The Science Illusion

Are you one who believes that science is the absolute answer to all your questions and there is no need to look beyond science for answers? Then probably you are suffering from what we can call as �The Science Illusion�.

To make it very clear from the outset, the problem lies not with science but in the way people understand and apply it. Science is a great tool developed by man that has helped him understand this wonderful universe to a limited extent, and has made our lives more convenient to a large extent.

However, as with anything human, science too has its limitations and cannot be relied upon to provide an absolute way of guidance. The scientific method of establishing scientific evidences to support or counter a claim simply fails to work outside its limited realm. For example, science is not capable of establishing scientific evidence either in support of a self-creating universe or counter to the idea of an ultimate Creator. Now to argue that the concept of an ultimate Creator is rejected because there is no scientific evidence is like saying that our radar can only catch so many signals so there are no other signals! Any other argument in this regard that is devoid of scientific evidence cannot be qualified as anything more than personal opinions.

That being the state of facts, it seems a few proponents of science in this part of the forum are still away from this reality of the limitation of science, and are still under the wrong impression that science as an absolute way of guidance is an intellectually superior option. The hilarious part is when people take things for granted under this �Science Illusion� so much that they start feeling that they are privileged to pass judgements as though they are the custodians of reasoning for everything and anything in this universe.

I hope people are able to come out of this illusion and see the reality of a better choice available soon.

@QE

Are you one who believes that science is the absolute answer to all your questions and there is no need to look beyond science for answers?

Actually I don't, and if it wasn't for some following statements I would not feel concerned and I'd stop here.
For being precise: Science can not even say why at a given moment one cow says "Mooh" and the other cow doesn't.
How can you even assume that a rational person can [claim to] explain "everything" ?
-------------------------------------------------------

However, as with anything human, science too has its limitations and cannot be relied upon to provide an absolute way of guidance.

You're correct by stating that science has it's limitations.
Regarding "guidance"; actually: Science does not give any guidance at all !.
I don't even see why you mix the term "guidance" and science. Could you quote [an example of] somebody doing so ?
And what do you mean by: "absolute guidance" ?

Not that I am not willing to talk about moral systems, if you wish we can do this elsewhere - but don't link it to science !
-------------------------------------------------

For example, science is not capable of establishing scientific evidence either in support of a self-creating universe or counter to the idea of an ultimate Creator. Now to argue that the concept of an ultimate Creator is rejected because there is no scientific evidence is like saying that our radar can only catch so many signals so there are no other signals! Any other argument in this regard that is devoid of scientific evidence cannot be qualified as anything more than personal opinions.

I agree with you in so far that "nothing comes from nothing", and I disagree with all those claiming it.
But trying to insinuate from this, that a creator has to exist is of course nonsense.

When you see a child being killed by a disease, do you really feel at ease believing that "God killed the child" ? Isn't it easier to accept (as brutal as it still is) that the child caught a disease (like malaria) and died as a consequence of it - or do you still want to argue that god directed the mosquito to the two year old child to kill it ? Why ?
We know how (infectious) diseases spread, why should we invoke God on this level ?

Same for the universe. I think that the universe was created on the basis of everlasting rules (= physical laws), which did exist forever and that are likely to exist [forever] in the future. Even if a superior being created our universe, this being would still have to abide to these laws.
Opposite to the example of infectious diseases above, we do -indeed- not (yet) know for sure which rules lead to the existence of our universe (and how).
But in contrast to your claim that there are none,we do have theories, or, alternatively: this explanation on how it formed. Again I would disagree with the title of the first link: the wording "formed from nothing" is indeed misleading.

So why do I favour this explanation(s) over "God made it" ?
I once read that there are about 2000 religions in this world. All of them claim "My god did it" - no exception (well, almost).
At best, only one can be correct. This looks like an inflationary and bad start for religion as an explanation, doesn't it ?

The model of everlasting rules is sooooo much simpler (remember Occams razor ?).

-----------------------

To start:
Similar to my model- you make the following assumptions :

- God is eternal (Similarly I say these laws are eternal)
- God has created the universe and eventually us. - Again I use a similar logic by saying that these underlying eternal physical laws lead to the existence of our universe and eventually to our existence.

So far we have a similar line of reasoning and we're on draw.

