The Limits of Science
This past weekend I had the opportunity to experience the new exhibit at the Detroit Science Center, called "Our Body: The Universe Within." It was, in a word, fascinating.
http://www.sciencedetroit.org/events/OurBody_exhibit.htm
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070113/UPDATE/701130421
What kept running through my mind as I viewed this incredible display of dissected human remains was that science can tell us about how our bodies are put together and how they work, but it can't explain our consciousness, our personalities, our emotions.
Science can also not define morality, our sense of right and wrong. It is a uniquely human concept. I don't see how anyone can logically avoid drawing the conclusion that there is a Creator, and He's pretty smart.
The big thing that struck me was that one main part of each person was missing -- the soul. That's the real you on the inside, everything about you that is not of the body. You can't put a human soul in a glass case, but every one of those people had one. What happened to it when they died? Science can't tell us that; only God knows.
You may not end up posed on a pedestal with your guts hanging out, but the real you inside will spend eternity somewhere. The truth is, without Jesus Christ, you have no hope at all. Oh, you have a different view? How do you know your view is true? If you have any comments, or questions you can't answer on this subject, feel free to e-mail me, and let's engage each other in discussion.
I'd love to catch you before your body stops working, whether you end up in a glass case or not.
http://www.sciencedetroit.org/events/OurBody_exhibit.htm
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070113/UPDATE/701130421
What kept running through my mind as I viewed this incredible display of dissected human remains was that science can tell us about how our bodies are put together and how they work, but it can't explain our consciousness, our personalities, our emotions.
Science can also not define morality, our sense of right and wrong. It is a uniquely human concept. I don't see how anyone can logically avoid drawing the conclusion that there is a Creator, and He's pretty smart.
The big thing that struck me was that one main part of each person was missing -- the soul. That's the real you on the inside, everything about you that is not of the body. You can't put a human soul in a glass case, but every one of those people had one. What happened to it when they died? Science can't tell us that; only God knows.
You may not end up posed on a pedestal with your guts hanging out, but the real you inside will spend eternity somewhere. The truth is, without Jesus Christ, you have no hope at all. Oh, you have a different view? How do you know your view is true? If you have any comments, or questions you can't answer on this subject, feel free to e-mail me, and let's engage each other in discussion.
I'd love to catch you before your body stops working, whether you end up in a glass case or not.
"What kept running through my mind ... was that science can tell us about how our bodies are put together and how they work, but it can't explain our consciousness, our personalities, our emotions."
Only if you don't consider psychology, sociology, anthropology and the like to be true sciences. I do. Indeed, their goals are to "explain our consciousness, our personalities, our emotions."
"Science can also not define morality, our sense of right and wrong. It is a uniquely human concept. I don't see how anyone can logically avoid drawing the conclusion that there is a Creator, and He's pretty smart."
Science never claimed to define morality. If it's not in the purview of science then it must be a Creator? That seems a fairly spurious argument. And you contradict yourself, besides. If morality is "uniquely human," that rules out any involvement of a Creator, who, I am assuming by your definition is omnipotent and therefore, by definition, not human.
"The big thing that struck me was that one main part of each person was missing -- the soul. That's the real you on the inside, everything about you that is not of the body. You can't put a human soul in a glass case, but every one of those people had one. What happened to it when they died? Science can't tell us that; only God knows."
You posit two things - a soul and God - without defining either, and assuming the reader will agree with both of your non-definitions. This reader does not.
"Oh, you have a different view? How do you know your view is true?"
I don't. My view is simply filled with less injustice and logical inconsistency, and therefore seems more reasonable. And you?
Reply to this
Psychology - The study of human or animal behavior.
Sociology - The study of human social behavior.
Anthropology - The study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals.
Could you please explain how any of these sciences explain where our consciousness, personalities and emotions come from? Aside from the vagueries of saying that certain stimuli induce our brains to fire in a certain way, I maintain that they don't adequately explain what makes me ME.
I never said science claimed to define morality. You're misstating what I did not even say. My point was that human beings are alone in our world in having a sense of right and wrong. God may not be human, but the Bible says we were made in His image, and that doesn't mean our bodies are alike. Our "image of God" has to do with personality and a sense of morality.
I did define a soul as "the real you on the inside," or "everything that is not of the body." God, on the other hand, is self-existent and self-defining, and He doesn't need me to define Him.
