Basic questions

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Science has its limitations and its limited scope of inquiry. Its methods and techniques are also limited.

After all these years, science has not managed to make any progress in answering such questions as.....

Why do we exist?

What is death?

Is there a life after death?

Is there any creator or God or gods or other form of superior beings?

Does life have any purpose and meaning?

Is there any absolute morality?

Why are there such major differences between circumstances in peoples lives?

And many more such questions......

I know....I know... Many of you think science has already answered some of these questions while others, according to you, are irrelevant! You will now bring out your load of fallacies that you believe make such questions and arguments fallacious. 

But the fact remains that science is increasingly dabbling in irrelevant and even dangerous areas of research while being nowhere near answering basic questions  that are relevant and important to us. Besides that, whatever evidence is actually there and which could answer some of these questions is quickly and scornfully dismissed. 

Where is the hope for science?!

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram
   

[Gordon]

Sriram

On what basis do you think that 'why do we exist?' is a valid question in the first place?

Aside from 'what is death' and 'why are there such major differences between circumstances in peoples lives', since we can define that and provide supportng evidence, your other questions seem invalid too. 

[Outrider]

Why do we exist?

It's not a scientific question, but regardless you're begging the question. Before you can ask why we exist you have to establish a basis for thinking there is a reason in the first place. What makes you think that life has a reason?

What is death?

Absence of life (although, I appreciate, 'life' is a somewhat loosely defined term).

Is there a life after death?

If death is the absence of life, logically no.

Is there any creator or God or gods or other form of superior beings?

Maybe. Is there any evidence for one or more? Some, arguably. Is there good evidence? No. Does that evidence fit in any sort of rational framework? No.

Does life have any purpose and meaning?

Again, that's not a scientific question, but... maybe. Do we have any evidence for what that might be? Yes, arguably. Is it strong evidence? The plethora of interpretations of what it means to be alive and how to live our best lives suggests that it's not good enough to produce a consistent approach, so probably not.

Is there any absolute morality?

Again, not a scientific question. (Do people think there's an absolute morality would be a scientific question.) Maybe.

Why are there such major differences between circumstances in peoples lives?

Depending on how you choose to interpret it, perhaps not a scientific question either, but from a sociological point of view - cultural difference, tradition, greed, geography, history, climate, religion, human nature and a few smatterings of random chance.

I know....I know... Many of you think science has already answered some of these questions while others, according to you, are irrelevant!

No, I'll go out on a limb and say that I think I broadly speak for quite a few people here when I suggest that science hasn't answered very many of those, wouldn't claim to have, and wouldn't try to. They also wouldn't say that they are irrelevant.

You will now bring out your load of fallacies that you believe make such questions and arguments fallacious.

They aren't fallacious, they just aren't in the main about investigating observable phenomena, and are therefore outside of science's purview - as you said at the start, science has limitations in scope.

But the fact remains that science is increasingly dabbling in irrelevant and even dangerous areas of research while being nowhere near answering basic questions  that are relevant and important to us.

That's one opinion, certainly.

Besides that, whatever evidence is actually there and which could answer some of these questions is quickly and scornfully dismissed.

And that's where the issue arises. You cite 'evidence' for some of these things, but they aren't evidentiary questions in the main. 

Where is the hope for science?!

In the hope that we can investigate questions like 'why do people still mischaracterise science', and with a better sociological and psychological understanding get people to actually realise what science is, what its remit is, and then stop conflating science, materialism, atheism, scepticism and the like.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Hi everyone,

Science has its limitations and its limited scope of inquiry. Its methods and techniques are also limited.

After all these years, science has not managed to make any progress in answering such questions as.....

Why do we exist?

What is death?

Is there a life after death?

Is there any creator or God or gods or other form of superior beings?

Does life have any purpose and meaning?

Is there any absolute morality?

Why are there such major differences between circumstances in peoples lives?

And many more such questions......

I know....I know... Many of you think science has already answered some of these questions while others, according to you, are irrelevant! You will now bring out your load of fallacies that you believe make such questions and arguments fallacious. 

But the fact remains that science is increasingly dabbling in irrelevant and even dangerous areas of research while being nowhere near answering basic questions  that are relevant and important to us. Besides that, whatever evidence is actually there and which could answer some of these questions is quickly and scornfully dismissed.

Where is the hope for science?!

Just some thoughts.

