Religion, science and the concept of inifinity

[gareth]

Hi I'm a new member with a background in the arts and a keen interest in science. I find science fascinating, but sometimes think it weakens itself by its point-blank refusal to accept meaningful truths that stretch beyond the limits of science.

 

A case in point is infinity.

 

If you look at poetry, art and religion, you will find so many beautiful descriptions of the eternal and the inifinte. Science, on the other hand, really seems to struggle with this concept, and any explanations are either too boring or confused to merit reading. Don't forget, science is the limitation of man's understanding, so scientific discussion tends to remain within what is essentially the limitations of man's understanding.

 

Before you make any assumptions about me, I do think that evolution is the most beautiful and artistic scientific theory I have heard (it requires great imagination), but I do think Richard Dawkins is a bit of a berk at the same time.

 

Anyway, that's my intro.

[Overdog]

Hi I'm a new member with a background in the arts and a keen interest in science. I find science fascinating, but sometimes think it weakens itself by its point-blank refusal to accept meaningful truths that stretch beyond the limits of science.

 

Hi gareth...glad you joined us.

 

I agree there are questions that empirical methods of science can't address, hence the need for philosophers and poets. But if these "truths" you refer to are beyond the limits of science, how can we judge them to be true?

[gareth]

Overdog - I think an empirical science approach discourages imagination, and imagination is surely the most important driver of scientific discovery. To me, imagination means believing in things that have not been proven by empirical science to be true. In fact, you could argue that empirical science fosters dogmas in much the same way as religion.

 

As I understand it, a fundamental aspect of science is that nothing is 100% true (my science friends tell me you can never prove something with 100% certainty), which to me suggests that nothing is actually 'true'.

 

You cannot, for example, scientifically prove the existence of karma, but from my experience, it just seems a lot 'truer' and more meaningful than many scientific discoveries.

 

However, I am sure there are scientific theories that would be in harmony with the concept of karma. The only problem is, if you published a paper on the subject, I am sure you would be sneered at by 'respectable' scientists, precisely because of the blinkered approach that empirical science engenders.

[Overdog]

Oh. I just realized this is the Introductions Forum...

 

Well, I'll hold off responding to that here.

 

Again, Welcome!

 

Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread for this discussion in the Philosopy and Humanities section?

[C1ay]

Don't forget, science is the limitation of man's understanding, so scientific discussion tends to remain within what is essentially the limitations of man's understanding.

 

:phones:

Science is the collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline; the pursuit and study of physical and material knowledge, particularly in a systematic and organized manner.

 

I personally have no trouble with the concept of infinity.

[gareth]

Hi Clay - thanks for responding to my post.

 

If you have no trouble understanding the concept of infinity, could you please explain* it to me (i.e. what it means to you PERSONALLY - not the dictionary definition).

 

*you're not allowed to use Greek letters, formulae or very complicated word.

[gareth]

Please don't think I'm being impudent, but I had to smile when I read 'particularly in a systematic and organized manner'.

 

Penicillen anyone?

[Overdog]

...As I understand it, a fundamental aspect of science is that nothing is 100% true (my science friends tell me you can never prove something with 100% certainty), which to me suggests that nothing is actually 'true'...

 

Perhaps then you'd like to replace your use of the word "truths" in your original post, with the word "beliefs"?

 

I find science fascinating, but sometimes think it weakens itself by its point-blank refusal to accept meaningful beliefs that stretch beyond the limits of science.

[gareth]

If a belief is believable enough to a sufficient number of people, then surely it becomes a 'truth'?

 

Anyway, if what my science friends tell me is true (nothing in science can be proved with 100% certainty), then surely all truths in science are in fact just beliefs anyway (albeit very believable beliefs).

[Overdog]

If a belief is believable enough to a sufficient number of people, then surely it becomes a 'truth'?

 

I wouldn't say that. Believing in the Easter Bunny doesn't make it true.

 

Anyway, if what my science friends tell me is true (nothing in science can be proved with 100% certainty), then surely all truths in science are in fact just beliefs anyway (albeit very believable beliefs).

 

Yes, the distinction between belief in something like "karma" and a scientific theory, is that one is verifiable and falsifiable through empirical methods, and the other is not.

[gareth]

There's nothing believable about the Easter Bunny. But if everyone on Earth was convinced of the Easter Bunny's existence, then I'm sure I would be too. Wouldn't you?

 

Have you ever thought that the things that might actually matter to furthering science are not verifiable or falsiable in empirical terms?

 

The reason I joined this forum is because I want to learn as much about the world as possible. I think we're sometimes cajoled into thinking that science has all the answers to understanding the world we live in. So far (perhaps with the exception of Darwinism), it hasn't done much to further my understanding of the world, compared to what religion and the arts have done.

 

A good start would be to encourage a more inter-diciplinary approach in science (but of course, it is not in the nature of a scientist to spread himself across multiple fields as this would mean he wouldn't get the recognition he craves in his specialised field, and there would also be problems with funding, etc). It can then branch out to embrace the humanities and possibly religion. So when we talk about a unified theory, we are not just talking about a unified theory of science, but a unified theory of everything (42!). Isn't that something to work towards?

[Overdog]

There's nothing believable about the Easter Bunny. But if everyone on Earth was convinced of the Easter Bunny's existence, then I'm sure I would be too. Wouldn't you?

 

No, I would not. I would need to see the evidence supporting the claim.

 

Have you ever thought that the things that might actually matter to furthering science are not verifiable or falsiable in empirical terms?

 

No, I have not, because things which are not verifiable or falsifiable are not in the domain of science. They are the proper domain of the Humanities.

