we can't imagine the next steps, we will be directionless in our science.
The point is more insidious. People like answers and not ambiguity. To make life easier, over time, theories are given the same weight in our mind as facts. Soon, we start to build mental constructs around theories we believe and we stop acknowledging that there could be other solutions to the questions.
Scientists are still human. Scientists make theories that go beyond the scientifically observable. Just like men sitting around a fire and drinking beer can talk convincingly about the mysteries of life, becoming sure of their own conclusions, scientists can propose unscientific theories to answer those questions which make them uncomfortable. Again, the odds are poor to blindly accept what these "great" minds say without testing them out. Any good explorer would consider other theories beyond scientism before settling on Hawking's conclusions or any other ones.
where can we search?
That fear of death compelled investigation into other possibilities.
The intellectual, scientific worldview was limiting. Multiple inconsistencies can be found within scientific communities and the conclusions were either untested theories or limited to what is observable.
Given the fact that the prevailing theories have everything started from nothing, this leaves room for something beyond the universe. It is only logical to explore other possibilities. They don't have to be accepted, but should be explored.
Is there an answer to death that is historical and philosophically sound?
The next step academically would be to logically examine death philosophically. Interestingly, this leads to a poignant question pointing to deeper wisdom of the universe.
For this discussion, look at the page Is There Meaning?
Let you doubt drive you to something."
From "Facing Doubt" by Tim Keller
