Visitors to the Angkor temples in Cambodia can find themselves overwhelmed with awe. When I visited the temples last month, I found myself pondering the Higgs boson — and the similarities between religion and science.
The Higgs, of course, has been labelled the ‘god particle’ because it accounts for the existence of mass in the Universe. But the term (coined by physics Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, perhaps to the regret of some of his colleagues) also signals the ambition of science, or at least of certain branches of physics, to probe the origins and meaning of existence itself — which, to some, is the job of religion. Science may seek a theoretically and empirically sound explanation of such origins and religion may not. But this distinction is less clear than it seems.
The wonder invoked by the Angkor temples is not an accident or a modern conceit. It flows, at least in part, from the intention of those who designed the temples. “In each of the Angkor monuments,” the architect Maurice Glaize explained in his exhaustive 1944 guide to the temples, “a preoccupation with symbolic order seeks to create a representation of the universe in reduction … realising a kind of correctly ordered model”. The overwhelming scale of the temples, their architectural complexity, intricate and evocative ornamentation and natural setting combine to form a powerful sense of mystery and transcendence, of the fertility of the human imagination and ambition in a Universe whose enormity and logic evade comprehension.
Science is supposed to challenge this type of quasi-mystical subjective experience, to provide an antidote to it. The Higgs discovery, elucidating the constituents of existence itself, is even presented as a giant step towards the ultimate cure: a rational explanation for the Universe. That such scientific understanding provides a challenge to religion is an idea commonly heard from defenders of science, especially those in more militant atheist garb. Yet scientists who occupy that ground are often too slow to recognize the irrational bases of their own beliefs, and too quick to draw a line between the scientific and the irrational. Take, for example, how we come to know what science discovers. Most people, including most scientists, can acquire knowledge of the Higgs only through the metaphors and analogies that physicists and science writers use to try to explain phenomena that can only truly be characterized mathematically.
Here’s The New York Times: “The Higgs boson is the only manifestation of an invisible force field, a cosmic molasses that permeates space and imbues elementary particles with mass … Without the Higgs field, as it is known, or something like it, all elementary forms of matter would zoom around at the speed of light, flowing through our hands like moonlight.” Fair enough. But why “a cosmic molasses” and not, say, a “sea of milk”? The latter is the common translation of an episode in Hindu cosmology, represented on a spectacular bas-relief panel at Angkor Wat showing armies of gods and demons churning the “sea of milk” to producean elixir of immortality.
“For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.”
If you find the idea of a cosmic molasses that imparts mass to invisible elementary particles more convincing than a sea of milk that imparts immortality to the Hindu gods, then surely it’s not because one image is inherently more credible and more ‘scientific’ than the other. Both images sound a bit ridiculous. But people raised to believe that physicists are more reliable than Hindu priests will prefer molasses to milk. For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.
Science advocates have been keen to claim that the Higgs discovery is important for everyone. Yet in practical terms, the Higgs is an incomprehensible abstraction, a partial solution to an extraordinarily rarified and perhaps always-incomplete intellectual puzzle.
By contrast, the Angkor temples demonstrate how religion can offer an authentic personal encounter with the unknown. At Angkor, the genius of a long-vanished civilization, expressed across the centuries through its monuments, allows visitors to connect with things that lie beyond their knowing in a way that no journalistic or popular scientific account of the Higgs boson can. Put another way, if, in a thousand years, someone visited the ruins of the Large Hadron Collider, where the Higgs experiment was conducted, it is doubtful that they would get from the relics of the detectors and superconducting magnets a sense of the subatomic world that its scientists say it revealed.
Why does this matter? Challenges to the cultural and political authority of science continue to rise from both ideological and religious directions. It is tempting to dismiss these as manifestations of ignorance or scientific illiteracy. But I believe instead that they help to show us why it will always be necessary to have ways of understanding our world beyond the scientifically rational.
I am an atheist, and I fully recognize science’s indispensable role in advancing human prospects in ways both abstract and tangible. Yet, whereas the Higgs discovery gives me no access to insight about the mystery of existence, a walk through the magnificent temples of Angkor offers a glimpse of the unknowable and the inexplicable beyond the world of our experience.
- Journal name:
- Nature
- Volume:
- 488,
- Pages:
- 431
- Date published:
- ()
- DOI:
- doi:10.1038/488431a
Laplace famously said of God that he had "no need of that hypothesis". He saw no need for it because he could not conceive of anything outside the realm of his (natural) experience that would require it. Intelligent or simple lack of imagination? Neither he nor any other scientist operating solely within the material world can give any sensible answer to the most basic existential questions: Why does the universe exist? Given a current complete lack of perception of anything outside the natural world, must one conclude that there exists nothing outside of it? If so, why? If not, why not?
Even within the natural universe, we struggle with many things. Dark matter? Dark energy? How about the sublimely untested string theory? Must something exist simply because one can make the math work?
I would not make light (nor too heavy, if I may be pardoned the pun) of the immense work of many bright and talented individuals that produced the evidence strongly suggesting the existence of the Higgs boson. But I feel comfortable reminding us all that whilst we might be getting a handle on mass, we've got only the slipperiest and most evanescent of notions about gravity. I can describe it, and admit the existence of certain models of how it seems to work, but I have less of an idea of where gravity comes from than I do the inspiration that gives us a Corelli string quartet.
And just what's wrong with admitting that? And accepting that there may be questions that religion can answer as well or better than the natural sciences? I already recognize that there's a fair bit I don't know. I think it might be okay to admit that there may also be things I know of not at all, things found in niches of their own in a world I'd have to call unnatural. Or there may not. I just don't know, and probably never will. Not as a scientist, at any rate.
The article states "to probe the origins and meaning of existence itself — which, to some, is the job of religion". Hmm, not sure what religion that is. Most religions absolutely do NOT probe anything. Rather, they present doctrine and are full of mechanisms to prevent it from being probed or questioned. Science requires evidence to justify belief. Religion requires obedience and the suppression of questions. The latter even to the point of burning scientists at the stake.
Yes. Let's begin to tackle those important arguments. Let' suggest Nature editors to develop new magazines like "Nature SuperNatural" or "Nature Vampires". Recent comments on this journal (e.g. the camouflaged atheist column or the praise to Templeton Foundation) seems to indicate that the time are mature enough
Daniel Sarewitz writes: "Challenges to the cultural and political authority of science continue to rise from both ideological and religious directions."
Some of us are concerned that the biggest challenge to science comes from materialism, the dogmatic insistence that nature is all there is. This claim is not tested; it is asserted. Materialistic scientists protect their ideology by redefining science in terms of materialism, so that no data can ever count as evidence that would shake their philosophical agenda. We need to get beyond this intransigence and develop a dialogue about these important issues.
