Posts Tagged ‘limits of science’

Science cannot reach the places where gods are conceived

November 19, 2024

This post is as an addendum to an earlier post:

Atheism (old or new) lacks “oomph”

The domain of science

There are many questions that science cannot even address, let alone, answer. The process we call “science” starts with many fundamental assumptions (existence and causality for example). Clearly the needs of what we take to be logic require that any field of thought (science in this case) can not penetrate or address its own founding assumptions. It would seem that space, time, matter, energy, life and consciousness are also such assumptions. The scientific method, while incredibly powerful, is inherently limited by its foundational assumptions. Questions like the existence of reality itself, the nature of consciousness, or the ultimate origin of the universe are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. There are other areas that science cannot directly address:

  • The laws of logic: While science relies on logic to draw conclusions, it cannot prove the validity of logic itself.
  • The uniformity of nature: The assumption that natural laws are consistent across space and time is fundamental to scientific investigation, but it cannot be proven.
  • The objectivity of observation: Science assumes that observations can be made objectively, but human perception and interpretation can introduce biases. All human observations are ultimately subjective.
  • The existence of an external world: While we experience the world as real, the nature of reality itself is a philosophical question that science cannot definitively answer.

Mysteries and unanswerable questions lead to the invention of gods and supernatural beings by humans.  Initially they are just labels for the answers to the unanswerable questions. (Of course they are later imbued with human characteristics, supernatural powers, families and expanded regions of influence).  The process we call science, though, does not (can not) address the unanswerable questions. Setting science and the gods in opposition is incorrect in logic and in reason. Claiming that “science denies gods” or that “gods are unscientific” are statements that are invalid. Science seeks to explain the natural world through empirical evidence and falsifiable hypotheses. Science simply operates within its own framework, and it doesn’t have the tools to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings. Religion addresses questions of meaning, purpose, and the supernatural, which often lie beyond the domain of scientific inquiry.  

Gods can only be imagined, conceived of and invented in those domains where science cannot reach.

The invention of gods

It is my contention that while philosophers (thinkers) may have formulated the mysteries which then could only be “solved” by the invention of a god, that it was politically motivated groups (possibly the earliest priests) who used such gods to create religions as a social control tool. So it seems probable that the invention of gods preceded the invention of religions (though gods are not always needed by religions). The invention of gods likely stemmed from a combination of factors:

  1. Humans abhor the unknown: Humans, ever since they became human, have sought explanations for all they couldn’t understand. Gods were labels for the answers to the unanswerable. They provided answers to the impossible questions like “Why does the sun rise?”, “Why does it rain?” or “Where do we go after death?”
  2. Social Control: Gods and their supernatural powers were used to justify and establish social norms and laws. Disobeying divine rules could lead to just punishment, both in this life and the afterlife.
  3. Creating a social “we”: Shared beliefs in gods fostered a sense of unity and belonging within communities. Rituals and ceremonies centered around gods strengthened social bonds.
  4. As a means of explaining and withstanding loss and suffering: Gods or purported sins against the gods could justify and explain misfortune and suffering as divine tests or punishments.  They provided a sense of purpose and meaning.
  5. As a crutch giving hope and comfort: Gods were used as a vehicle of hope for a better future, both in this life and the afterlife. They provided comfort and solace in times of hardship.

In essence, gods served as a powerful tool for explaining the unexplainable, maintaining social order, creating communities and providing psychological comfort.

It is not implausible that it was early thinkers, or shamans, who pondered existential questions and proposed supernatural explanations. However, it is likely that creating religious institutions, was a political exercise with political objectives. The leaders probably acquired status as priests, and they structured beliefs and narratives into formal or organized religions and used them primarily for social control.

While some might argue that the spiritual benefits of religion are merely a byproduct or a marketing strategy, there is no doubt that many religions offer genuine solace, meaning, and purpose. Religion may have originated as a tool for social control, but it has evolved into something much more complex over time. The origin and evolution of gods and religions requires much more space than I have here. But the key point for this post is that gods were invented because explanations for the great mysteries were sought and could not be found.

Different domains

Ultimately science and gods operate in separate domains. Science operates in the constrained world of what can be observed empirically and where foundational assumptions apply. The invention of gods is always in response to some question or mystery that science cannot address.  Of course, imbuing gods – who are merely labels for the unanswerable – with human or superhuman characteristics is nothing but literary (fictional) license. The problem often arises in that such fictions are taken literally. Others interpret scientific findings as weapons to challenge or deny certain religious beliefs. But strictly they live on different planes in different worlds. The bottom line is that science cannot tread in the places where its unanswerable questions led to the invention of the gods. And the gods cannot exist in the domains where science is constrained to hold sway.

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Philosophy, Religion, Science | 2 Comments »

The limits of science

September 25, 2018
  1. Reality is limited to what is detectable by human senses (and the instruments which extend our senses). What cannot be detected is assumed – but cannot be proven – not to exist. Science is limited to what is known to exist and what is unknown but assumed to be knowable. Science has no means to address what is unknown to be knowable.
  2. Time and causality. Science and its methods rely on causality which in turn relies on the existence of and the passage of time. But what time is and what actually passes, is unknown (being unknowable). Science cannot reach where causality does not exist.
  3. Boundary conditions. There is no branch of science (or philosophy) which does not rely on fundamental assumptions which are taken to be self-evident truths. But these assumptions cannot be proved and they cannot explain their own existence. Science and the methods of science cannot address anything outside their self-established boundary limits.
  4. Even the most fundamental and simple mathematics cannot prove its own axioms (Gödels Incompleteness Theorems). Science cannot address areas outside of the assumptions of mathematics.
  5. Value judgements are invisible to science. The appreciation of any art or music or even literature are not subject to logic or causality or any science. Even the beauty seen by some in mathematics or cosmology or biology is not amenable to scientific analysis. Moral or ethical judgements are beyond the capabilities of science.
  6. The existence of life is self-evident and inexplicable. It is a boundary condition where science has no explanation for why the boundary exists. To call the beginning of life a “random event” is a statement steeped in just as much ignorance as attributing it to a Creator.
  7. The boundaries of consciousness are neither known or understood. The perceptions of a consciousness of the surrounding universe define the universe. The perceptions form an impenetrable barrier beyond which science and the methods of science cannot reach.
  8. Fitch’s Knowability Paradox is sufficient to show the reality of the existence of the unknowable. Neither science nor philosophy or language or mathematics has the wherewithal to say anything about the unknowable. They have no light to shine in this area. An X-ray image cannot be seen in normal light.

Science is utterly dependent upon causality.

So is Determinism, where Determinism is the philosophical theory that all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes. Determinism can never look beyond or resolve the First Cause problem. Of course determinism falls immediately at the hurdle of infinite knowledge being knowable but proponents would counter that “unknown” does not invalidate causality. The First Cause is then merely shunted into the unknown – but knowable. Determinism would claim, by causality and the laws of the universe, that all that was unknown could potentially be known. Equally every event of the past could be traced back through causal relations and be knowable. In fact, determinism which shuns the need for religions and gods, actually claims the existence of Omniscience. More than that, determinism requires that omniscience be possible. Determinism is absurd. “There is no God but Omniscience must be possible”. Reductio ad absurdum.

Causality, determinism and science are all prisoners of, and restricted to, the knowable.

 

Tags:
Posted in Philosophy, Science | Comments Off on The limits of science