Could you tell me where "injustice" fits into your comments? That seemed to be just thrown in for bad measure. As for logical inconsistency, I think the current prevailing scientific explanation of our existence is hopelessly illogical, for a thousand reasons. Care to continue the discussion? Your ball.
Carrie
P.S. Care to let me know who you are? I promise I'm harmless.
Reply to this
Psychology isn't simply the study of behavior, unless you're a Skinnerian. To suggest that's all it is (and that's exactly what you did) is to over-simplify to the point of absurdity.
And you might want to read what I wrote, rather than creating straw man arguments that are easy to shoot down. My specific words were "Indeed, their goals are to "explain our consciousness, our personalities, our emotions."" These are complex goals. I never said they has succeeded at them yet. We haven't succeeded at cold fusion yet, either. Doesn't mean we won't.
"I never said science claimed to define morality. You're misstating what I did not even say. My point was that human beings are alone in our world in having a sense of right and wrong."
Ah, but you did say that science couldn't define morality, implying that's a failing of science. And you did say that morality was "uniquely human" (your words). If it is uniquely ("unique" meaning singular) human, then it is solely the province of humans. If it involves a Creator, it is not uniquely human. QED.
"My point was that human beings are alone in our world in having a sense of right and wrong."
Fair enough. I disagree. A good majority of species will not kill their own kind. A pretty fair number will not kill at all except for food. The number of animals that mate for life would stagger you. If you've ever owned a pet you understand their loyalty. So morality again comes down to definitions. One could define morality, I suppose, to include only humans. I happen to think more of Earth's creatures than that. On the flip side, I think there is immorality everywhere, too.
"Could you tell me where "injustice" fits into your comments?"
To start, two words: The Inquisition.
More carnage has happened in the name of religion (arguably, specifically Christianity) than for any other reason.
"As for logical inconsistency, I think the current prevailing scientific explanation of our existence is hopelessly illogical, for a thousand reasons."
Yup, I agree. The difference? Science advances. It looks for its inconsistencies and illogicalities and works to correct them. Would you say science has advanced in, say, the last 100 years? I sure would. Religion? Still having the same disagreements, fighting the same wars, killing each other over the same things. Heck, there are more religions now than there were 100 years ago, each saying they are "the one true way." They can't all be right. That means a heck of a lot of them are wrong.
"P.S. Care to let me know who you are? I promise I'm harmless."
I've run into this before. Knowing who I am helps you...how? Either my arguments hold water or they don't. Why does attaching a name to them lend any more or less weight? If it helps, call me Dave. And "harmless" isn't necessarily a compliment, nor is it necessarily true. You might want to rethink throwing around that adjective.
Reply to this
Tell you what, Dave,
I will do my best not to talk (or write) down to you if you give me the same courtesy. Let me deal with the points you raised as best as I can.
The goals of the sciences you mentioned may be to explain our consciousness, personalities, and emotions, but I maintain that is an impossible task. Certainly they can't explain the origin of those things, which is part of the great gulf between human beings and the rest of Creation.
From our perspective here on earth, morality is uniquely human. I don't know why the concept of a Creator bothers you. Our personalities and emotions had to come from somewhere.
You said, "A good majority of species will not kill their own kind. A pretty fair number will not kill at all except for food." So what? They don't do this because of any internal sense of right or wrong. Animals act out of instinct, and when they kill each other for food they don't even cook each other first. If they keep the same mate for life, it's not because they think any other arrangement is immoral -- again, they're just doing what they do. People are the only ones who debate issues like murder and adultery.
Your comments on my question about injustice reminded me of something Ronald Reagan said: "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant. They just know so much that isn't so."
It's amazing that whenever modern atheists criticize Christianity, they throw the Inquisition up in our face. Those events happened almost one thousand years ago! You said, "More carnage has happened in the name of religion (arguably, specifically Christianity) than for any other reason." Well, you could argue that, but you would be hopelessly wrong. What about the Nazi Holocaust? What about the Stalinist purges? What about Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Robespierre? Even if some of these people had a superficial link to some form of Christianity, do you not agree that what they did was fully against its prime doctrines?
Atheism has killed way many more people than any other religion. That's a fact. You were correct in saying that all religions can't be right. Atheism is a religious denial of God's existence, and I think it's fully wrong on that main point. Thing is, Christianity isn't even a religion. Let me explain:
Religion is man's attempt to measure up to some deity in order to win entrance into whatever paradise that religion teaches about. I already know we cannot ever do that. Christianity says that Someone already paid the penalty for my sin, and that all I have to do is trust in what He did and I will be saved. Because of my great gratitude for His work, I will serve Him forever.
