Posted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:28 am
Yes.Felgar wrote:I also agree with this statement, provided that you allow for the scope of science to expand. The mechanics of flight might once have been thought to be in defiance of scientific laws (opposing Newton's gravity) and therefore outside the scope of science. Then we start learning about air pressure and suddenly flight is no longer a matter of faith. I'm quite confident that you'll agree with this.Alien wrote:Statements that are outside the scope of science cannot be, by definition, analysed by science, and therefore you should only use faith and beliefs.
I don't think I actually refuse to explore anything but science. There are fields that are not really scientific and therefore cannot be explored with a scientific methodology. The best example is arts. Literature, music, and so on cannot be explored with science. What I am saying is that also religion and theism, exactly like arts, cannot be explored with science. Actually, I met a person who thinks that religion is a form of art.Felgar wrote:So the final question for you then, is this: Given that you admit that some statements, and therefore some assertions of truth, fall outside the scope of science, (as you just stated "statements that are outside the scope of science") how can you be comfortable in refusing to explore anything but science? You are closing yourself to potential truths... And the reasoning behind the decision to that alludes me.
These areas are subjective, and cannot be explored with science. Physical phenomena are objective and can be explored with science.
I also don't think I am closing myself to potential truths, for the simple reason that "truths" in the subjective areas are not comparable (therefore not the same) to "truths" in the objective areas.
A scientific "truth" (I don't like a lot this word, however) is objective: it is the same for you and me. Newton's law F = ma is a truth for you and for me.
When you start to explore subjective areas like arts, you find subjective truths. If I tell you that I like Vivaldi's Four Seasons, I am telling you my subjective truth. Perhaps you don't like Vivaldi's Four Seasons. If you tell me that you are a Christian, you are telling me your subjective truths. Perhaps I don't share the same feelings as you about the christian religion. And, actually, I do not. I feel comfortable with Vivaldi, Shakespeare, and the religion, as long as these remain what they are: inventions of the human creativity.
In summary: rather than saying that "I refuse to explore anything but science", I would say that "I refuse to use science to explore anything subjective, like arts or religion".
Back to the topic, quickly:
My answer to the question "Everything in universe can be explained by natural means?" is
"Yes, because this answer is implicitely included within the question. If not using a natural mean, it is not an explanation in scientific terms.
You surely can give an explanation that does not use natural means, but this is not a scientific explanation and therefore not really an explanation."