I have frequently noticed people commenting that there are many unanswered questions but science may not be able to provide all answers.

I have always placed complete faith in science and have probably never thought in this direction or probably I am ignorant.  Considering that science deals only with the nature, it is understood that it cannot be asked to find answers to questions about the supernatural. After finding the truth about the origin of the universe and the origin of life, the remaining questions are in my opinion just missing links. What are such questions then that science will not answer and why? What are its limitations? Time? Funds? Human resources? Lack of interest or efforts on the part of humans? Or is the present knowledge inadequate for further research? I would like my more enlightened friends here to educate me on this subject.

Views: 697

Replies to This Discussion

Christopher Hitchens lived his life from one numinous or transcendent moment to the next!

Hitchens lived his life to LEARN.  I wonder that his "numinous experience" was codified in DISCOVERY ... and I miss the hell out of that man.

To me the terms "numinous and transcendent" capture subjective experience from our preverbal primitive brains, the reptile brain and limbic system. To embrace the experiences of our primitive brains is not the same as embracing supernatural explanations or ideas. Supernatural language is, after all, a product of our language-using higher brain. Using such language would be to accept a prescientific hypothesis for primitive brain experience, without rational evidence.

Inherently nonverbal experience has a place in the world of reason, even if reason and language aren't good at capturing such experiences. Joy and anxiety aren't rational, but they are real. Goosebumps too.

Supernatural language is, after all, a product of our language-using higher brain. Using such language would be to accept a prescientific hypothesis for primitive brain experience

It might mean only allowing oneself to use the language to allow oneself to get more fully into the experience.  If you have it in your mind that you're having a subjective experience from your primitive brain, that interferes :)

NO matter what style of language we on this thread are employing , i am heartened to see we are beating the same drum: That the supernatural is a non-entity in the discussion of what lies beyond science.

Mr. Kulkarni, If you take anything away from this conversation, i hope it includes that maybe the supernatural does not  follow from when natural explanations appear to stop.

My question also means 'Where do natural explanations stop?'

Natural explanations stop when nature is understood ... and that is a LOT of understanding to do.

In our universe the laws of physics and nature are where answers are to be found. If other universes exist (multiverses) we do not yet know what physical laws they operate under, if they are indeed different laws, or if these universes even exist. I'm just thrilled to know that people smarter than me are always searching for these answers.

We have the scientific method for getting answers. Read Sam Harris for a neuroscience perspective on our incredible brains and where delusions of the supernatural originate from. Hint: evidence that it is a creation of our minds, not a supernatural occurrence.

So I guess what I'm saying is that natural explanations explain it all eventually. Otherwise we forsake science and go back to the dark ages where it is easy to say that god and aliens "did it" and we stop looking for real answers. We don't advance our cause, in that case.

My view is that our "numinous and transcendent" experiences are a joint product  of our limbic system and our frontal cortex.  Our cognitive capacity for abstraction and pattern recognition, I think, can start synapses with our limbic system that a lizard-brain never could.  Trying playing Beethoven for your pet chameleon.  

I also agree that prohibiting ourselves from using the words that our language has developed for those experiences could prevent us from talking about them or even thinking about them.  Tom Flynn would disagree, however.

If your chameleon doesn't appreciate Beethoven, screw him!

Some things are not absolute limitations of science but they tend to be ignored because difficult to research.

One is subjective experiences. 

For example a lot of people get a "fuzzy-headed" feeling from inhalant allergies, and it slows their thinking and reaction time and makes it difficult to do things.  Someone described it to me, aptly, as "like having wool in your head".  With a feeling of being sick. 

But this often isn't listed among allergy symptoms, because it's difficult to measure.  While it's often the worst part of a lot of people's allergic reactions, many people don't know about it.  People often trivialize allergies as "just sniffles" but they're much worse than that, at least for me. 

Also, a lot of people have delayed food allergies, and the main symptom is also intangible - a groggy sick feeling that starts about 1/2 hr after eating the food, and goes on about 4 days.  The fact that researchers haven't correlated the groggy sick feeling with anything measurable, has probably interfered with research on it. 

There will always be questions and answers are only revealed if we really want to know,

the real question is will we except the truth that is found to be.

 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service