Pure religion and pure science exist in completely separate dimensions, and so cannot interfere with each other. If one needs to give way to the other, this is an indication that either the science has some kind of religion hidden in it, or that the religion is actually has some kind of science hidden in it. True science does not assert the unobservable, and true religion does not try to explain the impossible.
The column was good, but the comments are far more interesting. And this is because they show that there is quite an aggressive tone from the scientific side, combined with extremely poor understanding of the philosophy that underlies religion and the place between religion and science. There is indeed a war taking place between science and religion. And this war started from the moment religious people stalled the progression of the scientific thinking, which is equivalent to a crime against human race. However, I would be expecting a far more Logical way of thinking from people that surf in the website of Nature magazine. Logic is the child from the marriage of mathematics and philosophy, and it should well known and applied by all scientists (all the people preferrably). Then, let's see things from a logical perspective:
1) Only one of the following is correct:
* God exists - God does not exist
(no matter how fool or full of greed, or hatred, or envy, or anti-scientific feelings the priests/religious people can be)
2) God, if He exists is not asking anyone not to believe to what he sees with his eyes in his life (or laboratory). His ''representatives'' are. Because they are afraid to death that some day someone will displace them. And this is because they actually do not trust the one who are supposed to be serving.
3) Science is the only way to draw objective conclusions for nature. Even if God exists, even if He does not.
4) Science is incomplete. This term was first used by a mathematician also called ''The new-Aristotle''. His name is Kurt Goedel, and he proved that in any formal system, like algebra, and also in philosophical systems, there will always be a part of its truth that cannot be proved inside it no matter what. It is not a matter of time, not a matter of equipment, not a matter of how intelligent the people who are working on it are, but it is an intrinsic property of that formal system. Two examples are the following: a) You cannot measure something that is smaller than Planck's wavelength, and b) You cannot by any means prove inside a formal system named Q that the following sentence P is true ''T : This sentence is non-provable in Q'', even though you can achieve that if you are working outside Q.
Even though there is a war taking place, there are people (eg. Francis Collins) who are religious and work on Science. However, it is quite sad to see that they are often neglected in both fields.
All comments for God vs. Science are humorous. I think the only real way to find an answer would be talk to a blind scientist and a sociopathical religionist. Most of these posts make me feel like I am on a political website that's heavily invested in a particular party. Ponder the possibility that all sides are wrong on this topic. Arguements are based on limited information and derivatively have gone askew. I hope you're both wrong because I don't want to exist in a world where some a'hole tells me what to think or some a'hole tells me what to think.
Sgt Hartmann wrote the following
"Religion is quite a different story. No matter how much one learns the religion, ponders on gods ideas and thoughts, prays, mediates, one will not be able to turn water in wine, split the sea, walk on water, resurrect dead (place any other miracle from a religion). And that is what faith is about – believing in impossible stories that cannot be repeated nor verified"
Before rejecting any any concept outright, it is logical and scientific that one should study and understand the concepts fully and then accept or reject. There are many books in the concepts indicated in above para. A very popular book is Autobiography of a Yogi by Swami Yoga Nand which was written in early half of 20th century. I do not find any reason to disbelieve many phenomenon described in this book.
There is nothing miraculous in this universe. The phenomenon which we can not explain with our current knowledge and understanding of Science are branded as miracles. Just 50 years ago, a global discussion forum thru the power of internet could be branded as a miracle. As the horizon of knowledge and understanding of Science shall expand during coming periods, many of the phenomenon which spiritualists of all periods have exhibited from time to time and which somehow have been branded as miracles shall remain no longer as miracles and mechanism behind such phenomenon shall become clearer and clearer in scientific terms
The key issue of the text is that author makes an equality between faith in religion and "faith" (actually trust) in fellow scientists.
Well, if one does not understand math and particle physics to follow and understand the Higgs discovery, one can sit and learn it. It may take months or tens of years but it can be achieved. The same is valid for the experiment itself – with sufficient resources, it is possible to repeat the CERN somewhere else and to ensure that the measurements were also correct. And this is what science (and trust) is about.
(In practice, we have enough trust in scientists that performed the experiment and those that checked them, so it is unlikely that average Joe will repeat the experiment and the calculations.)
Religion is quite a different story. No matter how much one learns the religion, ponders on gods ideas and thoughts, prays, mediates, one will not be able to turn water in wine, split the sea, walk on water, resurrect dead (place any other miracle from a religion). And that is what faith is about – believing in impossible stories that cannot be repeated nor verified.
[posted on behalf of Dan Sarewitz]
Many of the critiques of my column seem to me to be object lessons in the argument I was trying to make. Let me use the entry from Chris Chambers as a sort of summary of several of the main points of criticism being made.
First, he takes issue with my claim that the â€ৎnormity and logic” of the Universe evade comprehension, suggesting that “we have learned a tremendous amount” about such things. Indeed we have, but my argument is still a reasonable summary of the state of knowledge as it pertains to human experience (the subject of my column, a point that many critics seem not to have noticed). Reductionist insights about the ultimate constituents and dynamics of existence do not connect in any useful or ascertainable way to either the practical challenges that society faces or the subjective experience of existence itself. This point is not unknown to physicists, for example Nobelist PhilipAnderson warned in 1972 that “the more elementary-particle physicists tell us about the nature of the fundamental laws, the less relevance they seem to have to the very real problems of the rest of science, much less to those of society.”
Second, Chambers pronounces â€鲫surd” my claim that if you can’t do the math that’s necessary to understand the Higgs and other aspects of the subatomic world, your understanding is not rational. Here we have a bit of a semantic issue, and I am more than happy to expand the meaning of “rational” to embrace Chambers’ point—in fact, from that perspective I whole-heartedly agree with him. For the fact that he trusts the scientists that have done the work (so do I, as far as that goes) is merely an expression of his subjectiveâ€ॊnd sure, rationalâ€钾lief system about who merits trust and who doesn’t. Let me be clear, I am not at all talking about whether or not science discovers real truths about theworld. Of course it does. But my having trust—which is basically a synonym for having faith—in the work of scientists whose work I have no way of really understanding is certainly no more rational, and could reasonably said to be less rational, than, say, my having faith in a priest (or friend or novelist or politician) whose words and actions give me comfort. If, for example, my experience with priests is that they preside over institutions that bring families together and provide food for poor parishoners and talk wisely and sensibly about how I ought to behave in the world, that would seem to be a strong rational basis for trust in what they say.
