How should we go about understanding reality

[Ryan_m_b]

who cares if a child picks a magical answer if the morals it teaches him are sound? again you miss the point. you would make a good suicide bomber. easily distracted by the letter of the law completely ignoring the purpose. if the matter which makes up the brain is part of the universe, I'm pretty sure it is, then it is a tiny part of the universe where consciousness is happening. your ego claims ownership and cries "i'm special" but that's just not the case. PM me if you wish to continue arguing senslessly. I'm game. we need not jack this thread any longer.

I haven't seen you post one useful thing yet, nor one thing that isn't a messed up stream of consciousness. What exactly are you trying to say on the topic of understanding reality?

 

[Willowz]

If this thread dies, then perhaps you can private message me as this is very helpful to me to decide how i should live my life in a rational way.

So, you want other people to tell you how you should live your life? Seriously, ask yourself in how many ways can that go wrong?

Infinitely many.

 

[dm4b]

In regards to Peter's last message, I always like Joseph's Campbell's advice: "follow your bliss"

I'd still recommend learning as much as you can about science, religion, and philosophy with an open mind and from an objective viewpoint.

You'll naturally gravitate more towards one or the other. It's an individual choice really.

I just think it's important to realize none of the fields are the sole owners of the "truth", and in that regard I don't think it is wise to ignore any of them, either. They all have something important to offer you in the end.

Good luck!

 

[computerphys]

...learning as much as you can about science, religion, and philosophy...

I agree and quote Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

 

[JaredJames]

I agree and quote Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

Is that in context?

I just did a bit of searching and it seems to have a fair bit more context to it. Can someone clarify?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Is that in context?

I just did a bit of searching and it seems to have a fair bit more context to it. Can someone clarify?

I can't find the context however there is a good little essay on it here http://www.chowk.com/Views/Science/Is-Science-without-Religion-really-Lame

Near the end there is a good concluding remark

So in conclusion: Is science lame without religion? I do not believe so. It still has two legs (without any help from religion) if it was a biped to start with. Fortunately it doesn’t need any props; it stands and falls by its own standards. Science explains how natural phenomena occur; it does not explain why they occur. Due to our ignorance, we need religion to explain “why”. But such explanations may not be true and they are not verifiable. Science does not accept anything until it is verified by empirical data. So we see that science and religion do not live in the same space.

However science may be regarded lame in the sense that its knowledge is limited. The moment one brings in religion to make it whole, it ceases to be science. It becomes metaphysics.

I try not to get bogged down by profound sounding quotes from historical figures. It always seems to much like an appeal to authority. Einstein, for all his importance, was wrong on many matters. Particularly when he tried to reconcile his religious beliefs with scientific understanding

EDIT: it seems this conversations been had on the forum before https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=424394&page=4 there's a few links that might provide more context. The general idea is that the quote means science explains the how and religion explains the why. Not a very good statement; I don't think religion explains anything at all, instead it provides often unverifiable answers with no evidence to back them up.

 

[computerphys]

Is that in context? ... Can someone clarify?

Here, I try. According to wikipedia, "Science ... builds ... knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world".

What happens if we find that part of the world is NOT predictable? Then, science would be lame, as Einstein quoted.

But, have we found that the world (or part of it) is NOT predictable? The answer is YES, definitely. HUP is the thing that makes Science lame. So, Einstein was right.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Here, I try. According to wikipedia, "Science ... builds ... knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world".

What happens if we find that part of the world is NOT predictable? Then, science would be lame, as Einstein quoted.

But, have we found that the world (or part of it) is NOT predictable? The answer is YES, definitely. HUP is the thing that makes Science lame. So, Einstein was right.

And how does religion fit into this? Apart from the fact that Einstein was opposed to quantum physics on personal and religious grounds?

EDIT: not saying that was the sole reason but Einstein certainly had non-scientific objections to a non-determinate universe

 

[Pythagorean]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

I think Einstein is talking more about spirituality. Perhaps there wasn't such a new-age, secular concept for that, perhaps Einstein was just being polite. To me, what he means is that if you don't have some fascination with nature and how it could work so wonderfully, then you won't be a very motivated scientist (well, not the deep kind of theoretical scientist einstein was). Carl Sagan had a similar message. So we weren't created by an intelligent design, but that's even more fantastic of a reason to be impressed that we exist! I mean, science should be a way of life, science should be the meaning of life! That's a "religious" sentiment (i.e. non-scientific, non-fasifiable, a value judgment).

from the article above:

In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory

A deterministic universe, reduced to one equation, that was closer to Einstein's god than an anthropomorphic omnipotent dude that cares about human behavior. Christopher Hitchens refers to him as a deist, rather than a theist.

 

[computerphys]

... Einstein was opposed to quantum physics ...