But besides that, your "model" introduces/needs a lot of additional (but unnecessary) assumptions:

- There is a personality(!) called Allah or God who likes to create universes (why ?).
- He created our universe.
- Amongst the zillions of Galaxies he has created, he has chosen/created a special one (that does however look as a normal galaxy from the outside).
     Amongst the millions of normal stars in it, he has again chosen one solar system at this galaxy's fringe to harbour life on a planet called earth.
- After billions of years of the earth's existence he finally decides to create intelligent beings on this earth, but only for the very purpose to make them say: "God, you're the best !"
- This God is almighty and omniscient, but he doesn't know what his intelligent creatures will decide next minute.
- He and his creatures call this paradox "free will".
- Since almighty God seems to be unable to hardwire the knowledge of his own existence into his creatures brain, he also likes to create special people called prophets, that ought to tell other people about his existence and that he[God] is indeed very special.
- In a cruel game he also creates thousand of false prophets and it is the people's job to find the correct one(s).
- He sends people that do not believe the right prophets (or failed to identify them) to eternal roasting. The others are put to a place called heaven - unroasted.
- But before he does so, he kills all of us, but only to resurrect us at a day called the day of judgement. So why does he kill us in the first place ?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I could carry on for much longer, but I guess you've got the picture by now.

Wouldn't you agree that my model is much simpler and thus more likely to be the correct one ?

Of course you can still say Occam's principle is wrong/useless, but in this case, pleeeease, do not use words like Quran, Islam and Religion in one line with the word "Science".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope people are able to come out of this illusion and see the reality of a better choice available soon.

So do I:    Airmano


Edited by airmano - 18 October 2016 at 12:01am

airmano wrote: Actually I don't, and if it wasn't for some following statements I would not feel concerned and I'd stop here. For being precise: Science can not even say why at a given moment one cow says "Mooh" and the other cow doesn't. How can you even assume that a rational person can [claim to] explain "everything" ?

Good. So we are clear that any claim of proving/disproving a Creator has no scientific basis and constitutes nothing more than a personal opinion.
-------------------------------------------------------

airmano wrote: You're correct by stating that science has it's limitations. Regarding "guidance"; actually: Science does not give any guidance at all !. I don't even see why you mix the term "guidance" and science. Could you quote [an example of] somebody doing so ? And what do you mean by: "absolute guidance" ? Not that I am not willing to talk about moral systems, if you wish we can do this elsewhere - but don't link it to science !

Thanks to Google! That�s pretty close to the �guidance� in the context here.
guidance
ˈɡʌɪd(ə)ns/
noun
1.     1.
advice or information aimed at resolving a problem or difficulty, especially as given by someone in authority.
"he looked to his father for inspiration and guidance"
synonyms:     advice, counsel, direction, instruction, teaching, counselling, enlightenment,intelligence, information; More

Science does give man some guidance on the �How� question with respect to what he is able to perceive through his senses. For example science can give guidance on how an object in motion behaves, but science cannot give guidance on why there are some set laws that govern such behaviour.

airmano wrote: I agree with you in so far that "nothing comes from nothing", and I disagree with all those claiming it. But trying to insinuate from this, that a creator has to exist is of course nonsense. When you see a child being killed by a disease, do you really feel at ease believing that "God killed the child" ? Isn't it easier to accept (as brutal as it still is) that the child caught a disease (like malaria) and died as a consequence of it - or do you still want to argue that god directed the mosquito to the two year old child to kill it ? Why ? We know how (infectious) diseases spread, why should we invoke God on this level ? Same for the universe. I think that the universe was created on the basis of everlasting rules (= physical laws), which did exist forever and that are likely to exist [forever] in the future. Even if a superior being created our universe, this being would still have to abide to these laws. Opposite to the example of infectious diseases above, we do -indeed- not (yet) know for sure which rules lead to the existence of our universe (and how). But in contrast to your claim that there are none,we do have theories, or, alternatively: this explanation on how it formed. Again I would disagree with the title of the first link: the wording "formed from nothing" is indeed misleading. So why do I favour this explanation(s) over "God made it" ? I once read that there are about 2000 religions in this world. All of them claim "My god did it" - no exception (well, almost). At best, only one can be correct. This looks like an inflationary and bad start for religion as an explanation, doesn't it ? The model of everlasting rules is sooooo much simpler (remember Occams razor ?). ----------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once we are clear that the scientific evidence based approach does not work when it comes to the matter of a Creator, obviously it boils down to a matter of individual choice. And when making such a choice against a Creator, the first point to consider will be man�s failure to figure out this universe beyond a limit. When your faculty of reasoning fails to figure out things that you believe just came in to existence without any intelligence behind it, how can you be sure that if at all there is a Creator, he has to be completely intelligible to your reasoning?

And what is your criterion to accept the concept of everlasting physical laws and at the same time deny an everlasting Creator who is capable of setting such laws at first place? Anyway you have no clue how these laws came in to existence at first place! Theories do not have an impressive track record especially if they have not been supported by credible scientific evidences.