 

The humanities are academic disciplines which study the human condition, using methods that are largely analytic, critical, or speculative, as distinguished from the mainly empirical approaches of the natural and social sciences.

Humanities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The reason I joined this forum is because I want to learn as much about the world as possible. I think we're sometimes cajoled into thinking that science has all the answers to understanding the world we live in. So far (perhaps with the exception of Darwinism), it hasn't done much to further my understanding of the world, compared to what religion and the arts have done.

 

I invite you to read the wiki article above...

 

A good start would be to encourage a more inter-diciplinary approach in science (but of course, it is not in the nature of a scientist to spread himself across multiple fields as this would mean he wouldn't get the recognition he craves in his specialised field, and there would also be problems with funding, etc). It can then branch out to embrace the humanities and possibly religion. So when we talk about a unified theory, we are not just talking about a unified theory of science, but a unified theory of everything (42!). Isn't that something to work towards?

 

Science can't embrace the Humanities. If it could, it wouldn't be science.

[nutronjon]

There's nothing believable about the Easter Bunny. But if everyone on Earth was convinced of the Easter Bunny's existence, then I'm sure I would be too. Wouldn't you?

 

Have you ever thought that the things that might actually matter to furthering science are not verifiable or falsiable in empirical terms?

 

The reason I joined this forum is because I want to learn as much about the world as possible. I think we're sometimes cajoled into thinking that science has all the answers to understanding the world we live in. So far (perhaps with the exception of Darwinism), it hasn't done much to further my understanding of the world, compared to what religion and the arts have done.

 

A good start would be to encourage a more inter-diciplinary approach in science (but of course, it is not in the nature of a scientist to spread himself across multiple fields as this would mean he wouldn't get the recognition he craves in his specialised field, and there would also be problems with funding, etc). It can then branch out to embrace the humanities and possibly religion. So when we talk about a unified theory, we are not just talking about a unified theory of science, but a unified theory of everything (42!). Isn't that something to work towards?

 

 

Avoid any discussion of God, or you will regret it. Stay out of the theology forum and don't mention God, and things will go just fine.

[gareth]

Overdog - of course you are right - Humanities and Science are two separate fields. What interests me is the overlap between them. By the way, have you ever seen a badger?

 

You must remember that moral philosophy (surely at the heart of humanities) is vital for steering science down the right path.

 

Would the discovery of alien life, for example, be best dealt with by experts in science or experts in the humanities?

 

Another example that interests me is the concept of 'fate'. Once upon a time, it seemed to me to be one of the most unscientific notions ever. With the advent of the mapping of the human genome, suddenly the idea of an inescapable fate doesn't seem so unscientific anymore, in fact, the whole concept of inescapable fate seems to have now been ripped out of the humanities and placed squarely at the door of science.

 

Nutronjon - I didn't mention the 'G word' - you did.

And how do you know I will regret visiting the theology forum - do you have any empirical evidence? Is there something sinister about the theology forum then?

[Overdog]

Overdog - of course you are right - Humanities and Science are two separate fields. What interests me is the overlap between them. By the way, have you ever seen a badger?

 

You must remember that moral philosophy (surely at the heart of humanities) is vital for steering science down the right path.

 

Would the discovery of alien life, for example, be best dealt with by experts in science or experts in the humanities?

 

Another example that interests me is the concept of 'fate'. Once upon a time, it seemed to me to be one of the most unscientific notions ever. With the advent of the mapping of the human genome, suddenly the idea of an inescapable fate doesn't seem so unscientific anymore, in fact, the whole concept of inescapable fate seems to have now been ripped out of the humanities and placed squarely at the door of science.

 

Nutronjon - I didn't mention the 'G word' - you did.

And how do you know I will regret visiting the theology forum - do you have any empirical evidence? Is there something sinister about the theology forum then?

 

I think these are a lot of interesting questions, and this is a great site for discussing them. I think it would be better though to discuss them in seperate threads in the appropriate forums, rather than all right here....

 

I think you have only have three posts to go before you can start threads on them in the different forums.

 

In the mean time, here's a link you might find interesting....

 

Philosophy of Science

 

There is nothing sinister about the Theology forum, and people are free to express a belief in God if they want to.

 

But this is a science site, and folks who make unverifiable claims about or relating to God with no evidence to support those claims, are really claiming they have some special knowledge about God or the Universe...folks here just don't buy it, and will ask for evidence or proof. That's all.

 

Have fun, looking forward to your posts!

[gareth]

Thanks for the tips Overdog - I'm sure I can learn a lot from this forum.

[C1ay]

If you have no trouble understanding the concept of infinity, could you please explain* it to me (i.e. what it means to you PERSONALLY - not the dictionary definition).

 

You need a wide open imagination to visualize it. When you think of sets think of an endless set larger than the Universe itself. Think of an endless line that reaches the end of the Universe and keeps on going. Difficult? Yep, for most people anyhow.

 

Now think of a giant track, maybe the size of a whole state. It has two lanes with a line down the middle and a barren wall running along both sides so the scenery is the same all the way around. Now imagine driving that track for ever looking for the end that doesn't exist. Mentally this is like the same endless line that goes to the edge of the Universe and keeps on going.

 

Mathematically you can divide infinity into two basic types, countable infinities and uncountable infinities. The set of integers represents a countable infinity where you can make a one-to-one relationship with the set of integers and the infinite set. The set of real numbers is uncountable because it contains all of the integers and all of the points in between like all of the irrational numbers like pi and e which can't even be identified as specific points on the line, only points they lie next to.

 

Hopefully this will help a little with your visualization of infinity.