Me (from the Eternity "discussion"):

"Yes, that’s what you always do when you’ve run out of road – run away. No doubt having taken such care to ignore all the arguments that falsify you here, you’ll feel emboldened to start another dim-witted “discussion” that repeats them yet again."

For truly let it be said that I have the power of prophecy eh?

I could of course explain to you the various mistakes in your "thoughts" (such as they are) here, but as you'd just ignore them as you always do what would be the point?   

[Enki]

Hi everyone,

Science has its limitations and its limited scope of inquiry. Its methods and techniques are also limited.

After all these years, science has not managed to make any progress in answering such questions as.....

Why do we exist?

What is death?

Is there a life after death?

Is there any creator or God or gods or other form of superior beings?

Does life have any purpose and meaning?

Is there any absolute morality?

Why are there such major differences between circumstances in peoples lives?

And many more such questions......

I know....I know... Many of you think science has already answered some of these questions while others, according to you, are irrelevant! You will now bring out your load of fallacies that you believe make such questions and arguments fallacious. 

But the fact remains that science is increasingly dabbling in irrelevant and even dangerous areas of research while being nowhere near answering basic questions  that are relevant and important to us. Besides that, whatever evidence is actually there and which could answer some of these questions is quickly and scornfully dismissed. 

Where is the hope for science?!

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram
 

Of course science has its limitations. It cannot investigate a proposed supernatural event, for instance, because its remit is with the natural world and therefore it is only capable of revealing natural reasons for any proposed supernatural event. Hence, for those who believe in the supernatural, the onus is on them to produce alternative methods and techniques which are objective and convincing enough to gain general acceptance. So far, I would suggest, there is no such consensus.

As far as your questions go, some are not directly related to science at all(e.g. the idea of a creator/god) whereas there are others where science has had an increasingly positive impact on human lives(e.g. by precisely by trying to define what is death the use of defribillators has become the norm.)

Also, some of your questions might well be impossible to answer because the wording of the question presents something which is not answerable. For instance, you ask the question, "Why do we exist?" If, for instance,( apart from evolutionary reasons, which actually seeks to answer the question 'how we have come to exist') there is no reason at all, then the question becomes rather meaningless.

I don't know why you have produced a list of questions, only some of which are particularly pertinent to  science and some which are not. However, if we take each question in turn and apply so called 'spiritual' answers or philosophical deliberations, then I think you will find that over many many years there has been no particular progress and any particular consensus on any of these questions. So, if you  condemn science for having no 'hope' it would be doubly so for the spiritual or even the philosphical point of view.

 That is not to say that an individual's belief and convictions cannot be deeply held and even comforting for that particular individual, but that it was ever so. I'm sure, for instance, that your idea of reincarnation is an idea that you hold with some conviction. Unfortunately there is no way I could go along with this idea simply because there is little evidence of same, and the evidence that does exist is extremely suspect. My own beliefs, such as they are, are predicated on an estimation of any evidence that has accrued, and that takes me, however uncomfortable it may be, to different conclusions to yourself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Enki,

Of course science has its limitations.

etc

Yes - what Sriram's attempting here is the old trope of "science doesn't know everything" as if its practitioners ever claimed such a thing, and thereby leaving dangling the "therefore..." that follows as if anything else could answer his questions (or at least the coherent ones).   

[Enki]

Hi Enki,
 etc

Yes - what Sriram's attempting here is the old trope of "science doesn't know everything" as if its practitioners ever claimed such a thing, and thereby leaving dangling the "therefore..." that follows as if anything else could answer his questions (or at least the coherent ones).   

I think you're right, Blue, but to be fair to Sriram, if you have a powerful belief in something it can tend to give you a jaundiced view of anything which challenges it. Using Sriram's simile, it's a bit like looking through a microscope rather than seeing the bigger picture through the telescope. Hence when arguments supporting a different point of view are given, he tends to ignore them and simply keep on concentrating on the things in which he has complete confidence. Indeed, in a moment of lucidity on the 'Eternity' thread, on the subject of evolution, he freely admitted that he didn't need to answer anything, and followed that with a simple unevidenced statement of his belief(although he did manage to sully the waters a little by suggesting falsely that those he was arguing with believed that chance factors were enough.)

[Sriram]

The point you people are missing is that these beliefs are not just religious myths. It is not just about ancient texts and legends. It is not about Vishnu or Shiva or some other religious entity and story. 