Third, and “worst of all” according to Chambers, I have elevated “the importance of [my] emotional response to religious artefacts above the accrual of knowledge.” Actually, I’ve done nothing of the sort, at least not in the sense that Chambers (and others) say. Rather, I’ve made an analytical point about a powerful, personal subjective experience—how I felt at Ankgor—in comparison to the indirect and abstract experience of reading clever metaphors about particles and phenomena that I’ll never have any direct personal experience with or real understanding of. Here it seems to me that the lesson is rather obvious: Religion has a pretty strong comparative advantageâ€ॊn advantage that, if I adopt Chambers’ meaning, is in fact rooted in rationality—over subatomic particle physics when it comes to making meaning from the individual subjective experience of a self-conscious yet finite life.
Fascinating: Dan's musings, and my completely different reception of it from most of the folks who've offered comment. If there was a case made in Dan's article, I missed it. If there was a logical argument sustained, I guess I missed that, too.
It's important to appreciate Dan's very thoughtful, beautifully written musing on its own merits. Dan has shared with us an experience few of us will ever have--and connected it richly, even poetically, to an experience we all share simply because we are alive at this moment of a major scientific milestone. We can use the riches offered to diss--disagree, disdain, dismiss--or to develop--our own sense of wonder, our deep appreciation for others' intelligence and artistry, our own mystical relationship to this revealed and mysterious Universe. And hmm...a mystical Jewish atheist winning the Templeton Prize: is that so wrong?
It's unfortunate that Mr. Sarewitz squandered the opportunity to address the real place where science must give way to religion: the Big Bang. Science assumes that the laws of nature are true everywhere in the Universe for all time. That’s a reasonable assumption because there can be no science without it, as some scientists have noted. However, assuming the laws of nature are true, or even exist, before the Big Bang has no basis. Scientists assume the laws of nature exist and are true prior to the Big Bang simply because it’s the only way they can study that period. However, that assumption needs to be seriously examined.
It's unfortunate that Mr. Sarewitz squandered the opportunity to address the real place where science must give way to religion: the Big Bang. Science assumes that the laws of nature are true everywhere in the Universe for all time. That’s a reasonable assumption because there can be no science without it, as some scientists have noted. However, assuming the laws of nature are true, or even exist, before the Big Bang has no basis. Scientists assume the laws of nature exist and are true prior to the Big Bang simply because it’s the only way they can study that period. However, that assumption needs to be seriously examined.
The smell of straw pervades Sarewitz's essay.
In the beginning — of history, that is — religion
was the only science, if we mean the enterprise
labeled in the 19th century after the Latin word
for "knowledge." The ancient thinkers who
invented dieties, and eventually a Diety,
as explanatory concepts are the distant intellectual
ancestors of today's scientists. That most of humanity
still embraces a god as the ultimate explanatory
concept — well, that can be a problem. One of the world's
great religions has become fatally associated with
mass ignorance and headline-grabbing violence.
Meanwhile, the climate warms. Time is short. We need
clarity, not straw men.
MS says: "And whether or not the Higgs field can be described as "a cosmic molasses" or a "sea of milk" is incredibly trivial."
Right, and the Higgs field could also be described as an undetectable ad hoc fix to the embarrassing fact that the standard model of particle physics was/is unable to assign masses to the known fundamental particles.
That a boson resonance shows up at the 11th hour somewhere between 100 and 800 GeV is not yet sufficient for me to view the hypothetical Higgs mechanism as something that belongs to objective reality.
Moreover, the way that different particles are supposed to get their different masses from the "molasses" sounds like a naive just-so story to me.
If one could use the Higgs mechanism to retrodict the masses of the proton, electron, pions, kaons, etc. with a high degree of accuracy and with no fudging, then I would be impressed.
Discrete Scale Relativty CAN do this
Robert L. Oldershaw
It's A Fractal World
When Mr. Sarewitz says "For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.", it implies that only things that one has personally experienced are true and not an act of faith. That means that, for most of us, accepting that WWII happened is an act of faith. Faith is not accepting as true what one cannot personally verify, faith is accepting as true what no one has verified.
And whether or not the Higgs field can be described as "a cosmic molasses" or a "sea of milk" is incredibly trivial.
Wrong. Religion must always give way for science.
<em>This comment system cannot properly handle my original text written on Word, so I repost it here. Administrator, could you please remove the former one?</em>
---------------
With all due respect, I don't think Dr. Sarewitz's essay is convincing. Actually, I found it a bit hard to grasp the central ides of the essay. What is the similarity between the LHC and Angkor temples? Why does Dr. Sarewitz mention the temples in the first place? After reading the essay three times, I believe the core of Dr. Sarewitz's arguments lies in the three sentences, and I'm offering my counter arguments.
First, Dr. Sarewitz says "For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality."
Well, I can't say there's no one on earth who treats Higgs boson as a supernatural entity and worship it. But the fact is for us who hold scientific worldview, belief in the Higgs is definitely NOT an act of faith, rather, an act of trust — it's not the problem of "cannot follow the mathematics". See, even for those who CAN follow the math, most of them don't operate the machine themselves. In fact, many of scientific facts we learn from text book are not verified by ourselves. Does that mean we are followers of some sort of scientific religion? Of course not. One of the key is scientists are pretty good fact-tellers. They have such credit that we can trust them to a certain level. And we DO have the possibility of following the math behind Higgs boson. Most importantly, we are ready to accept any trustworthy evidences refuting the basis of Higgs boson. All of those are the huge differences between empirical science and "black box"religious faith.
Second, Dr. Sarewitz argues that "By contrast, the Angkor temples demonstrate how religion can offer an authentic personal encounter with the unknown." Wrong. Dr. Sarewitz confused the word authentic with attractive. An authentic encounter is based on scientific experiments and evidences, while an attractive encounter is not necessarily evidence-based, thus, not necessarily authentic. The sense of wonder, the personal encounter with the unknown that Harry Potter – or the so called <em>mahou shoujo</em> stories if you prefer to – provide fans with, however attractive, is not authentic.
Third, Dr. Sarewitz points that " Angkor, the genius of a long-vanished civilization, expressed across the centuries through its monuments, allows visitors to connect with things that lie beyond their knowing in a way that no journalistic or popular scientific account of the Higgs boson can."I totally disagree with this. The worldview presented by science (and really good science communicator, like Carl Sagan) is much grandeur than any religion could. Our universe is born from a big bang about 15 billion years ago. Our planet and sun are just a small fraction of the Milky Way galaxy which, is another small fraction of galaxies. The suns come into the world from star dusts, evolve and die; some of them ends up in a violent form and made us possible. Let alone the story of evolution on Earth, which is described by Charlie Darwin as follows:
_ "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." _
There is grandeur in this view of life and this view dwarfs those not based on experiments and evidences. Albert Einstein put it right: <em>If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.</em>
With all due respect, I don’t think Dr. Sarewitz’s essay is convincing. Actually, I found it a bit hard to grasp the central ides of the essay. What’s the similarity between the LHC and Angkor temples? Why does Dr. Sarewitz mention the temples in the first place? After reading the essay three times, I believe the core of Dr. Sarewitz’s arguments lies in the three sentences, and I’m offering my counter arguments.
