How should we go about understanding reality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter Fentyle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reality
Click For Summary
Understanding reality involves navigating the interplay between science, philosophy, and religion, each offering distinct methodologies. Science relies on empirical evidence and logical reasoning, while philosophy can question and analyze these frameworks, and religion often emphasizes faith and absolute truths. A rational approach suggests prioritizing scientific methods for their predictive power, but also recognizing the value of philosophical inquiry. The discussion highlights the importance of asking fundamental questions about existence and the nature of matter, advocating for a balanced perspective rather than a rigid adherence to any single viewpoint. Ultimately, a pragmatic approach that incorporates insights from all three domains may yield the most comprehensive understanding of reality.
  • #31
we barely have an idea of consciousness. is it right to believe that my consciousness is a different one than yours. ego maybe. the universe itself is conscious, if only in the tiny amount of matter and chemical reactions that make up humanity. we say it is our own but how can it be? we are not separate from the universe. science states this. we rule this planet. we hold its fate in our hands. some would consider that godlike. the sun will shine whether we understand how it goes about shining or we worship it. hell we can even flip it the bird. even if we use science to understand everything, it won't change how this universe functions. so it seems to be a "why" question. to make life better i would guess. then religeon and science have the same goal. if people stopped arguing about which and who and started practicing some of their beliefs, maybe reality wouldn't suck so much. we are all in the same boat.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Darken-Sol said:
the universe itself is conscious

Prove it. There's nothing to back that up, at all.

Just because we are, doesn't mean the universe is.
we are not separate from the universe. science states this.

Where? Please show me where it states my consciousness is part of the universe.
we rule this planet.

Tell that to the Earth next time a natural disaster occurs - nature rules us, we work within its limits. There are boundaries we cannot work outside of.
we hold its fate in our hands.

We hold our fate in our hands. The planet doesn't care what happens to us and will continue onwards regardless of us.
some would consider that godlike.

If it were true.
then religeon and science have the same goal.

Not true at all.

Science aims to discover how things work. Religion tells you how they work.
Science shows evidence for their theories. Religion tells you to just believe it.

Science does not care about "making life better", that is just one of its uses. Neither does religion - in fact there are many religious texts which discuss various things we consider crimes as being supported and welcomed - hardly making life better.
 
  • #33
where is your consciousness taking place? biologically is it not happening in our brain? if it is not a part of this universe it would seem thought can travel faster than the speed of light. from outside the universe all the way back here to earth. how could i lift a finger otherwise. you're right about the planet though the rock would still exist. i am guessing if we set our hearts on it we could end life on this planet. why even practice science or religion if neither better our cause? even wanting to understand how things work is a comfort issue(making life better). i see a lot of religion aimed at teaching us how to behave in a manner which enables to function as a society. even a child can sift out useful knowledge from a fairy tale. i am suprised at the number of educated people who look past all the good and see only the impossibility of a god. which can't be proved or disproved. find every answer you seek it won't change a damn thing universally. find a way to put it to use and it can better our lives.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Darken-Sol said:
biologically is it not happening in our brain?

Yes it's in our brain. That does not have anything to do with the rest of the universe though.
i am guessing if we set our hearts on it we could end life on this planet.

Life yes, destroy the planet no.
why even practice science or religion if neither better our cause?

Well that's a personal choice.
(making life better) i see a lot of religion aimed at teaching us how to behave in a manner which enables to function as a society.

Really? Is there not a passage in the Bible that says "if someone looks at your wife with lust, kill him"? And similar passages regarding killing being acceptable in all religions?
even a child can sift out useful knowledge from a fairy tale.

Not true. It has been shown children will go with the solution they feel is most believable (I'll try and find it, it was on TV not long ago). A woman asked a number of children various questions and they, for the most part, chose the solution relating to magic / mystic etc as it seemed more believable to them (simpler).
i am suprised at the number of educated people who look past all the good and see only the impossibility of a god. which can't be proved or disproved.

Actually, it could easily be proved. Or at least supported - it is not in any way.
find a way to put it to use and it can better our lives.

That's what science does. Only you have to answer the questions first in order to do this. Religion doesn't even try to do this. It just says "this is how it is" and you should "live with it". I hate philosophy, but at least they do this much.
 