Life after death, soul, consciousness surviving death, reincarnation, Consciousness driving life and evolution, existence of other celestial worlds , karmic law of equilibrium....etc. are not myth based. These are secular philosophies and are universally applicable hypothesis. They are real possibilities in the real world. Nor are any of these beliefs conflicting with established scientific theories of the material world.

In fact there is enough evidence in the form of NDE's and reincarnation research and personal experiences to take these ideas seriously. 

Problem is the two boxes syndrome because of which many people lump all such ideas together with religious myths such as six day creation, Adam & eve and so on and dismiss them scornfully.

Many science people start feeling threatened as though I am trying to push God down their throats. The God phobia. Fear of early religious trends and events start resurfacing and panic sets in and they start rushing hither and thither to prove the validity of science.

That sort of panic and aggressive defense is not necessary. I am merely discussing philosophical possibilities within the rules of the forum.  You people can relax.

Science by itself cannot reduce this gap and nor can it investigate such matters using its current methods. Either science expands to include such investigations or it learns to keep out of it.

There are many areas within current science that actually hint at phenomena that are beyond science.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/science-helps-in-understanding-spirituality/

[torridon]

Life after death, soul, consciousness surviving death, reincarnation, Consciousness driving life and evolution, existence of other celestial worlds , karmic law of equilibrium....etc. are not myth based. These are secular philosophies and are universally applicable hypothesis. They are real possibilities in the real world. Nor are any of these beliefs conflicting with established scientific theories of the material world.

These ideas mostly do contradict the findings of science and are full of logical contradictions.  For instance science has found that life is a high end biochemical process.  How does that square with beliefs like reincarnation or souls ? If you are going to give fantasy beliefs like the above headspace, then you have to ignore hundreds of years of gradual progress in our understanding of how life works in reality.  That's a deeply ignorant position in an age where education is free at point of delivery.

[Sriram]

These ideas mostly do contradict the findings of science and are full of logical contradictions.  For instance science has found that life is a high end biochemical process.  How does that square with beliefs like reincarnation or souls ? If you are going to give fantasy beliefs like the above headspace, then you have to ignore hundreds of years of gradual progress in our understanding of how life works in reality.  That's a deeply ignorant position in an age where education is free at point of delivery.

The problem is that you are confusing causes and mechanisms. You think of mechanisms as the causes. We have discussed this many times torridon.

High end biochemical processes are mechanisms.  Just as the pistons and wheels in a car are mechanisms and the circuitry within computers are its mechanisms. The causes are the persons driving the car and using the computer.  The difference between how and why.

We have understood lot of hows but not the whys. You don't believe that there are any answers to the whys...i know. But that is just your belief.  I believe that the whys are more fundamental and important than the hows.

[Outrider]

The point you people are missing is that these beliefs are not just religious myths. It is not just about ancient texts and legends.

Those religious histories, though, are prior examples of people trying to fit those intuitive interpretations of phenomena into a framework by taking the experiences of them at face value - in that sense they are exactly the same.

Life after death, soul, consciousness surviving death, reincarnation, Consciousness driving life and evolution, existence of other celestial worlds , karmic law of equilibrium....etc. are not myth based.

Unfortunately they don't appear to be evidence-based, either, they appear to be a result of failing to appreciate that human experience, especially at times of extreme physiological stress, is unreliable.

These are secular philosophies and are universally applicable hypothesis.

They might be philosophies, but they are only hypotheses if you come up with some methodology by which they can be tested and either validated or refuted.

In fact there is enough evidence in the form of NDE's and reincarnation research and personal experiences to take these ideas seriously.

There's enough evidence in the experiences to merit investigation, but when done scientifically that investigation does not support the idea that the experiences are representative of what's actually happening. 

Problem is the two boxes syndrome because of which many people lump all such ideas together with religious myths such as six day creation, Adam & eve and so on and dismiss them scornfully.

No, the problem is that you don't seem to be able to get past the idea that if someone says they've experienced an afterlife, briefly, they might be mistaken.

Many science people start feeling threatened as though I am trying to push God down their throats.

Not gods, just woo.

The God phobia.

Nice ad hominem, there, we can't have a valid point we must be afraid.

Fear of early religious trends and events start resurfacing and panic sets in and they start rushing hither and thither to prove the validity of science.

We've come a long way in establishing a reliable methodology for investigating phenomena, why should we throw it away now just because you don't like the conclusion it comes to on this particular issue?
 