First, Dr. Sarewitz says â€৏or those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality.”
Well, I can’t say there’s no one on earth who treats Higgs boson as a supernatural entity and worship it. But the fact is for us who hold scientific worldview, belief in the Higgs is definitely NOT an act of faith, rather, an act of trust – it’s not the problem of â€鳊nnot follow the mathematics”. See, even for those who CAN follow the math, most of them don’t operate the machine themselves. In fact, many of scientific facts we learn from text book are not verified by ourselves. Does that mean we are followers of some sort of scientific religion? Of course not. One of the key is scientists are pretty good fact-tellers. They have such credit that we can trust them to a certain level. And we DO have the possibility of following the math behind Higgs boson. Most importantly, we are ready to accept any trustworthy evidences refuting the basis of Higgs boson. All of those are the huge differences between empirical science and â€োlack box” religious faith.
Second, Dr. Sarewitz argues that â€োy contrast, the Angkor temples demonstrate how religion can offer an authentic personal encounter with the unknown.” Wrong. Dr. Sarewitz confused the word authentic with attractive. An authentic encounter is based on scientific experiments and evidences, while an attractive encounter is not necessarily evidence-based, thus, not necessarily authentic. The sense of wonder, the personal encounter with the unknown that Harry Potter – or the so called <em>mahou shoujo</em> stories if you prefer to – provide fans with, however attractive, is not authentic.
Third, Dr. Sarewitz points that â€৚t Angkor, the genius of a long-vanished civilization, expressed across the centuries through its monuments, allows visitors to connect with things that lie beyond their knowing in a way that no journalistic or popular scientific account of the Higgs boson can.” I totally disagree with this. The worldview presented by science (and really good science communicator, like Carl Sagan) is much grandeur than any religion could. Our universe is born from a big bang about 15 billion years ago. Our planet and sun are just a small fraction of the Milky Way galaxy which, is another small fraction of galaxies. The suns come into the world from star dusts, evolve and die; some of them ends up in a violent form and made us possible. Let alone the story of evolution on Earth, which is described by Charlie Darwin as follows:
<em>“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”</em>
<em>There is grandeur in this view of life</em> and this view dwarfs those not based on experiments and evidences. Albert Einstein put it right: “_If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it._”
NB opines: "To say that the scientific method is "inherently limited to being able to illuminate a subset of reality" is not a "criticism of science". It is a criticism of the frankly ridiculous view that science is the only method we have of understanding reality."
---------------------------------------------------------
But science is obviously the most dependable and objective method we have of understanding reality, <em>when the method is properly applied</em>.
I also seriously doubt that you can state and defend 'inherent limits' to science in exploring the full panoply of non-subjective reality.
It can even shed light on the abberant mental "worlds" of astral travelers, channelers and spoon benders of all sorts, not to mention whole communities who still believe in invisible strings and WIMP fables after 40 years of total failure.
If it belongs to objective reality, then science can explore it.
If you argue that science cannot understand "God", then I would like to point that not only did Spinoza do so, he also settled the issue once and for all, at least for those demanding a rational understanding.
RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
<em>The Logic of Scientific Discovery</em> by Karl Popper has best explained why it's not a good idea to put the term "irrational" or "meaningless" as opposite to "scientific". in science, there's certainly a step-by-step method with a rational logic. But, "guesses" before starting this method and "beliefs" after drawing conclusions may well interact with intuition and meta-physics. An irrational guess, a dream, gossip or a random event may trigger a scientific quest and, in the other end, conclusions may faithfully be taken for granted because we remember theorems better than their proofs. I think this is part of being human to make irrational guesses or firmly believe in what we have concluded as "truth".
we believe that our children are safe at their schools or our car is not stolen from the car park. however, we don't have an evidence to prove or disprove these beliefs. these are just simply beliefs that have their own function and it's to avoid anxiety and be able to move on without getting stuck in eternal hesitation as Bertrand Russell said.
the important thing is that once science starts its job, art or religion should not be allowed in so that making falsifiable, testable and debatable statements is possible in public course. once the conclusion is drawn, however, it's up to the individual to believe it or not in his private course.
To say that the scientific method is "inherently limited to being able to illuminate a subset of reality" is not a "criticism of science". It is a criticism of the frankly ridiculous view that science is the only method we have of understanding reality.
Andrey Pavlov wrote following
"that a discussion of the induction of nephrotic range proteinuria from amyloid deposits and the constellation of symptoms with Muckle-Wells syndrome would escape a CERN physicist"
Yes, I agree with you that unless we ourselves have some basic knowledge of some field or TRUST in some expert/authority of that field, we can not appreciate the view point of others who are quite knowledgeble in that field. Even if they submit some evidence, We shall not be in the position to even appreciate the evidence of others in right perspective. For example, for me and many people who have no knowledge of medical field, your above quotes do not make any sense to us.
Similarly, those who have no basic knowledge of spirituality and also have no trust in the authority of those people who have entered the astral and causal planes of Nature after transcending the physical plane of nature, some quotes on the reality of astral and causal planes of nature shall appear not more than mumbo jumbo.
Parallel to astral and causal layers of nature at Macro level, there are also astral and causal human bodies at micro level. Our physical body is contained within astral and causal body. All the biological systems of our physical body get activation from conscious force via the medium of causal and astral bodies. Conscious force acting directly on physical body without intermediate astral and causal bodies does not manifest consciousness and all the biological system, even in the healthiest state, are unable to function.
Yes, you have beautifully distinguished between faith and trust. But I may complement that both faith and trust are related. With trust in the authority of someone who is expert in that field, faith is automatically built up. Faith also comes from evidence, incessant internal pondering, insight and and past experience.. But trust and faith never emerge from logical contentions
To some people possessed with crude scientific logical deduction and empiricalism, faith is an anathema. But they forget that without faith scientists can not move ahead even a single step. If CERN scientists had not been having faith, some 6000 scientists with a budget of about 10 billion Us $ would not have toiled day and night for a long period of more than 10 years.
11 or 10 dimensions of string theorists manifest at sub- quantum level and are supposed to be curled.
Dimensions of astral and causal layers of nature manifest even in larger proportions within the space of astral world than 3 D dimensions of our physical world. The way our physical bodies and other material bodies can move within 3 D space of physical space, Similarly in astral plane, conscious human beings possessing astral bodies can also move from one place to other within space of the astral world. But in that plane movement is instantaneous at mere will. Not only body movement, most of the action of astral bodies are instantaneous at will. All the matter and energy of our physical world is contained within space of physical world. But all the physical world is immersed within astral world whose matter and energy are contained within space of astral wo
Speaking of blind faith and testable science, consider the following facts.
