Comments on Profile Post by Andr01d

Religion's main purpose today seems to be to inflame various groups and give them reasons to fight, and since it no longer explains very much of the world, I said its run its course. What do you think?

Well, I agree that science has helped to root out a lot of superstitious & fallacious thinking/habits from modern society but, seeing as it is the study of the physical rather than metaphysical, I feel that science is ill-equipped to deal with questions like "Why am I here?", "Are there metaphysical laws to go along with the physical laws of the universe?", "Does it matter if I live or die or...?".

Which means we still need ideological frameworks to deal with said questions, and (like it or not) most of the different religions (barring things like Scientology, which are obvious scams) are attempts to build such a framework.

Which means that, despite the problems that seem to crop up between people of differing religious convictions, I think it's a pretty far call to say that religion has gone and had it's day.

(Plus, just removing the religion doesn't mean people will stop getting inflamed & fighting-- just look at how the Nazis & Communists treated each other in/around WWII; and that was political.)

For someone coming from a purely scientific standpoint, questions about metaphysics disappear. Why am I here? To reproduce/self replicate. The entire history of life is laid bare through science, and questions of "why" end up becoming questions of "how".

Thus religion's monopoly on explaining the universe has been toppled, which is a historical first for humanity, and I think very significant and worth commenting on. Maybe saying "its run its course" isn't the best way of encapsulating that, though.

I hate to be contrary, but no: coming from a purely scientific standpoint it is _impossible to comment_ on the metaphysical. Metaphysics (and the questions it raises) does not "disappear", it's just unviewable using the scientific method.

Science is a tool just like philosophy & theology; and where science focuses on 'that-which-is-tangible', philosophy & theology look at respectively: 'that-which-may-be-thought-about' and 'that-which-pertains-to-God'.

I heartily agree that having 'religion' as the only lens we can look at the universe through is a TERRIBLE idea, and that science is a wonderful tonic to said monopoly. But to suggest that one can replace a religious monopoly on viewing the world with a scientific monopoly seems to me to be 1 step forward & 3 steps sideways.

but your thoughts are all taking place in your head, which is physical. everything is physical. everything exists as a logical flow and cause and effect, from a purely scientific standpoint. science doesn't comment on the metaphysical because it doesn't need to, since the whole of reality can be reliably understood through science.

I think the problem is that the human mind has a tendency to look for meaning when there isn't any. Most things we deal with from day to day have a purpose, a meaning, a logical reason to exist. But in the big picture, there is no logical reason for anything to exist, it just does.

Trace the cause and effect far enough back and you have stuff like Steven Hawking saying that matter has the potential to travel back in time and effect itself, thus the big bang may have caused itself. meaning loops back around and you end up where you started, with nothing.

"but your thoughts are all taking place in your head"

Are they? :p

"which is physical."

Is it? :p

"everything is physical."

Are you totally sure? What about Dualism? :p

I'm not trying to put the burden of proof on science when it comes to determining whether the metaphysical is there --that would be both unfair (since science is not equipped to study the incorporeal) & fallacious (since the burden of proof rest with those making the claim)-- but simply pointing out that the *only* way to discount the metaphysical is to establish it as self-contradictory.

Your arguments against the relevance of religion (and thus against the existence of the metaphysical) are based on the presupposition that the material universe is all that there is, and unless you allow that there may be, possibly, a non-material element to the equation you will *always* come to the conclusion that there is no meta-reality because you have presupposed against it.

Well, science is rarely in the market of proving something to be irrefutably true. Rather, it likes to say what is very likely to be true. And based on all material evidence that can be gathered by the five senses, reality appears to be completely composed of physical matter. I have never seen evidence to the contrary, and neither has science.

So science can safely say that beyond a reasonable doubt, reality exists as physical matter/energy/dark matter/dark energy. Can I say that with 100% certainty? No. Just like I can't say with 100% certainty that an enormous purple elephant is in the basement of my house at this very moment.

But all scientific evidence points to a conclusion, and allows for a great deal of practical knowledge to be gained. Coming to the opposite conclusion, that reality is not based on physical matter and is some sort of illusion, is also not able to be proven, but goes against the overwhelming sensual evidence gathered throughout all of history, and allows for no practical knowledge to be gained.

Thus from the perspective of a human with a wish to survive in the physical universe, I am almost forced to accept its existence as fact, even if I cannot prove it 100%. Just like I go about my day assuming that there are no huge animals lurking in my basement.

To some people it seems like, "you can't PROVE it!" has become some sort of rallying cry. It's very hard to prove anything to be completely true without a doubt. Try taking a course in formal logic, you'll spend hours proving that if you flip a lightswitch, a light turns on.