In 1905, Albert Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect by describing light as composed of discrete quanta. This discovery led to the quantum revolution in physics and earned Einstein the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

So, I would rather say that Einstein is a father of quantum physics.

 

[Pythagorean]

In 1905, Albert Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect by describing light as composed of discrete quanta. This discovery led to the quantum revolution in physics and earned Einstein the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

So, I would rather say that Einstein is a father of quantum physics.

They're not mutually exclusive.

I would say that he had an emotional reaction to the implications of some aspects of QM, not that he outright opposed it altogether. He didn't reject the observations he or Planck found, but a fundamental aspect of QM: the implications of Bell's Theorem.

 

[computerphys]

I would say that he had an emotional reaction to the implications of some aspects of QM

Right, I agree with you, but that not implies he couldn't achieve some enlightenment from these very implications.

Taking the context into account (his life, his theories, his letters, his quotes, ...) I think he meant science is not enough to understand reality, a religious belief or sentiment is the complement.

Personally, I would also add philosophy to this receipt:

* Philosophy to define reality
* Science to describe reality
* Religion to understand reality

 

[JaredJames]

Taking the context into account (his life, his theories, his letters, his quotes, ...) I think he meant science is not enough to understand reality, a religious belief or sentiment is the complement.

I see no purpose to religious belief outside of people needing it.

I'm doing pretty well so far and I have never had to bring religion into it.

 

[thorium1010]

* Philosophy to define reality
* Science to describe reality
* Religion to understand reality

Religion does not help to understand reality, it has an assumption about reality - which is neither testable nor verifiable.
Philosophy falls under the same category as religion IMO.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Personally, I would also add philosophy to this receipt:

* Philosophy to define reality
* Science to describe reality
* Religion to understand reality

Agreed,
Agreed,
Disagree.

Religion does not help anyone understand reality any more than the Lord of the Rings does. As a mechanism for learning about the universe religion is a poor mental crutch for those who do not like to admit they do not have the answers (or that they live in an uncaring universe).

Religion simply replaces one "I don't know" with a magical answer. E.g. "Why does the Earth support life?" --> "God did it". Alternatively religion is a way of justifying events people find unacceptable e.g. "why did 10,000 people die in a tsunami?" --> "It's all part of the grand plan. It was actually a good thing that the tsunami happened, we're just unable to understand God's reasons why"

 

[computerphys]

Religion does not help anyone understand reality

You sure? A lot of people claims the contrary. At least there is one truth here: some people need religion included in the receipt and some people don't need it at all.

When I feel that I think, this is religion. When I conclude that I exist, this is philosophy. When I see myself in the mirror, this is science. I need these 3 acts of self-conscience to understand who I am. And you?

 

[JaredJames]

When I feel that I think, this is religion.?

What's religious about that?

Please give an example of how religion helps you understand reality.

It tries to tell you what reality is. It dictates how you should act within that reality. Where does the understanding come from?

 

[thorium1010]

You sure? A lot of people claims the contrary. At least there is one truth here: some people need religion included in the receipt and some people don't need it at all.

When I feel that I think, this is religion. When I conclude that I exist, this is philosophy. When I see myself in the mirror, this is science. I need these 3 acts of self-conscience to understand who I am. And you?

claims are not a good way to understand reality. what individual feels or experiences is his own has little to do with the workings of nature.

 

[computerphys]

claims are not a good way to understand reality. what individual feels or experiences is his own has little to do with the workings of nature.

Just the contrary. Science is based on experiences.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You sure? A lot of people claims the contrary.

Everybody in existence (and all those who have ever existed) could claim something and that wouldn't make it true.

At least there is one truth here: some people need religion included in the receipt and some people don't need it at all.

Whether or not somebody "needs" religion to get by in life bears absolutely no relationship to whether or not religion provides answers to life. If I could not go a single day without reading Harry Potter does not mean that Harry Potter can provide me with answers about the universe.

When I feel that I think, this is religion.

When you feel that you think? How can one even do this? We can think yes, we know we think however this bears nothing to religion. Religion is an organised collection of faith based beliefs.

When I conclude that I exist, this is philosophy.

It is science, you're conclusions are based on evidence. Your definition of existence, definition of you and the manner in which you decided what counts as evidence, how to conclude etc is philosophy

When I see myself in the mirror, this is science.

No. Science can explain the mechanisms by which you stand, by which you see and by which light travels, reflects etc.

I need these 3 acts of self-conscience to understand who I am. And you?

No you do not. Understanding who you are has no religious requirement. Religion may play a part in your life but it cannot explain who you are.

 

[thorium1010]

Just the contrary. Science is based on experiences.

I was referring to religious experiences. What experiences have given to our understanding of reality (perhaps an example )?