That sort of panic and aggressive defense is not necessary. I am merely discussing philosophical possibilities within the rules of the forum.  You people can relax.

I'm not sure pointing out that you're propogating woo constitutes 'panic'.

Science by itself cannot reduce this gap and nor can it investigate such matters using its current methods.

What gap?

Either science expands to include such investigations or it learns to keep out of it.

Keep out of what? You're asserting something is there without basis.

There are many areas within current science that actually hint at phenomena that are beyond science.

I think you fail to understand what science means. If it can be detected, science can investigate it. By definition phenomena are science's remit.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The point you people…

“you people”?

… are missing is that these beliefs are not just religious myths. It is not just about ancient texts and legends. It is not about Vishnu or Shiva or some other religious entity and story.

No-one’s “missing” that – it’s just not relevant. Bad ideas are bad ideas whether or not the tag “religion” is attached to them. 

Life after death, soul, consciousness surviving death, reincarnation, Consciousness driving life and evolution, existence of other celestial worlds , karmic law of equilibrium....etc. are not myth based.

Effectively, yes they are. Absent cogent reasoning or evidence to support them, what else could they be?

These are secular philosophies and are universally applicable hypothesis. They are real possibilities in the real world. Nor are any of these beliefs conflicting with established scientific theories of the material world.

They’re only “real possibilities” in the sense that any notion that pops into someone’s head is a “real possibility”. If you want to bridge the gap from a conjecture to a hypothesis though then you have a lot more work to do. How for example even in principle would you propose that such claims could be tested?   

In fact there is enough evidence in the form of NDE's and reincarnation research and personal experiences to take these ideas seriously.

No there isn’t, for the reasons that keep being explained to you and you keep running away from. With NDEs for example you just ignore the “N” and pretend they’re actual “DEs”. It’s equivalent to claiming that sex tells you something about pregnancy, or that nearly jumping off a bridge tells you something about drowning  – ie, it's nonsense. Find an example of someone who was actually dead and then not dead though (as opposed to someone merely heading in that direction for a bit) and then perhaps there'd be something to consider.     

Problem is the two boxes syndrome because of which many people lump all such ideas together with religious myths such as six day creation, Adam & eve and so on and dismiss them scornfully.

That’s not the problem at all. Whether anyone actually does that or it’s just another of your personal conspiracy ideas makes no difference – bad thinking is still bad thinking no matter what “boxes” you put it in.

Many science people start feeling threatened as though I am trying to push God down their throats. The God phobia. Fear of early religious trends and events start resurfacing and panic sets in and they start rushing hither and thither to prove the validity of science.

No-one feels threatened by bad ideas peddled by someone too dishonest to engage with the explanations he’s given for why they’re bad ideas.

That sort of panic and aggressive defense is not necessary.

Or true. That’s just something you’ve made up to suit your purposes.

I am merely discussing philosophical possibilities within the rules of the forum.  You people can relax.

No you’re not “merely discussing” them – you’re positively asserting them to be true on the basis either of no justifying reasoning or of very bad reasoning, and then running away every time someone actually does want to discuss them rather than just agree with you. You have no interest in actually discussing anything.

Science by itself cannot reduce this gap…

What gap? If you want to claim there to be a gap between A and B, then you need to establish first that B exists at all. So far at least, you’re nowhere close to doing that.   

…and nor can it investigate such matters using its current methods.

What “matters” (see above)?

Either science expands to include such investigations or it learns to keep out of it.

Science cannot “expand to include such investigations” when there are no observable phenomena to investigate.

There are many areas within current science that actually hint at phenomena that are beyond science.

Not really. There are notions and conjectures (which is what you have), there are hypotheses (coherent and cogent ideas that are in principle at least testable), and there are theories. The work of scientists will often “hint” at possible answers, but while they remain beyond the reach of any means or verification (scientific or any other) they’re not much more than guesses.   

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/science-helps-in-understanding-spirituality/

This is just more of the ill-thought out nonsense that you attempt here, and refuse to discuss when its multiple mistakes are brought to your attention.   

[jeremyp]

Hi everyone,

Science has its limitations and its limited scope of inquiry. Its methods and techniques are also limited.

After all these years, science has not managed to make any progress in answering such questions as.....

Why do we exist?

Because our parents had sex.
[/quote]
What is death?
[/quote]
Cessation of life.

Is there a life after death?

No, by definition.

Is there any creator or God or gods or other form of superior beings?

Don't know.

Does life have any purpose and meaning?