Science and relgion are not opposed to each other. In fact, many of the great scientists of history were men of faith. They were simply trying to understand how God's Creation worked. Nothing wrong with that.
And as for the last, Dave, I just like to talk with people who have the courage of their convictions to write or say what they think and sign their name to it. Too many people are bomb throwers who hide out in the relative anonymity of the Internet.
OK, that's all I'm going to contribute to the discussion right now. Care to continue?
Carrie
Reply to this
You ask me not to talk down to you, yet that's exactly what you do to me. I think we're done. Have a happy Christianity.
Reply to this
You don't cite any examples or support your belief that I am talking down to you. Pardon me, but I don't see it.
I consider this a non-responsive answer, and so I will thank you for letting me know that I won the argument.
I do enjoy my Christiianity, by the way. I will miss you in heaven.
Carrie
Reply to this
The fact that you consider it an argument to be won or lost rather than a discussion explains
A. why I think you're talking down to me
and
B. why I'm done
Reply to this
How typical of the so-called tolerant mind set to run away from a "discussion" rather than engage in one. Why did you write your first comment if not to try to convince me that your viewpoint was the correct one? You don't discuss; you relabel and misstate the facts.
And there is Truth to be known here. Both of us can't be correct about our beliefs. If there is a God who created us (and there is), then we need to be sure we're following Him properly. That's not just an insignificant detail of life; it's the most important thing!
But thanks anyway. I enjoy the back and forth, even if you don't wish to continue.
Carrie
Reply to this
regarding origins of "consciousness, personalities, and emotions"
Some psychologists and others in science do not agree that these things even exist in the first place. Can you tell me how big your consciousnee is? Can you tell me where your personality is? Can we place emotions into a bottle and examine them? No. We cannot. So, this whole discussion has been an exercise in the imagination, which may or may not exist, too.
Reply to this
May I say that this is one of the most ludicrous comments I thought I'd ever read. To deny that consciousness, personality, or emotions exist is to deny the reality that everyone knows without thinking about it. There's obviously a consciousness working from your intentions through your body to the computer to transmit your message to me in the first place. Personality isn't a location, but it's everything that makes me unique, and as for emotions -- well, if someone broke a promise to you, I bet you would feel something.
This is precisely my point from the first, that there are parts of ourselves which are not of the body, and that scientists can neither explain nor isolate them in a glass case. They're not imagined; they are real, and they are some of the best evidence of a Creator God that I can think of. Otherwise, where did they come from?
Reply to this
"From our perspective here on earth, morality is uniquely human."
I'm not so sure about this. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'morality.' I wonder if any readers of this blog own any pets. If they do, they may have encountered a time when a pet did something that caused them to hide, run away, or otherwise behave as though they did something that they weren't supposed to do. This would suggest that animals know differences between what is "right" and what is "wrong."
My dog knows to stay away from the trash can. When she goes into the trash can for whatever wierd reason, she tips the can over and it makes a mess. When I come home in the evening, she runs upstairs with her tail lowered and ears pulled back. We might be able to infer that she has realized that she has done something "wrong" and seeks to run away from the consequences of said behavior.
Then again, I'm not a pet dog, so I might not know what I'm talking about.
Reply to this
I'm glad you posted this. Let me go further in the explanation:
One definition of "morality" in Webster goes thus: "Conformity to ideals of right human conduct; virtue."
So then I had to look up "virtue," and that means, "Conformity to a standard of right; morality."
When you look at animals, they are the essence of innocence, like infant children (born and preborn). But unlike humans, animals do not have an internal code of right and wrong behavior. Everything they do is governed by instinct.
Regarding dogs, for example, it is well known that a good dog owner is viewed by his animal as the leader of the pack. The human uses the dog's pack mentality against him, and trains him to do what the human wants. As you know, some dogs have been trained by their owners to be attack animals, but the dog doesn't have any inkling that you can't just attack and kill innocent people. You follow me?
When your dog goes into the trash can, for whatever reason, she is only afraid of being punished. She doesn't know from "it's wrong to do this," but only, "my master doesn't like when I do this." It's likely there was some new and interesting smell in the trash can that she was investigating, because animals don't project events into the future like people do. They live almost totally in the present. I know enough about dog training to know that unless you constantly remind your animal that you're in charge, she will eventually disregard all of your rules. That's nature. If you're not the pack leader, she will be, but in a much more primitive way.