Number of years doggedly spent on the “WIMP” hunt = 40
Number of “WIMP” theory papers = more than 10,000
Cost of “WIMP” searches = multiple billions of US dollars
Number of “WIMPs” found = 0, as in nada, zilch, goose egg, zip, empty set
Number of false-positives = sorry, lost count at about 50
Number of years the “WIMP” hunt can continue = unlimited?
In spite of nature's consistent verdict on "WIMPs", the intrepid theorists still believe in "WIMPs" with the same fervor and unquestioned faith that might be expected of a born again true believer.
Ahhh, Houston, I think we have a problem. Could you send a new generation of young theorists who understand the basics of the scientific method?
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Sarewitz says "...the ambition of science, or at least of certain branches of physics, to probe the origins and meaning of existence itself - which, to some, is the job of religion," which suggests some give up on this philosophical question. How about encouraging a logical discussion about existence? My title "Mathematics, the Mother of the Universe" may repel the math phobic readers, but the mention of mathematics need not always make its understanding inaccessible.
What does the fact that the tenor, if not the words, of many of the comments here is indistinguishable from that of so-called intelligent design protests? And in this winter of generally confused discontent over global climate change can we be so hypersensitive to critiques of our exceedingly human efforts to understand nature that we press our leaden dogmas tighter to our breast despite inklings that we're in water over our heads?
Shouldn't we, then, inquire into nature according to nature's, not inventive human terms? Given that humans are prodigal children of nature, we clearly do need to incorporate human vicissitudes in issues impacting us generally, like we would for an eccentric uncle Henry even or pine beetle infestation.
As to an exhibit of the predispositions of human social groups for dominance, we have been given LHC's mythical Higgs rationale as a vehicle for expanding Big Physics' budget. And we will find the Higgs boson, no question about it! We'll find it at least twice before, having exhausted that source of PR energy, we segue into the new-and-improved media onslaught against you infidels of disbelief. Mind you, I'm no fence sitter here.
Personally, I'm promoting the Phenorfnir wave-pea-particle swarm which will require a linked web of above-ground colliders covering most of the Eurasian continent and centered on Kabul. Concern about relocating most Eurasian cities underground is simply a cheap political shot made by repressive anti-science neo-Luddites. Semper fidelis or what have you.
While I might agree with your underlying thesis, your comment is rife with absolute statements and absolute certainty.
For example: "I will reiterate that in no way whatsoever is science even remotely like religion, nor is any faith EVER required to do, understand, or accept scientific fact."
This is a very idealized way to view science. I think science and reality are quite a bit more multi-faceted and sophisticated than you would have it in your Platonic version.
Sometimes subfields of our scientific endeavors do act like religions, e.g., string theory.
Many things in science that cannot be verified empirically, but are based on questionable extrapolations, are indeed taken on faith, e.g., ubiquitous faith in the <em>conventional</em> Planck scale as something physically real and meaningful.
Science and absolute certainty are not compatible.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
Overall I am very pleased with the comments above (save some that were obviously off the mark themselves vis-a-vis the astral plane duality mumbo jumbo). There is genuinely very little, if anything I can add that has not already been said. The first dozen or so comments are very much on the mark, and Mr. Sarewitz should read them very carefully and attempt to understand the flaws in his thinking on this topic.
I will reiterate that in no way whatsoever is science even remotely like religion, nor is any faith EVER required to do, understand, or accept scientific fact. Trust, perhaps. But "trust" and "faith" are very different things. One can EARN trust... but faith cannot be earned. It is, by definition and in practice, the acceptance of something as fact when completely e of any evidence (and often despite the presence of evidence to the contrary).
I am a medical scientist, so the deeper understanding of complex physical concepts like the Higgs boson escapes me much in the same way that a discussion of the induction of nephrotic range proteinuria from amyloid deposits and the constellation of symptoms with Muckle-Wells syndrome would escape a CERN physicist. Yet we both trust the other understands what their respective field demands of them and – and this is the key here – if the CERN physicist doubted the veracity of my statements (s)he can CHALLENGE them and I would be able to provide EVIDENCE at ANY level sufficient to satisfy the physicist. And if I challenged the veracity of the HIggs boson findings, a CERN physicist could do the same for me. When discussing the concepts of faith and mysticism you find at the Angkor temples (I've been there as well – it is truly an amazing experience) there is no way to address such a challenge. There are no answers offered. There are only assumptions accepted. THAT is the fundamental difference between science and religion and why Mr. Sarewitz is completely and unequivocally wrong is his piece here.
I also think this is probably a way for Nature to drum up some controversy and net traffic. I suppose that is not a bad thing since it will raise awareness as to why the much too common religious counter that "science is a religion too" is a completely false equivocation and their stance is utterly devoid of any merit whatsoever.
Vinod Sehgal comments: "Astral and causal planes of Nature are the planes of Nature which lie over and above in higher dimensions beyond 3 D ( or 4 d) physical universe. a nos. of true spiritualist/ Yogis have transcended 3D physical world and entered and explored in subjective manner astral and causal world and ocean of consciousness beyond all the layers of Nature."
---------------------------
Perchance might these "spiritualist/Yogis" be string theorists?
If you substitute 11-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds for extra-dimensional "astral planes" and string theorists for "yogis" your comment is just as astute!
Wow, another duality!
." Mr. Sehgal, if you understand the Upnishads correctly, you would have realized by now that they were actually the first official attempt to understand the universe in a better way, that everything that happens, happens for a reason and raise the veil off the philosophy written in beautiful, loopy words that was and still is often misread and misinterpreted by people (sometimes even most learned ones)"
Mr Saxena. , At the outset let me make it clear that there is lot of difference between religion and spirituality. There may be hundred of facets of religion and spiritualism. I am not speaking of that facet of religion which is being currently practiced in most of societies. I am speaking of that face which is more secular than Pacific ocean and Himalaya.
That much said. There is no antagonism between science and spirituality. It is only political and fundamental class within science and spirituality who fan the differences. The difference lies in their scope and methodologies. Science is based upon objective methodologies of deductive logic and empirical observations and its scope is limited up to non-conscious nature and that too limited up to physical domain. In the realm of spirituality, dominant methodology is subjective personal one and its scope goes beyond Physical domain to astral and causal parts of nature and then to plan of consciousness which is above and beyond all the layers of Nature . Science is incapable of exploring that part of nature which is laced with consciousness. Exploration of consciousness has remained and still it is the preserve of spirituality.
This a big misconception and fallacy, especially on part by some scientific people imbued with ultra logic and empiricalism, that reality can be approached thru objective methodologies only. In the realm of nature which is laced with consciousness, Subjective methodologies involving wisdom and other deeper non-logical faculties of mind and one's personal experience may be more effective.
