Natural science (commonly now referred to as just, ‘science’) is the study of the physical universe and as such is limited. It is limited by the parameters of time, space, energy, light and matter, etc., which for the sake of this essay, I will call the physical primaries of the universe. Natural science by definition can’t stray beyond these boundaries, and so logically, there can exist, and I would claim do exist, many metaphysical realms beyond these boundaries that are not the province of science। I will use just one of these realms, pure mathematics, as an example. Pure mathematics is never defined by natural science in any way (for example it is timeless), but science can always be defined in some way by pure mathematics. (Applied mathematics is merely pure mathematics employed to define the realm of natural science in some way). So pure mathematics is not bounded by the realm of true scientific endeavour, but the physical universe is undergirded by pure mathematics. Pure mathematics is not contained by, or merely created in the human brain; it exists apart from the human brain. That mathematics exists regardless of the human brain ever discovering it or deriving its logic, is self evident from the fact that the universe is undergirded with mathematics and that the universe exists regardless of human kind!
Another metaphysical realm that science has no right to is the ‘spirit’ world। Clearly since the spirit world is not defined by, nor subject to the physical universe, then science can’t by definition say anything about it: logically it can’t even say that this realm does not exist, because if science were to claim that as a fact, then it would need to be able to prove it. And since no physical experiment can be applied to a realm that is not subject to, or defined by the physical universe, then clearly science has nothing to say, so again it is limited. This conclusion will annoy the humanist scientist (and the metaphysical naturalist), because he or she feels that human kind is entirely defined by, and can ultimately be predicted by the application of science to the universe. They will of course shout for evidence; where is the evidence for the ‘spirit’ world? – show us it and we will derive an experiment that will prove it is just another aspect of the physical universe (or that it is explained by metaphysical naturalism)! But this is an illogical position, because all real evidence of the ‘spirit’ world will not be subject to experimentation or the test of repeatability.
Human kind is more than just physical or natural, we are in fact a mixture of the ‘natural’ and of the ‘spirit’ realm, and it follows that science will only be able to discover and predict so much about us, but no more, and there will come a frontier at which science will stop and be silent. Science is limited when it comes to human beings. The only evidence that I will offer as proof for my argument is that human kind can derive and understand mathematics. And since as I have demonstrated pure mathematics is not the creation of the physical universe, it follows that human kind has something in common with the metaphysical status of mathematics: we can use our intelligence in a manner not too dissimilar to the way that pure mathematics can use its intelligence, to shape the physical universe.
Now here we have a dilemma – for pure science can only study intelligence to a limit, but no further, because intelligence is more than the application of logic। Intelligence also implies independent intent, purpose and objectives both within the cosmos (in the form of life) and outside the realm of cosmos (in order for the cosmos to exist). And this is outside the limits of pure science, but scientists as part of human kind are intelligent! Now it is completely natural and is a legitimate realm for human kind to investigate intelligence because we have some intelligence ourselves. Therefore it is the legitimate realm for a scientist to investigate intelligence, but in so doing he is not acting in a purely scientific role (as science is currently defined), because he or she are themselves more than can be defined by the physical universe, they are partly spiritual. However for science to be defined in terms other than it is (viz. as I have it, deriving from the physical primaries of the universe), would mean that those who practice this endeavour would not be in control of what they do and I would suggest that may be a further reason for its current limitations.
In conclusion I have sought to show that natural science (both pure & applied) as currently defined, is limited to exclude supernatural realms from its defined boundaries. However in being confined to the physical primaries of the cosmos (however widely you may wish to define that), it is limited and limiting to those who practice it and those who would gain from it, for the simple reason that human kind is more than natural, we are also spiritual and we don’t ultimately have any control over the spiritual. I contend that natural science can not progress beyond its limitations, and the study of the absolute cosmos, viz., both the physical and spiritual primaries of the universe can be undertaken by man but not by the means of natural science.
2 comments:
You are just being superstitious here! There’s no logical path from what there exists to what there might exist. Crikey, if we continue on your path of thought then the doors are open to all kinds of whacky and un-testable theories! Perhaps beyond the supernatural realm is another realm, and yet another that goes beyond our imagination... so on ad infinitum.
The difference between science and religion is simple. Science does not require any degree of faith, but simply a willingness to look at the evidence, understand the theories and best of all, it allows us to make real tangible progress! No degree of religous faith in the supernatural has cured the sick, made rockets go to the moon, give us power in our homes, etc. What has faith in the supernatural ever done for human progress?!!!
Regarding your assumption, or claim, about mathematics – that mathematics is in some way independent to human thought, in that it is in some way an objective principle that can be relied up... I’m not so sure that I accept this as true. See more here: Limits of Mathematics
However, I do accept that science has its limits. It can tell us little, if nothing, about values and meaning. It’s impersonal and objective and is concerned with facts. I don’t know of any materialist/naturalist who claims that science can attain ‘all of the answers’. There are other means to lead us to the path for the answers. And this, you might wonder, is REASON!
reason42.com
Adam
You are being manipulated by the red herings of some philosophers about the nature of mathematics - if I state for example that 'the sum of the internal angles of any triangle drawn on a single plane is always the same', this is a true statement. It does not depend on the existence of a human mind for it to be true. I have claimed that mathematics belongs to the supernatural realm since it is not subject to science. The example of the triangle is an example of the interaction of the supernatural with the natural since this particular branch of maths has to be expressed in terms of space. Another branch I call simple arithmatic (1+2=3) is independent of the space and time. There is no superstition about this at all!
With respect to your claim that 'faith' never healed anyone, their exists the personal testimony of countless numbers of people who have been healed as a result of their own or others faith. Either you are stating they are all liars or that you beleive they are mistaken - but how do you know that it is not you that is mistaken?! B Russel (atheist philosopher) stated that the surest knowledge anyone can have is their own testimony. We all generally accept the testimony of other people (unless we know them to be liars) and this is right even when their testimony is outside of our own experience.
Post a Comment