And maybe that's the key: Animals can be domesticated, but only humans can be civilized. Animals can be trained (i.e., coerced or blugeoned into submission), but only humans can be educated (persuaded to feel, believe, or act in a desired way).
Thank you again for writing. This was a fun aspect to tackle.
Reply to this
When your dog goes into the trash can, for whatever reason, she is only afraid of being punished.
...
Right. And, when the english word "wrong" or "bad" is paired with the punishment, the animal learns bad from good or right from wrong. I'm glad you understand this because I thought you believed animals didn't know right from wrong. This is the same process humans go through in their early developmental learning stages. See Erikson, Skinner, Freud, or some of the other established learning and developmental theories for more.
Reply to this
More specifically, it learns what actions its owner approves of and what actions he disapproves of. This is not the same as having a concept of right and wrong. It's like the owner who trains his dog to bite others on purpose. The dog doesn't know it's wrong.
And yes, it is similar to the way we train young children. But they are human, and eventually their minds mature to the point where they can understand right from wrong, good from bad.
Reply to this
Regarding consciousness, personality, and so forth. You think it rediculous to suggest that these things don't exist. Please tell me where they are. Are they in the brain? Are they in the heart? The arm or leg? Where is consciousness and how much does it weigh? Can we see it in a microscope?
Please tell me what color the personality is. How large is it? How small is it? Can I measure it with a ruler?
How about the soul? Is the soul in my little finger? Is it in my big toe? IF I cut upon my toe, will I cut open my soul?
These are very difficult questions and I hope you will find the same kind of confidence you had earlier to answer them.
Reply to this
Does the phrase "hoisted by your own petard" ring a bell?
The mere fact that you are asking these questions proves that you have consciousness and a personality.
Those two things, even the soul we've discussed, include everything that is not of the body. You can't analyze them with physical instruments because they are not physical objects. But that doesn't make them any less real.
Welcome to humanity.
Reply to this
"science can tell us about how our bodies are put together and how they work, but it can't explain our consciousness, our personalities, our emotions"
Coming back to your original article...are you saying then that psychology is not a science? Because from what I understand, psychology attempts to explain consciousness, personality, and emotions (among other things).
Thanks.
Reply to this
The derivation of "psyche" comes from Latin and the Greek psukhe - breath, life, soul. To get a better "feel" for this term try to think of it as the invisible animating principle or entity that occupies, interacts with and directs the physical body.
http://www.sntp.net/psychology_definition.htm
Psychology is a science, but one that deals totally with something that cannot be seen, cannot be measured, but can only be felt or experienced.
In a sense, it is a spiritual science, which is why I believe only Christian psychologists have all the tools necessary to deal with emotional and behavioral problems.
Reply to this
Thanks.
The APA Dictionary of Psychology (2007) defines the term as:
"1. The study of the mind and behavior. Historically, psychology was an area of philosophy (see Epistemology). It is now a diverse scientific discipline comprising several major branches of research (e.g., experimental psychology, biological psychology, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, personality, and social psychology), as well as several sub areas of research and applied psychology (e.g., clinical psychology, industrial/organizational psychology, school and educational psychology, human factors, health psychology, neuropsychology, cross cultural psychology). Research in psychology involves observation, experimentation, testing, and analysis to explore the biological, cognitive, emotional, personal, and social processes or stimuli underlying human and animal behavior. The practice of psychology involves the use of psychological knowledge for any of several purposes: to understand and treat mental, emotional, physical, and social dysfunction; to understand and enhance behavior in various settings of human activity (e.g., school, workplace, courtroom, sports arena, battlefield, etc...); and to improve machine and building design for human use.
2. The supposed collection of behaviors, traits, attitudes, and so forth that characterize an individual or a group (e.g., the psychology of women).
I have no idea who Gene Zimmer is (the author of the page you recommend), but he and you are spreading misinformation among the public. Thank GOD we don’t live in the kind of world you and he suggest.
Contrary to your misinformed and misguided opinions, psychology can measure behavior without having to feel or experience it. It is not a spiritual science, as you suggest. Psychology sometimes dabbles in the spiritual, but tends to shy away due to public outcry from Evangelicals and their ilk.
Nice chatting with you.
Reply to this