As long as no being has any control to interfere over such events like somebody dying of Malaria, what has it to do with denying a Creator? As long as you are just a spectator of an event, how can you possibly have any say on what went behind the scenes or what is the use of wondering why it happened a particular way? The Creator has the absolute power to carry out his will, which the humans do not have.

Coming to the question of 2,000 or more religions, again that is a matter of choice. As the saying goes �where there is a will there is a way�, the question is whether you have the will to look for the truth.

I would say a Creator based model is much simpler compared to to a non-Creator based model simply because of the fact that humans have no idea how much information they actually have about this universe let alone beyond it.

airmano wrote: To start: Similar to my model- you make the following assumptions : - God is eternal (Similarly I say these laws are eternal) - God has created the universe and eventually us. - Again I use a similar logic by saying that these underlying eternal physical laws lead to the existence of our universe and eventually to our existence. So far we have a similar line of reasoning and we're on draw. But besides that, your "model" introduces/needs a lot of additional (but unnecessary) assumptions: - There is a personality(!) called Allah or God who likes to create universes (why ?). - He created our universe. - Amongst the zillions of Galaxies he has created, he has chosen/created a special one (that does however look as a normal galaxy from the outside).      Amongst the millions of normal stars in it, he has again chosen one solar system at this galaxy's fringe to harbour life on a planet called earth. - After billions of years of the earth's existence he finally decides to create intelligent beings on this earth, but only for the very purpose to make them say: "God, you're the best !" - This God is almighty and omniscient, but he doesn't know what his intelligent creatures will decide next minute. - He and his creatures call this paradox "free will". - Since almighty God seems to be unable to hardwire the knowledge of his own existence into his creatures brain, he also likes to create special people called prophets, that ought to tell other people about his existence and that he[God] is indeed very special. - In a cruel game he also creates thousand of false prophets and it is the people's job to find the correct one(s). - He sends people that do not believe the right prophets (or failed to identify them) to eternal roasting. The others are put to a place called heaven - unroasted. - But before he does so, he kills all of us, but only to resurrect us at a day called the day of judgement. So why does he kill us in the first place ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I could carry on for much longer, but I guess you've got the picture by now. Wouldn't you agree that my model is much simpler and thus more likely to be the correct one ? Of course you can still say Occam's principle is wrong/useless, but in this case, pleeeease, do not use words like Quran, Islam and Religion in one line with the word "Science".

Coming to all these questions, I wonder how any of these questions or the mosquito question has any relevance to choosing a Creator or not? If you deny a Creator do you get any different answer than if you accept a Creator? The fact is that whether you accept or deny a Creator doesn�t have any bearing on any of these questions as long as you don�t know the answers. The moment you have answers with some scientific evidence, that�s a different scenario, but exactly that�s where science fails.

The biggest difference between your model and my model is that my model has the backing of a book that gives a clear purpose for human life and sets out a very clear picture of the things to come among other things. And there is absolutely no reason not to believe in this book as it has stood the test of time and has been tested practically as it could transform an illiterate man into the most influential person in history (It's not only the opinion of Muslims, but also asserted by Michael H. Hart in his book "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History"). Whereas your model has no such backing, and clearly fails to bring forth any plausible explanations either with respect to the purpose or with respect to a clear picture of the things to come. And on the other hand there have been many failed theories (Einstein�s Static Universe and Other Failed Theories) that cast serious doubts on a theoretical approach of rejecting a Creator.

Good. So we are clear that any claim of proving/disproving a Creator has no scientific basis and constitutes nothing more than a personal opinion.

Well, a pretty pointless sentence, may be I should nevertheless insist that assuming the existence of a creator is nothing more than a personal opinion either.
We can however decide which of the two is the more likely one by applying Occams razor and comparing the [number of] assumptions each of the two opposing points of view require.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Google! That�s pretty close to the �guidance� in the context here.   guidance ˈɡʌɪd(ə)ns/

I'm delighted to see that you know how to google, but this was not my question. I asked what absolute guidance meant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example science can give guidance on how an object in motion behaves, but science cannot give guidance on why there are some set laws that govern such behaviour.

Even less can religion (well, at least in a sensible manner).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once we are clear that the scientific evidence based approach does not work when it comes to the matter of a Creator, obviously it boils down to a matter of individual choice. And when making such a choice against a Creator, the first point to consider will be man�s failure to figure out this universe beyond a limit.

Indeed, this applies to your as much as it does to my approach.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When your faculty of reasoning fails to figure out things that you believe just came in to existence without any intelligence behind it, how can you be sure that if at all there is a Creator, he has to be completely intelligible to your reasoning?

IMHO, you got the right point here. If you had read my last post you'd find that I listed (some of) the assumptions you apply on a creator.

