Science and religion have been at loggerheads for hundreds of years in their attempts to prove their worldview as the correct one. Despite each gaining the upper hand from time to time, they both divide reality into two, the ‘physical’ and the ‘spiritual’. In truth, neither of them has provided a satisfactory explanation of the human experience, nor have they been able to unite to form a single, all-encompassing worldview.[/b]
Your first sentence is inspired by an anthropological myth, I'm afraid. The worldviews of scientists, and by scientists I'm referring chiefly to hard scientists such as mathematicians and natural scientists and not so much social scientists who tend to be less religious, are often very closely linked to their faith. Christianity inspired the development of science, and man sought to understand God through nature. (I mentioned this in another topic which promptly died.) Science doesn't make the distinction between physical and spiritual, there's only the "actual". Or, you could say, the "empirical"--and "non-empirical" doesn't make any sense to a scientist, probably, so that's not an opposing concept. Scientists don't attempt to explain consciousness as it relates to "sense experience", because that's still a matter of philosophy. Last time I checked, Nature didn't have articles discussing qualia. (Not to nitpick on the issue of what science is and isn't, but I really feel you should become aware of how things really are.)
This just makes me realize more and more how we need to teach philosophy courses in philosophy of science (and, unrelated to this discussion, analytic logic) as part of mandatory public education. Lol, if we introduced that into the curriculum, all of a sudden all the philosophy Ph.D's would have jobs.
The mechanical view of the universe held by classical science fails to include and explain non-mechanical phenomena such as telepathy, remote viewing or out of body experiences, to name just a few. These phenomena are far too well tested and documented to be dismissed, so they must be incorporated into whatever scientists propose as a plausible worldview.[/b]
Please visit http://www.csicop.org/ and read a couple articles . There are many people who willingly approach claims of the paranormal scientifically, but virtually all of these cases (there was 1 article in a recent issue which described how they still haven't figured out exactly how this sword got embedded in this stone, since all their testing places it as authentic, but that's the first time I can recall a situation in which a claim wasn't disproven or invalidated when they were able to investigate directly a phenomenon) are not what they're reported to be. I'm not trying to directly deny your beliefs, but when you say that you thought these phenomena are well-tested and documented, that's something which you're definitely mistaken about, and CSICOP is a good link which would introduce you to the true state of things.
Similarly, religions have failed to explain how, in a universe presided over by a loving and peaceful, almighty ‘God’, immense human suffering can be seen or experienced. This suffering can be on an individual basis through hideous diseases such as cancer or AIDS, or the staggering loss of life in such disasters as a tsunami, earthquake or volcanic eruption. We inevitably have to ask the fundamental question, is ‘God’ unable or unwilling to prevent this suffering? Whichever way this question is answered has to create serious doubts about the religious worldview and what ‘God’ is supposed to be.[/b]
Actually, this ideas is completely unfounded, in the case of the Judeo-Christian God, though I can't say the same for certain about other things people decide to call God. It's a question which will never die, but it's one which someone who is very familiar with Christianity (such as myself) or even just studiously familiar should understand. First off, God is loving, but he's not peaceful necessarily--he'll do things in the Old Testament like direct the Israelites to declare war on a certain nation and ensure their victory, and in the New Testament in the form of the Son he got riled up against the money-changers who were defiling God's temple (Google it if you're not familiar with it, basically he condemned scripturally immoral merchants and overturned their tables). Yes, he's very capable of righteous anger. It's not a sin to not cure somebody of illness, nor it is a sin to not prevent somebody from getting victimized. Just because he sustains the world doesn't mean he's "responsible" for everything that happens. So he chooses not to interfere--you're going to wax philosophical and call him a bad guy for not doing everything in his power to make it right? Feel free, but realize that what you're condemning him for isn't a sin by any account. God didn't create the world* for sin, but man brought sin into the world by his own will. Man fell. Basically, with this argument people are applying a morality that isn't at all Biblical, but is just something they felt was right which was probably just culturally inspired and which they blindly assumed would relate to God.
I don't really have a response to the rest of what you said other than that I definitely think it's not correct, and is just a willfull assocation of ideas. Anyway, it's really cool that you desire to explore the nature of reality, whatever your beliefs. Most serious philosophers follow some form of monism, and like you describe, dualism is indeed incorrect, and unfounded at that. I'm a neutral monist, by the way.
*If you wanted to say that why didn't he create the world such that man never sinned, or that by creating man he's responsible for creating sin, my response is that he gave man free will, which is either something he choose not to control or which if he were to take control over he would change the nature of it in any case, though that's a circumstance best left to the musing of theologians. When man sin, his heart was darkened, and he became lost in his futile thinking (as it's termed in Romans)--only by accepting God into that very same heart can man begin to make decisions free from sin. That's sanctification.
Edit: Also, Merlock, I completely agree with your second paragraph about the meaninglessness of pursuing knowledge and power, 100%, although ultimate wisdom is still something which should be theoretically worthy of pursuit, if it exists and if it's possible to obtain (two very big IFs!.
|
|
Bookmarks