Very simply, science does not have any way to measure the existence or lack thereof, of an afterlife. So, if science can't address (now or even in the foreseeable future) the afterlife, how can it address what may or may not exist in the afterlife. A while ago you mentioned the Teapot thing (I can't recall the exact term, but you know what I mean) I see no reason to believe there is a teapot floating out there, but that is addressable in theory using science even if science would most likely fail at proving or disproving the teapot. In that situation, where something espoused is as crazy as the Teapot, it would however still exist in our realm, so you could say the responsibility lies on the believer since its existence could be proved. However, saying there is a teapot in the afterlife is in no way measurable. We can not map the afterlife like we could space (theoretically) so the two belief systems 1)science 2) Teapot in the afterlife, can coexist. It is not the duty of science to address what science can not measure, and it is not religions job to do anything except annoy us when it comes to claims which can not be addressed in reality. This might have been rambling, and if so I will try and suss out my thoughts a little later while not trying to finish up work for the week. Let me know if I made no sense. Also, it is not pandering. Science deals with reality, period. If religious beliefs enter reality, then fine, but as long as the beliefs deal in some other realm then it would be WRONG for me to claim science can answer the issue. Science is beautiful because of its purity. It deals in the measurable, it deals in reality, it deals in the testable, and it does not try and answer that which is unknowable.
Not saying I agree with this gravity thing not effecting the afterlife; but wasn't there studies that showed the absence of gravity in high powered vacuum chambers?
Also, this is not pandering because it is truly how I feel. I am not saying it to get the love and adulation of the god-fearing. Yes, I like most of the posters here, but all my postings here are how I view the subject of the science and religion. It is my love of science that binds me from claiming that science has more power than it does. Science is the search for verifiable truth. Once you take out the word verifiable, you are left with religion.
ok i'll just call you Trip2 you also seem to be hung up on what is in my view an unnecessarily (semantically) narrow view of what constitutes scientific knowledge and how it is amassed - one that in my experience the scientific community itself as a whole does not adhere to. science deals in probability and can and does have a lot to say about the probability that human individual consciousness, self-awareness, & personality continue after death. there is a mountain of objective evidence indicating these traits emerge from purely physical processes that require life (and to address the Catholic notion of a soul specifically, that humans are no different than other animal species). the fact that we cannot directly measure for the existence of an afterlife or a soul does not mean what we CAN objectively infer from the evidence about the probability of an afterlife/soul is unscientific or meaningless. Again I don't get this at all. How is belief in an afterlife any less unscientific or any less crazy (to use your word), or how does it require any less of a burden of proof than belief in Russell's Teapot? There is no evidence for either. The fact that you think the teapot is in principal accessible to testing by science and an afterlife is not does not make belief in the latter any more valid from a scientific standpoint. this unfortunately is taking the exact same path i went down with Trip. i did not say or imply that science should claim to answer the unanswerable. i'm just advocating not using language that lends credibility to the notion of a religious 'realm' of knowledge that CAN answer unanswerable questions
ok sorry. again i meant the words you are using effectively pander to religious belief - unnecessarily validate and perpetuate. i didn't mean to imply your are being insincere.
don't confuse me with that windbag of an ass! Kidding, trip and I do think alike. As do you and I on most issues it would seem. I'm not sure how to explain myself succinctly, so here is what I think in a more roundabout way. I believe in things to which I see reasonable evidence. So, I believe in biology, I believe in math, I believe the sky is sometimes blue. Conversely, I see no evidence at all of there being a god. I see no evidence in there being an afterlife. Hence, I do not believe in god or an afterlife. But all science tells me is that there is no (scientific) evidence for a god or afterlife, it does not tell me that I am right to not believe in god or an afterlife. Science does rely on probabilities. But where are these probabilities you speak of that god does not exist. Sure, you can say science demonstrates that what many refer to as a near-death experience can be explained by neuroscience. But that does not mean there is no afterlife. It only means that what people often refer to as a near death experience is most likely not correct. One thing is measurable, one thing isn't. I'm fine taking data that indirectly measures, but everything you list doesn't. There is no way to directly or indirectly measure the existence of a soul. We can measure things sometimes associated with a soul according to specific belief sets, but those things should not be mixed up with measuring for a soul. Although it would be near impossible, we could send out thousands of space probes that mathematically split up the area of space and search for the teapot. After conclusion of that mission the amount of space searched, time searched, # of probes, could all be analyzed to provide some scientific conclusion like there is a 99.5% chance that no teapot exists. But there is no way even in theory to calculate the probability of afterlife. It makes one theoretically testable and not the other. Science speaks to one, philosophy the other. All I know is what science can/can't answer. But for the information it can't, even if I think it's silly I can't claim science can give an answer.
How do you know this? The "soul," as religious people see it, has never been discovered. As far as anyone knows, it doesn't exist. If it was found, science would be able to give an answer. Science has been answering philosophical questions since science began. I see absolutely no reason to believe that won't continue.
I won't say science will never be able to answer the question of soul, but as of now I see no way to measure the existence of a soul, directly or indirectly. If we ever are able to measure it, it means that the soul would exist. Catch 22
That's my point, if the soul was proven real (as in the discovery of a whole new.. thing), it would be by science. It wouldn't be any more religious or philosophical than the brain is.
See there is a difference between you and I. I can actually see the point when I know it's written with good intentions. You, on the other hand, have a very sarcastic agenda. I would bet even if god himself came before you; you would say it was a figment of your imagination.
Ya VG, I'm with you. But as of now, with no evidence pointing towards the discovery, I will say that most likely science will not be addressing this question. However, as with everything, I will reassess any past assumptions once better data is presented.