 

[JaredJames]

Just the contrary. Science is based on experiences.

Science says nothing about individual experiences and 'anecdotal' issues.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Science says nothing about individual experiences and 'anecdotal' issues.

Exactly. Science is based on verified evidence, not "experience". As if flicking through Nature or Science would comprise of reading various excerpts from scientist's diaries.

"Dear Diary

Today I experienced dark matter under my sofa. True story..."

 

[computerphys]

When you feel that you think? How can one even do this?

You really don't feel that you think?

We can think yes, we know we think however this bears nothing to religion. Religion is an organised collection of faith based beliefs.

One of these beliefs could be, depending on which particular religion we choose, the sense of spirituality.

You may call it the way you like, but the point is that there is a part of the reality that does not belong to science (because it is not based on rules) nor to philosophy (because it cannot be derived from logic). This domain of knowledge that comes from direct feeling is used to be called religion.

 

[JaredJames]

You really don't feel that you think?

What does that even mean?

You may call it the way you like, but the point is that there is a part of the reality that does not belong to science (because it is not based on rules) nor to philosophy (because it cannot be derived from logic). This domain of knowledge that comes from direct feeling is used to be called religion.

Could you give an example please. What cannot be described by rules or logic?

Remember, the inability to now simply reflects out current understanding, not that we will never be able to or that it doesn't follow it in some way.

 

[Darken-Sol]

What does that even mean?Could you give an example please. What cannot be described by rules or logic?

Remember, the inability to now simply reflects out current understanding, not that we will never be able to or that it doesn't follow it in some way.

the trait of curiosity for one. we can geuss and test at the reasons we have it. without it we would not have science, religion or philosophy. even if we found a sound scientific explination that describes how we expierience it, it would leave questions about the "why" of it. religion provides an answer. e.g. mankind was created with a flaw and he wil never have enough. this idea covers many other questions, such as greed. it is also supported by the idea of evolution. may not be the right one but it will do till a better one comes along. on another post you explained this is how science works. some people are only curious to the point of "god says so" and some are only curious back to the "big bang".

 

[JaredJames]

the trait of curiosity for one. we can geuss and test at the reasons we have it. without it we would not have science, religion or philosophy. even if we found a sound scientific explination that describes how we expierience it, it would leave questions about the "why" of it. religion provides an answer.

To ascribe religion to curiosity, that implies it was written purely by humans trying to explain their world and there is nothing divine about it.

So either it's the word of God and is telling us how things are and we should accept it - no curiosity required, or it's created from curiosity in which case, no God required except for our own purposes.

All that aside, what does that have to do with what I responded to?

Would it not also be fair to say that religion initially (and still now in some cases) is against curiosity in so far as it persecuted those who dared to try and explained things without the use of religious texts.

mankind was created with a flaw and he wil never have enough.

I don't like the word "created" there, but I assume you didn't mean it as it reads.

it is also supported by the idea of evolution.

Nothing religious relates to evolution - that's science at its finest.

may not be the right one but it will do till a better one comes along. on another post you explained this is how science works. some people are only curious to the point of "god says so" and some are only curious back to the "big bang".

"God says so" doesn't answer anything, it raises more questions than it answers. Filling in the blanks with such a concept shows a lack of curiosity and a willingness to just accept the easiest concept you hear.

Another thing, what is it with people insisting there's a "why" to everything? It is meaningless, you don't need a "why" at all.

 

[thorium1010]

mankind was created with a flaw and he will never have enough. this idea covers many other questions, such as greed. it is also supported by the idea of evolution. may not be the right one but it will do till a better one comes along.

on one stretch you say man is created, any evidence for creation ? generally human beings have a lot of flaws not just one.

 

[computerphys]

What does that even mean?

Probably I have expressed wrongly. I mean the perception/awareness/consciousness of being thinking. That is feeling yourself, not your body, but your mind.

Could you give an example please. What cannot be described by rules or logic?

The act of thinking, or even simpler, the creation of a particle from the void. There is no rule for that.

Remember, the inability to now simply reflects out current understanding, not that we will never be able to or that it doesn't follow it in some way.

It's been discussed a lot about HUP being interpreted as an inability of current scientific/technological status. HUP is not due to it, but has an absolute meaning about the limited predictability of science.

 

[Darken-Sol]

i know "created" makes some people uncomfortable. caused to exist. my point is you don't need religion. i do. i will never isolate a photon and prove it exists. so for me to take science seriously i have to accept someoneelses experience on the matter. in that case science is just another religion for me. i build houses and probably will till i die. i don't care enough about proving things to alter my way of life to do so. so i sift thru data, formulate opinion, put it to practical use, and reject what doesn't work. until it doesnt, religion works just fine for me. so does science.

 

[Evo]

This discussion has been going in circles since the first page. Closed.