Rishis of Upnishads period, though were possessed with literary abilities, but their purpose was not to create some imaginary pieces of literature in some beautiful language. They themselves had first experienced the ultimate truth of universe and then described others to follow that. they had good amount of knowledge of physical sciences also. But thru physical sciences, as is the case to day also, they could not unriddle the mystery of universe. They tried to explore the higher fronts of nature and after transcending all the planes of nature ( physical, astral, causal), came to the plane which is an unbounded ocean of consciousness which is the ultimate reality beyond universe. They described that reality by various names but more common name in Upnishads is Braham. That Braham is same existence as Holy Ghost of Christianity, Allaha of Islam, Wahe Guru of Sikkhism. There is one Upnishad-- Brihad Arayanak Upnishads. That starts with basically these ideas. This is misconception by many people that in religion/spirituality, there is no scope for any raising question. There is one complete Upnishad by the name of PrashnoUpnishad which has been described in the form of question and answers. Similarly, Adi Granth of Sikkhism is replete with truths. These truth were not based upon some imaginary findings but came as revelations to Sikh Gurus from their personal experiences. Same is applicable to all other religions also. Space and time and especially protocol and appropriateness do not allow me to write more on religious/spiritual issues under the columns of a reputed scientific magazine like Nature..
Astral and causal planes of Nature are the planes of Nature which lie over and above in higher dimensions beyond 3 D ( or 4 d) physical universe. a nos. of true spiritualist/ Yogis have transcended 3D physical world and entered and explored in subjective manner astral and causal world and ocean of consciousness beyond all the layers of Nature. Science, not to talk of exploration, have even no distant news of astral and causal worlds of nature. By making this statement, kindly keep in mind, that I am not undermining the significance of Science. If Science has explored and studied only physical world, it has been done with detailed precision with mathematical exactitude and that too supported by empirical evidences. But keep in mind deductive logic and empirical evidences are not the only games in the town to approach reality
I was not discussing spirituality of balms and palms, which you indicated, but pointing towards that ultimate reality of boundless ocean of consciousness which is the prime mover and imparting intelligence to sub atomic particles at quantum level to vast galaxies at macro level in this wonderful universe.
I rarely read an essay written by an atheist/non believer with which I disagreed more.
There is too much to criticize but the passage regarding the temples takes the cake.
Mr. Vinod Sehgal, with all due respect, I would like you to know that I understand hinduism and other religions as they were supposed to exist and as they exist now. I hope you understand that spiritual experiences are not always accurate. Let me give you an example, pain balms and pain relieving sprays, for example, provide relief from the pain by fooling the brain of the person. But the actual cause of the pain, the physical injury or the cause of the pain remains. Balms do not reverse/cure the injury. While it is important at times that we use balms and sprays to relieve pain, we must ultimately seek medical help to cure our physical injury. Religion might be like the balm. The people of whom you talk were people who just wanted to bring a social change to make the life of people better and possibly did so also to some extent by getting them to understand that universe was much bigger and complex that they could possibly understand. To remain happy the common man was advised (and may be rightly so at that time) to do what he could and leave the rest on the forces of nature (cleverly made out into an entity, god). They were told to read books containing philosophy in the form of poems, hymns, prayers. The philosophy might have been right if one to look at it generally but it led people to believe that they should not question the authority they should not research and they should not try to understand some uncomfortable truths, some exciting phenomena. This happened both due to deliberate reasons and also over time due to ignorance of the common man. Mr. Sehgal, if you understand the Upnishads correctly, you would have realized by now that they were actually the first official attempt to understand the universe in a better way, that everything that happens, happens for a reason and raise the veil off the philosophy written in beautiful, loopy words that was and still is often misread and misinterpreted by people (sometimes even most learned ones). In science we make sure that we ask ourselves, others, authoritarians, senior scientists, learned people that what is truth and what is not. Science is very objective and we should keep it purely objective and should not try to mix it with mere philosophy, feeling of well being and voice of "inner heart". While these things and concept do help the common man they cannot challenge scientists to follow the path of science objectively and in an evidence based manner, however many years they might take. Remember sprititual gurus can tell us to improve our conduct for our own good and others,they can also make us understand that in this universe we are but negligible, that there are forces out of our understanding and our control (at least till now) but they have never and will never be able to actually teach us science of what constitutes the universe, or how it began, what lead to the development of the galaxies, the stars and planets, how did life begin on earth, what constitutes the cell and how does it function and how does life come to an end? Ultimately, what is the fate of the universe and how will it end? All these are for science to answer not religion. Let the religion do its function of the balm and leave the "curing" of man's curiosity to science. And I think religion should not be taken too seriously in a community or should be politicised because that is what affect the masses the most and stall the scientific developments in a nation when religious groups and so called social "reformer" groups try to thwart science by projecting it in bad light. Atheists are as much humans as hindus, muslims, christians or sikhs. Remember that these are only beliefs. The truth is only science and sometimes it might be difficult to understand but beliefs can never take the place of truth. "Fell good" is not "good"....its just a feeling......which might not be true or even if it is true we have got all the rights to question it, re-analyse it for our own curiosity and to better our understanding about its mode of action, its reason for existence.
what I really despise about this article is how ignorant the author assumes the audience is
Abhishek Saxena stated following
" Remember that the ancient texts written in hindu mythology were very early theoretical attempts to understand the functioning of the universe and everything that exists in it but they are just poetically written early attempts so cannot be really trusted."
I think either Mr Saxena has no knowledge of Hinduism or other religions of India or it is very sketchy. It appears from his comments that he is not aware of the basic philosphy as enshrined in Upnishads, Bhagwat Gita or Adi Grandh of Sikhhism or Sutras of Buddism, I think he has also not come across any living Saint or Yogi of modern India.
Rishis of Upnishadas, Guru Nanak Dev and Ten Gurus of Sikhhism, Gautama Budhha, Adi ShankaraCharya and many Saints/ Yogis of India of current periods were not literary writers or theoreticians who might have expressed the ideas about the functioning of universe by fertile literary imaginations. They were the empirical spiritual scientists of their period, who after spending years of their life in deep Sadhana ( Samadhi), deep contemplation, experienced some facets about universe themselves and then described their experiences. They themselves or later on, their desciples expressed their experiences and teachings in text forms which turned out to be religious texts or scriptures.
There have been many such people even in modern India. In deep Samadhi stage,they have entered the astral and causal worlds, which are the higher realms of nature beyond physical universe of 3 D Or 4 D as is known to Physics and Cosmology of modern times. Modern science has not even distant news of astral world and causal world. But the beauty and uniqueness of modern Science especially Physics and astronomy lies that though have studied only a part of nature viz Physical world and quite unaware of the astral and causal realms of nature, but they have studied the same in logical mathematical exactitude and supported by empirical evidences.
