Science is a constantly evolving system used to describe reality and there's no reason to assume it's limited. It's only limited if you attempt to used it to describe something outside the realm of reality. I had a dream in which I had a cup of tea last night and science cannot be used to describe that cup of tea because it is the product of imagination. Science cannot describe products of imagination, that does not make it limited.
Science is limited to what we perceive as reality at any given moment in time. However that reality, as you have said, is constantly changing. In view of this it is increadibly short sighted to assert that science cannot be used on products of imagination, particularly because in many cases science
is the product of imagination. My point is that what we class as fiction or imagination now may not be accurate due to our lack of knowledge (IE we cant prove something yet, does that make it untrue?). If we can agree that ignorance of truth does not make something less true, then can we agree that to discount the possibility of a creator or God at this stage in our development is premature?
The room exists and is awaiting discovery. The knowledge the fish has gained by understanding the nature of the room outside his bowl is the starting point of understanding the nature of the other room. Assuming the fish does not die, reaching the other room is not only possible, it is inevitable.
This is what I was trying to get at. At the stage I mentioned, the presence of the second room was, at best, imagined only. To the fish, it was ficticious and any attempts to clarify or describe it would be that of pure imagination. As you rightly point out, once the fish reaches the next stage of development the second room then becomes the reality that can be seen, but possibly not reached (perhaps the door is locked and the fish has no way of opening it). So it is with our reality and our own development. Just because we cannot yet prove that God does or does not exist does not change the truth of whether he does or not, in much the same way as the development of the fish did not change the existence of that second room.
Science is the path that will bring us closer to all the truths. No matter how alien our discoveries are (dark energy and dark matter say hi), it's only a matter of time before we adapt our system (science) to understand them. 'Celestial' truths are ultimately the products of imagination and, like my cup of tea, they're not worth debating in the context of understanding reality. Was it Earl Grey? Did it have milk, sugar? Answering these questions will possibly say things about my state of mind but they will say nothing about the true nature of reality.
That is a very bold statement to make. Do you accept the possibility that there are truths out there that science will not be able to find, perhaps because it cannot see them? I will take faith as an example. If God does exist, and he is the creator of all, is it plausable that he created the universe in such a way that only those with faith in him can find him? We cannot prove otherwise, and as unlikely as it may seem we have to accept the possibility. Or are you saying such a supposition is impossible? As impossible, say, as the chances of single cell life in the primordial soup evolving into sentient intelligent beings? Lets be honest, if we had to bet on on it back then, who would bet on us succeeding?
With regard to reality, it is my belief that one of our strongest attributes as a species is imagination. We imagine things, then we create them. The application of science enables us to bring imagination into the realm of reality and I think the two have strong links. If you went back in time now, and showed a person in 200 BC what our world is like - they would probably not be able to comprehend it. Our reality and their reality is vastly different, yet we are the same species. Science can be used to prove things that are imaginary, that is how we discover things. However the primary focus of science and technology at present is getting us out into space. Once we are out there properly, and have potentially colonised other planets and have far more advanced technology then I feel we may be ready to start in on the God Question. In fact, I think we need to be at a certain level of development before we can even start to research and answer the question. However, does that change reality? Our perception of reality can be very different from actual reality. This is the point I am trying to make.
If you feel that discussing elements beyond our understanding or our perceived reality is unhelpful, or wasting time I then struggle to understand how it is you can be a staunch believer in science. Afterall, is that not what science is about? We not only use it it prove/debunk things, but to create and invent things. We use it to turn imagination into reality and we have been pretty good at it thus far!
The answer to your question has been known for a long time: we're competitive social animals trying to survive and spread genes. That's all there is to it, boring as it may sound.
But why? Because it is our nature? Where did that nature come from? What (or who) influenced or designed it? Evolution? OK, lets run with that. If evolution is so evident, why are we the only ones to have made that leap from basic animal state to a more advanced being? Luck? What are the chances of that? Trillions to one? We can happily accept the notion of evolution from a single cell organism to human being against absolutely ridiculous odds, but the notion of God existing and making the planet is simply a fairy tale, beyond reality and fit for naught more than childrens stories? Really?
As long as religions make it clear they deal only with the inner workings of the human mind, they are compatible with science. When they claim they deal with the nature of reality (as it goes with most religions), they are totally incompatible with science and thinking otherwise is fooling oneself.
Again, another bold assertion. But perhaps that is the entire point. Perhaps God made the two 'camps' incompatible for a reason. A race to see who finds God first - Faith or Science. But on a serious note, this is why I believe science is limited because our understanding of 'reality' is limited by our knowledge and technology. For example, in 2 million years we have such knowledge that we unravel the mystery of the universe and we discover God is the all maker and he is real. Reverse back to present day, does that truth change? Reality is subjective and limited to what we know and understand at the time. Can you accept, then, that there may be truths that exist outside of our current reality that are still to be discovered? In scientific terms it could be cold fusion. In spiritual terms it could be the discovery of a soul, or the existence of God. At this stage in time, all of those things are fiction, mere imagination. Science is a tool to discover them (or not as the case may be), but prior to proving/debunking their existence, they either exist or do not. Giving special status to those things which align more with the application of science and dismissing those things which do not is short sighted, in my opinion, but perhaps it is a process we need to go through to reach a higher level of intelligence and understanding.
No matter what game changer we find, science will assimilate it when the time comes, making it no different than any of our previous leaps of understanding. If there is a Creator, it will be found and there will be nothing special about it, at least no more than a new microbe or a new subatomic particle.
I am sure if a creator exists he/she/it will be found eventually. My point is it may not be science that finds that answer. Perhaps science is not meant to find that answer, by design. I dont really know, but what I do believe is that keeping an open mind is the only way forward. I lean more towards the science side of discovery, but I think to dismiss a notion because it seems unlikely, or because we we cannot yet prove it is increadibly short sighted and damages our development.
I hope there is a God and heaven, I really do. But until such time as I am satisfied that is true or false, I will continue to have an open mind and accept the possibility of either outcome.
I completely agree though, it amazes me that it goes unquestioned for the most part considering it's almost a lynch pin of our society... Then again, that's probably why it goes unquestioned.