The purpose of life (if we stretch the meaning of the word a bit) is to propagate genes. Other than that, humans can ascribe any purpose to life that they like.

Is there any absolute morality?

No.

Why are there such major differences between circumstances in peoples lives?

Why not?

Has religion made any better progress in answering any of the questions?

[Udayana]

...
But that is just your belief.  I believe that the whys are more fundamental and important than the hows.

Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I believe that the whys are more fundamental and important than the hows.

Except of course to legitimise that question you’d have to establish first a purposive “something” to determine the “whys”. Unless you do can that, the question is incoherent. It's just white noise. 

[Nearly Sane]

Sriram,

Except of course to legitimise that question you’d have to establish first a purposive “something” to determine the “whys”. Unless you do can that, the question is incoherent. It's just white noise.

There's the additional problem that you either create an infinite regress or a bootstrap paradox by positing an answer

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Except of course to legitimise that question you’d have to establish first a purposive “something” to determine the “whys”. Unless you do can that, the question is incoherent. It's just white noise.

Anything requiring a broader perspective will seem incoherent if seen through a microscopic perspective. One needs a zoom-out mind to understand such matters.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/

[Aruntraveller]

One needs a zoom-out mind to understand such matters.

There you go again with the not so suble claim of having some kind of inate superiority.

Perhaps others are zooming out further than your limited ability.

Have you ever considerd that Mr Condescension?

[torridon]

The problem is that you are confusing causes and mechanisms. You think of mechanisms as the causes. We have discussed this many times torridon.

High end biochemical processes are mechanisms.  Just as the pistons and wheels in a car are mechanisms and the circuitry within computers are its mechanisms. The causes are the persons driving the car and using the computer.  The difference between how and why.

We have understood lot of hows but not the whys. You don't believe that there are any answers to the whys...i know. But that is just your belief.  I believe that the whys are more fundamental and important than the hows.

Then you are overvaluing things that are baseless given there is no evidence base to suppose there is some higher reaim of reality which could form the grounding or context in which these 'why' questions would have some meaning.  Many people want there to be some higher transcendental meaning 'behind' (to borrow Alan's phrase) life.  Desiring such a thing does not constitute hard evidence for its existence.

[Sriram]

Then you are overvaluing things that are baseless given there is no evidence base to suppose there is some higher reaim of reality which could form the grounding or context in which these 'why' questions would have some meaning.  Many people want there to be some higher transcendental meaning 'behind' (to borrow Alan's phrase) life.  Desiring such a thing does not constitute hard evidence for its existence.

There is no such thing as 'hard evidence' for transcendental matters.  That should be obvious.

These are philosophical matters and 'soft evidence' in the form of personal experiences is all you will get. We need to elevate our thinking and see how these philosophical matters can be integrated with the 'hard evidence' based scientific ideas.

[Maeght]

There is no such thing as 'hard evidence' for transcendental matters.  That should be obvious.

These are philosophical matters and 'soft evidence' in the form of personal experiences is all you will get. We need to elevate our thinking and see how these philosophical matters can be integrated with the 'hard evidence' based scientific ideas.

Elevate? More condescension?

[torridon]

There is no such thing as 'hard evidence' for transcendental matters.  That should be obvious.

These are philosophical matters and 'soft evidence' in the form of personal experiences is all you will get. We need to elevate our thinking and see how these philosophical matters can be integrated with the 'hard evidence' based scientific ideas.

"elevate our thinking" is just euphemism for 'let's ignoore the science because it doesn't support our biases" IMO.  Philosophy is fine but it needs to respect the science else it will lose all credibility and descend into untethered wishful thinking.

[Sriram]

Well...I don't mean to be condescending ....but if you have to look at the stars you really do need to look up, not down.  Transcendental matters need an elevated mind not a microscopic mind. 

[Stranger]

There is no such thing as 'hard evidence' for transcendental matters.  That should be obvious.

These are philosophical matters and 'soft evidence' in the form of personal experiences is all you will get.

No evidence at all, then. Philosophy has a terrible record of resolving matters of fact about the world.

We need to elevate our thinking and see how these philosophical matters can be integrated with the 'hard evidence' based scientific ideas.

No, we don't need to lower our thinking to your rather sloppy approach.

[Maeght]

Well...I don't mean to be condescending ....but if you have to look at the stars you really do need to look up, not down.  Transcendental matters need an elevated mind not a microscopic mind.

There you go again.