This is the core: How can you reasonably extrapolate, on the basis of a rather primitive book to a (probably) incomprehensible creator - if there is any at all.

Let me remind you: It is you who comes up with these assumptions (see my list above), not me ! .
It is as Einstein says in his gods letter: For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what is your criterion to accept the concept of everlasting physical laws...

As clearly explained: Occams razor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...and at the same time deny an everlasting Creator who is capable of setting such laws at first place? Anyway you have no clue how these laws came in to existence at first place!

Before you showed me that you can google and now you've forgotten.

OK, I help you: "Full Definition of everlasting: lasting or enduring through all time : eternal"
If you still don't understand, may be the vexing question on how your creator came into existence helps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As long as no being has any control to interfere over such events like somebody dying of Malaria, what has it to do with denying a Creator? As long as you are just a spectator of an event, how can you possibly have any say on what went behind the scenes or what is the use of wondering why it happened a particular way? The Creator has the absolute power to carry out his will, which the humans do not have.

If you say God does (and has total power over) everything, isn't it logical to conclude that your God is killing innocent 2 years old children ?
Please tell me where my logical error is ! Simply saying he must have good reasons is far to cheap.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coming to the question of 2,000 or more religions, again that is a matter of choice.

True, but fact is that 99% of the people chose their parents religion. Amazing isn't it ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would say a Creator based model is much simpler compared to to a non-Creator based model simply because of the fact that humans have no idea how much information they actually have about this universe let alone beyond it.

No, I think I clearly outlined why I disagree (simplicity of the model) and you did not even bother to react on my core logic (which would have been listing the points where my model needs additional assumptions compared to yours).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coming to all these questions, I wonder how any of these questions or the mosquito question has any relevance to choosing a Creator or not?

A reasonable question. What I tried to say with this example is that you would probably accept to push back the responsability (of God) by one step. I.a.W you would probably agree that a mosquito transmitted the disease (in contrast to "God injecting plasmodium directly into the kids bloodstream"). You could go one step further: No, he didn't guide the mosquito, but he may have created plasmodium etc.

So, if you go for a creator, where do you stop: The point is the responsibility level ["why"] and intervention level ["how"] of a possible creator with respect to our world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you deny a Creator do you get any different answer than if you accept a Creator?

On a scientific level: Certainly, i.e. on the way the universe came into existence.

On a moral level: If he exists the way you describe and doesn't stop the killing of the kid from happening I think I have all the right to call him irresponsible. Obviously he doesn't prevent it from happening.
So I can conclude that: Either he is not what you pretend he is (i.e. merciful), or he does simply not exist.
I guess your line of defense will be "How do you know that there isn't a deeper sense in it". Yes may be, but then be at least honest and admit that this is pure speculation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact is that whether you accept or deny a Creator doesn�t have any bearing on any of these questions as long as you don�t know the answers. The moment you have answers with some scientific evidence, that�s a different scenario, but exactly that�s where science fails.

False, we do have a scientific line of reasoning! We do know how mosquitos spread the disease, we know quite a bit about Plasmodium. We also have an idea on how plasmodium evolved etc. Equally - as you have certainly seen from the links I posted- we also have theories that (may) explain how our universe came into existence - you have absolutely none which would merit the word "theory" i.e. in the sense of being testable.
Assuming the idea of a creator does also have a bearing in terms of responsibility. If you disagree, then please tell me why your god kills innocent babies. And once more: I think a non-answer of the type "he must have very good reasons" or "he saved the baby from later sins" is lightyears to cheap.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The biggest difference between your model and my model is that my model has the backing of a book that gives a clear purpose for human life and sets out a very clear picture of the things to come among other things......

You repeat what all other (2000) religions say with the exactly the same fervour.

... but let's give it a fair chance! To check the value and the universality of your book, I cite your own statement from the opening thread:

"For example, science is not capable of establishing scientific evidence either in support of a self-creating universe or counter to the idea of an ultimate Creator"

Since I gave you my line of reasoning, it is now your turn on this subject:

A) If God made the universe can your book tell me how he made it ?

Well, we all know that the Quran is not a science book, therefore my expectations to get a decent answer are rather low.
So may be your book can score better on the second question, since this one is of more philosophical nature and it explicitly targets the "purpose question" you claim the Quran is good in answering:

B) Can you tell me why god created the universe ?
Please be precise (and for once I'd like you to cite the relevant Quranic statements).
In case that your answer includes a "for us" can your book also explain why he made zillions of (in this case useless) galaxies (instead of our solar system only) and why he waited billions of years before he created us and his messenger ?



Airmano


Edited by airmano - 24 October 2016 at 2:51pm