The limitations of science (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Friday, July 02, 2010, 13:03 (5257 days ago) @ George Jelliss

As there seems to be a bit of a hiatus in our various discussions, I thought I'd go back to a remark of George's (23 June at 20.25) which succinctly sums up three central aspects:-"Common sense tells me that there definitely cannot be a God in any traditional sense, that the "problem of consciousness" is highly overrated, and that life pretty certainly arose from non-life by natural processes not requiring the intervention of preexisting intelligent beings."-1) If the "traditional sense" means an infinite, eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving father figure, I feel the same way as you, because common sense tells me that such a figure must have come from somewhere, that there is no sign of any such personal qualities in the universe or the tiny world we live in, and that the whole concept is and has always been a hugely embellished metaphor for the unknown power that brought us into being. It also tells me that if the unknown power doesn't care about me, there is no point in my caring about it.
2)	The "problem of consciousness", on the other hand, seems to me to be highly underrated by virtually everyone I know. All the mental processes, such as awareness, will, memory, imagination, reason etc. are completely beyond our understanding, and most people simply take them for granted. It's as if the words explain the reality, whereas they explain nothing. All we know is that somehow these abilities seem to be associated with electrical activities in specific areas of the brain. Common sense tells me that a functioning mechanism of such unfathomable complexity requires the intervention of preexisting intelligence.
3)	We learned recently that it took 2000 scientists 13 years to decode the genome, and still no-one knows how the parts interact in order to produce variations from species to species. Common sense tells me that a functioning mechanism of such unfathomable complexity etc.-The gulf between 1) and the other two can't be bridged except by an irrational faith in a particular concept of the unknown power, either in the form of a conscious god, or as a completely impersonal, unconscious mass of matter and energy. Common sense and irrational faith do not seem to me to make good companions. On the other hand, common sense tells me that one of these two concepts must be more closely akin to the truth than the other. It goes on to suggest that I have no way of knowing which one, since both seem equally unlikely, and that I would therefore be well advised not to reject either, and to pay careful attention to those more knowledgeable than myself in the various fields of scientific and philosophical research. However, it also warns me that the Pope, the Chief Rabbi, Nietzsche, Descartes, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, the postman and my two-year-old grandson have the same degree of authority when it comes to drawing conclusions.