But one should not remain unaware of the following facts :
i) Logical, mathematical exactitude and empirical methodology is an evolving methodology and we never reach the finality of reality and truth about any phenomenon at any time. At one stage, findings about any phenomenon arrived thru logical deductions and empirical evidences may appear true but after some period those findings are negated and falsified due to more empirical studies and evolution of logic. That is why during the past 100 tears, there have been plethora of theories and model and no one knows which one is final
ii) In Science there have been many phenomenon with which we agree since either they were propagated by great scientists for whom we have same reverence and respect as people have for great saints in various religions or they were devised to explain some empirical observations.
For example, in cosmology no one or very few may understand the meaning of expansion of space on physical paradigm but most of people agree to this since there was no other way to explain the the luminosity of SNs and it also came out of the mathematical formulations of GR.
iii) It is also not necessary that all the phenomenon of physical world or all the nature may be studied thru methodology of logical deduction or empirical evidence. Limitation of scientific methodology in studying those parts of Nature does not reduces the truth or reality of those phenomenon in any manner. For example, scientific methodology of logical deduction, mathematical exactitude and empirical evidence are quite incapable of studying mental processes undergoing in human mind but this leaves no impact upon the truthfulness of those process. Even if Science has studied some mental processes by studying the impact of mental process on body by measuring some electrical/chemical changes in body, those studies are not really scientific since they lack predictive models. In mental process, real study has to come from subjective experiences and not from mathematical models. What is hunger? and what is thirst? and what is love? and what is intense hate? can be known and appreciated by subjective experience and no mathematical and scientific model can give the appreciation
Robert L Oldershah You stated
" I asked for a macroscopic example of acuasality that could be directly checked in a scientific manner. I note that none has been offered so far"
yes, no one has given any example of acausality. One can give an example of acausality only if any such phenomenon might exist in universe. I have strong conviction that all the phenomenon as exist within universe within the bounds of space and time have some cause or other. Real acausality exist out of bounds of space/time. That acuasality is neither having any cause nor effect but the fundamental cause and prime mover of all the universe ( or multiverses) But that is not within the scope and subject of science to peer across regions beyond Space/Time. Many Spiritualists and mystics of various religions, at least of Hindus about which I know more than other religions, have peered across territory beyond space time. and also described the same. If one is really interested in these subjects, one should study Upnishads which are the respository of spiritual thought process of Hinduism and Adi Granth of Sikhism. Problem is that most of the people, the way it happens in Science, start commenting upon concluding upon various issues of religion and spiritualism/mysticism without having even basic knowledge about them
I think that the traditional scientific method is our most reliable path to an ever- better understanding of nature.
I also reject the idea that there is anything supernatural anywhere in the cosmos.
To me, like Spinoza, Einstein and many others, the beauty, complexity, scope, unity and elegant underlying principles and symmetries of the cosmos provide all the meaning, awe, mystery, lawfulness and wonder that one requires. Far more than any other philosophy can offer.
That said, there are a few inconvenient facts that need airing, given the harsh and often arrogant responses to this commentary piece.
1. Before the LHC started up the estimates (exact predictions could not be made by the Standard Model of particle physics) for the mass of the Higgs boson ranged from roughly 100 to 800 GeV. There was a preprint posted to arxiv.org that reviewed the mass estimates and gave references for each. Usually in science, when you cannot definitively predict something you admit that your knowledge is heuristic and uncertain.
2. It is by no means certain that a Higgs boson has been discovered. Properties of the identified resonance are moderately consistent with its being a Higgs boson, but it is by no means a done deal. If the spin turns out to be anything but zero, then the great 4th of July 2012 celebration is going to look like a great blunder (as was the previous 7/4 celebration by particle physicists).
3. Whatever the resonance is, the particle was never directly observed. Rather only its decay products were observed. As Feynman put it: 'you smash clocks together at the speed of light and from the wreckage you try to figure out what a clock is and how it works.'
4. In fact the Standard Model of particle physics cannot predict the masses of many fundamental particles.
5. No quark has ever been observed. Ever! Quarks are either confined where you cannot see them or when putatively deconfined in collisions they decay too fast and so all you can do is infer their Cheshire Cat appearance from run-of-the-mill decay products. The so-called quark-gluon plasma was supposed to be a weakly interacting plasma but actually what was really produced in heavy nuclei collisions was more like a strongly interacting fluid. Time for a new epicycle?
Well, one could go on indefinitely, but perhaps you can see the point. Particle physicists have an abounding faith in the reliability of the untested assumptions that are the basis for many of their bold claims. Moreover, they often are serious in denial about the heuristic foundations upon which they stand.
One day we may make the transition back to theories of principle that can make and pass definitive predictions. We have been in the make-it-up-as-you-go model-building phase for a long, long time. So long that it is regarded as "the only game in town".
I end with another Einstein quotation, and a beauty.
'All our science when measured against reality is primitive and childlike, and yet it is the most precious thing we possess.'
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Is this "The Onion"? Is today April 1st? Why is this article in "Nature"?
Seriously.
Good, responsible and meritous worthy reporting should be based on thorough research and honesty facts sprinkled with the authors own twist with his opinion. None of which Sarewitz displays in the lengthy article based on his conjecture of some misconstrued information. A fact: When Leon first submitted his draft for publication it was named "The God Damn Particle" because in his own humorous inimitable style he coined this term to describe its elusive, mysterious, tough-to-pin-down quirkiness. That being said it was the ultimate decision by the ever hungry money grubbing publishers in search of the next dollar who felt the title would offend, repulse some buyers and so re-named it "The God Particle". Thus the floodgates of controversy (and to the publishers great delight) opened and the book has continued to sell quite well. Bottom line is Leon got a good chuckle......................and nice royalties! Leon wrote it from a science based point of view (and quite well actually). It was twisted by others into a secular debate. And so it goes.
Clearly, this is Sarewitz's shot at the Templeton Prize. When he gets the prize, will Nature staffers feel proud for their contribution?
Religion can only bring a sense of emotional well being and does so and sometimes effect detrimentally. Remember that the ancient texts written in hindu mythology were very early theoretical attempts to understand the functioning of the universe and everything that exists in it but they are just poetically written early attempts so cannot be really trusted. As far as "molasses vs milk" is concerned I believe both are just poetic understandings of complex phenomena. Science asks us to be analytical, non-emotional and objective and sometimes even skeptical and there is nothing wrong in it. We know that science is not fully understood by us till now and probably will never be but to pass religion as an advanced understanding just because we still are taking baby steps in understanding the universe and all that it encompasses is incorrect. True, science has some limitations in which it is practiced but even religion is not absolute. All these stuffs written in books were first written by a human who could have had his/her own interpretations of the universe. Over the years (remember in Hinduism, even the timeline is blurred because of the long history) the works have been translated repeatedly and whether their meaning have remained the same or not, no one knows. Thus I believe that god is not an entity to be belived in for the benefit of mankind, or for seeking blessings or for granting wishes. There's no god only forces that can be explained by a few mathematical tools often very complex, that run the universe and later on takes help from chemistry to form the complexity of biology and together the trilogy of physics, chemistry and biology aided by maths can explain all that exists and ever existed (even though at this time we may not understand it). Rest everything is a social perception and since it is not absolute it cannot be trusted. Remember, man created the concept of god and not vice versa. It is all based on knowledge of theoretical physics, calculus, and probability. Religion, temples, society, emotions etc. etc. are not objective enough.
