Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
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)
Scientism is the viewpoint that science provides the only genuine knowledge of reality. The first rule of scientism is the scientific method. Here was my natural starting point for trying 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, but when they need healing they often look at answers both from the doctors relying on scientific methods and if they don't get an answer there, they would look at alternative methods, too. 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. "
There are two strength and two weaknesses of scientism to explore.
When investigating reality through the lens of science, science presents two very attractive qualities.
First of all, it works. More consistently than anything else in life, science provides a framework that both predicts outcomes and solves problems. We observe how well it shapes reality and we are amazed. Also, great scientific thinkers are rewarded in many ways. It is very attractive to focus our whole intellect on scientific answers for both the rewards and the answers it provides.
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 is much more complex than we expect. I am sure in 100 years the knowledge humanity will have will far exceed anything we know today.
Secondly, science is objective. The results of good scientific discovery are real. People correlate the term "scientific" to objective, unquestionable answers. It can settle an argument and it can provide a framework for life and resolving issues between different viewpoints.
People are not nearly as objective. 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. There is nothing scientific about the multiverse. There is no way to prove it exists because it exists outside of our universe. This leads into the two issues of scientism.
It is very understandable why people base their lives on scientism. It works well. Why change a "good thing" when it appears to be working?
Ayn Rand
There are two outstanding problems in the scientific utopia, though.
1) Underlying all scientific principles is the reality that the scientific theory can only be applied to the observable and repeatable. This greatly limits the extent of the proofs.
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 except with a basic assumption that nothing exists except for the material.
Let's take a second look at Stephen Hawkings computer analogy of death in light of this reality.
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.
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; in fact, 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 problem.
Scientists are still human. Some 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 and 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 it.
Thta 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 limited to what is only 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?
Logically, the answer will probably be "religious". In today's world, most people see religion and science at war with each other. Science is on the side of the battlelines holding all truth proven by facts while on the other side is religion, the protector of truth proven by faith.
Before you get caught up in "faith" and the inability to prove anything, let me say there are two types of faith. To me the religious leaders who command blind faith are manipulators and people who are more interested in their own self-interest than in the interest of others. It is easy to call people to believe in some grandiose vision and propaganda. There will always be people who follow a person of passion. But vision is not reality, and I am not going to waste my time with this.
There is a second type of faith. It is the faith that when you put your weight on a chair, you believe it will not break. The faith that when you climb into a plane that you are not going to fall to your death. This is logical faith, built upon experience and reasoning. This faith is not ignorant or worthless, it is how we live our everyday lives. And this type of faith doesn't have to be in opposition to scientific thought and intellectualism. They can be complimentary.
Are there answers that are both scientific and religious; after all, throughout history, there have been many great intellectuals and scientists who have also been highly religious. Have we really become so "smart" to believe we have all of the answers without religion? Or are we so "dumb" to believe that our religion overcomes all scientific reasoning?
Before looking at what I call "Truth Crumbs", the crumbs on the trail which point us to reality, there was another reason I started exploring options outside of scientism. Philosophically, everyone always talks about what is the "Meaning of Life". Exploration of the meaning of life actually points to a more poignant question pointing to deeper wisdom of the universe.
For this discussion, look at the page Is There Meaning?
Copywrite ThinkReality.org
Powered by GoDaddyI