For anyone interested in the topic of whether or not acausal processes occur in the actual physical world, as opposed to being confined to the pipe-dreams of theoretical physicists, I would like to draw attention back to my main point.
The putative indications of acausal processes all are inferred from regions of space-time wherein we are unable to directly test for acausality (microcosm and on the 4,000 Mpc scale).
Many untested assumptions underlie the logic used to argue for acausality.
These assumptions have been repeated so many times by authority figures that they are now treated as virtual factoids.
I asked for a macroscopic example of acuasality that could be directly checked in a scientific manner. I note that none has been offered so far.
Bottom Line: Causality appears to me to be a sine qua non of science. When you introduce the notion of acausality to explain phenomena you do not fully understand, then you have introduced the supernatural back into science via the cellar door.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
Fractal Cosmology
"I have no problem imagining things that happen just so, just because they can. And indeed, uncaused events happen all the time: almost all cases of radioactive decay for example.",
Our incapability to know the cause should not lead to hypothesis of acauselity. There might be some causes behind radioactive decay but our current scientific understanding may not have developed to peer thru causes for such phenomenon. Hundred years ago we did not know the causes for many phenomenon. Over the period, our understanding has developed enough to know the causes for such phenomenon.
Further, Nature is not limited to physical matter and physical energy only. There is all the big world of Mind and Consciousness about which Science does not know any thing. Either Science has not paid adequate attention to this area or scientific methodologies are incapable to explore such frontiers. Many spiritualists and mystics thru their subjective experiences have traveled to those frontiers of Nature which lie beyond Physical matter and energy. Can any person predict with certainty, using any scientific model, as to which thought shall be emerging in his/her mind after 24 hours? Obviously, it is beyond any scientific theory or model or the capacity of any person to predict. Reason? our knowledge is very much limited to a part of Nature only.Further, our consciousness which is embedded in mind lies within bounds of space-time
Any entity or phenomenon which leads to some effect should also have some cause. Chain of cause-effect can't be one sided. Therefore, whatever natural phenomenon which lead to a chain of effects must have some causes also. Our ignorance to know those causes should not lead to taking our rescue in the guise of acauselity.
What a shower of comments. Science IS our religion or at the very least part of it. Who hasn't felt awe at the 'handiwork' (whoever the hands may or may not belong to) when glimpsing at Hubble images of immensely distant nebulae, the glorious nanocathedral of a 3 D model of a complex 12 transdomain protein, or been awed into reverent silence by watching a schematic summary of DNA spicing and translation?
Only the soulless.
Its a pity to even read the title "Science must give way to religion sometimes" more so from a person who heads a science consortium. All religions are based on one concept to explain the world around us. Its through a supernatural creator or the so called "god". I hope it wont be an overstatement if I would say, the concept of god was the most stupid idea humanity ever had. Fair enough, people tried to explain everything through god, in the past when the scientific method was not popular. But, to seek answers from religion or even giving way to religion to explain the world around us in the present times is seeking to know nothing.Simple reasoning edges the concept of god to obscurity. Our Universe and all the existence around is quite complex for us to explain yet. But, if we would say, god created all this, then god must be some entity which is much more complex than our universe to be able to create it. Then, the explanation begs and attracts an apparent question. Who created god, who is much more complex than what we are seeking to explain?? You end up nowhere and make the question more complicated by seeking answers from religion or its creation, god!!
Ancient spirituality & modern science are considered to be opposed to each other. This is a pity. Humanity will progress in perhaps unexpected directions when they go hand in hand in systematizing our experience on Earth. This particularly comes through when one learns about the lives & work of people like Sri Aurobindo & The Mother. What Aurobindo started as a new experience for himself & later for likeminded people who gathered around him has surely progressed along not necessarily in the standard well-known places like Pondicherry (now called Puduchcheri), but in many other perhaps now obscure places. Our current century will bring about unification of the modern scientific & the ancient spiritual into a holistic overall unity. At least this is my hope!
-Dilip G Banhatti / Madurai (India)
Scientists do only possess invented hypotheses (p < .01) -- but they have no "true knowledge", nor do they discover any "truth" (= 100% stability).
Scientists play with maps and use maps mainly for medical or socio-economic purposes (e.g., positron-emission-tomography, global market assessments).
And: scientific strategies (including the inventions of the DNA and the atomic bomb — see Erwin Chargaff) still have not turned out to be evolutionary stable strategies — in contrast to age-old religions basing their beliefs on some (social) knowledge held to be 100% "true" (i.e., "stable").
I believe most religious people have acquired their beliefs and values through trust in their parents and comparable authority figures.
I believe most atheists have acquired their beliefs through trust in the scientific peer review process (whether they are aware of it or not).
Sarewitz is conflicted in choosing between these options. I sense that he knows he must choose. But he can't. And he doesn't say why he can't.
Personally, I'm sad he is so perplexed. But I'm glad he has some poetic sensibility.
This is completely baseless: as has been mentioned before, the "Higgs Field" can be rationally explained to anyone, provided that "anyone" is ready to spend some years learning the mathematics and ideas that go into it. It can be arrived at step-by-step, every step following completely rationally from the step immediately preceding it (with some help from verifiable and repeatable experiments). In fact, the most common test of a theory of physics is that practitioners will continually try to prove it wrong, and the theory will stand only if it comes through all (and I mean "all") of them unscathed. There is no faith involved here. If one does not believe in a theory, he/she can go ahead and design a test to prove it wrong. If the test succeeds (to prove it wrong), the theory goes to the dustbin (no matter how old it is, or many great names believe in it). It is very disappointing to see Nature publish such articles.
Untill – humans believe in GOD/religion – we cannot be said to be evolved animal.
Simple thinking tells me that the origin of religion/GOD may be to maintain the civilization. It is the invention by Men as the moral policing. Animals do not need religion/GOD as their thinking might be based on simple logic and survival instinct – they may not be driven by EGO . Humans – are more greedy and so moral policing is needed – in the form of GOD!
Such a discussion in "Nature" is very demoralizing.