  • #35
who cares if a child picks a magical answer if the morals it teaches him are sound? again you miss the point. you would make a good suicide bomber. easily distracted by the letter of the law completely ignoring the purpose. if the matter which makes up the brain is part of the universe, I'm pretty sure it is, then it is a tiny part of the universe where consciousness is happening. your ego claims ownership and cries "i'm special" but that's just not the case. PM me if you wish to continue arguing senslessly. I'm game. we need not jack this thread any longer.
 
  • #36
Darken-Sol said:
who cares if a child picks a magical answer if the morals it teaches him are sound? again you miss the point. you would make a good suicide bomber. easily distracted by the letter of the law completely ignoring the purpose. if the matter which makes up the brain is part of the universe, I'm pretty sure it is, then it is a tiny part of the universe where consciousness is happening. your ego claims ownership and cries "i'm special" but that's just not the case. PM me if you wish to continue arguing senslessly. I'm game. we need not jack this thread any longer.

I haven't seen you post one useful thing yet, nor one thing that isn't a messed up stream of consciousness. What exactly are you trying to say on the topic of understanding reality?
 
  • #37
If this thread dies, then perhaps you can private message me as this is very helpful to me to decide how i should live my life in a rational way.
So, you want other people to tell you how you should live your life? Seriously, ask yourself in how many ways can that go wrong?

Infinitely many.
 
  • #38
In regards to Peter's last message, I always like Joseph's Campbell's advice: "follow your bliss"

I'd still recommend learning as much as you can about science, religion, and philosophy with an open mind and from an objective viewpoint.

You'll naturally gravitate more towards one or the other. It's an individual choice really.

I just think it's important to realize none of the fields are the sole owners of the "truth", and in that regard I don't think it is wise to ignore any of them, either. They all have something important to offer you in the end.

Good luck!
 
  • #39
dm4b said:
...learning as much as you can about science, religion, and philosophy...

I agree and quote Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".
 
  • #40
computerphys said:
I agree and quote Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

Is that in context?

I just did a bit of searching and it seems to have a fair bit more context to it. Can someone clarify?
 
  • #41
JaredJames said:
Is that in context?

I just did a bit of searching and it seems to have a fair bit more context to it. Can someone clarify?

I can't find the context however there is a good little essay on it here http://www.chowk.com/Views/Science/Is-Science-without-Religion-really-Lame

Near the end there is a good concluding remark

So in conclusion: Is science lame without religion? I do not believe so. It still has two legs (without any help from religion) if it was a biped to start with. Fortunately it doesn’t need any props; it stands and falls by its own standards. Science explains how natural phenomena occur; it does not explain why they occur. Due to our ignorance, we need religion to explain “why”. But such explanations may not be true and they are not verifiable. Science does not accept anything until it is verified by empirical data. So we see that science and religion do not live in the same space.

However science may be regarded lame in the sense that its knowledge is limited. The moment one brings in religion to make it whole, it ceases to be science. It becomes metaphysics.

I try not to get bogged down by profound sounding quotes from historical figures. It always seems to much like an appeal to authority. Einstein, for all his importance, was wrong on many matters. Particularly when he tried to reconcile his religious beliefs with scientific understanding

EDIT: it seems this conversations been had on the forum before https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=424394&page=4 there's a few links that might provide more context. The general idea is that the quote means science explains the how and religion explains the why. Not a very good statement; I don't think religion explains anything at all, instead it provides often unverifiable answers with no evidence to back them up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
JaredJames said:
Is that in context? ... Can someone clarify?

Here, I try. According to wikipedia, "Science ... builds ... knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world".

What happens if we find that part of the world is NOT predictable? Then, science would be lame, as Einstein quoted.

But, have we found that the world (or part of it) is NOT predictable? The answer is YES, definitely. HUP is the thing that makes Science lame. So, Einstein was right.
 
  • #43
computerphys said:
Here, I try. According to wikipedia, "Science ... builds ... knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world".

What happens if we find that part of the world is NOT predictable? Then, science would be lame, as Einstein quoted.

But, have we found that the world (or part of it) is NOT predictable? The answer is YES, definitely. HUP is the thing that makes Science lame. So, Einstein was right.

And how does religion fit into this? Apart from the fact that Einstein was opposed to quantum physics on personal and religious grounds?

EDIT: not saying that was the sole reason but Einstein certainly had non-scientific objections to a non-determinate universe
 
  • #44
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

I think Einstein is talking more about spirituality. Perhaps there wasn't such a new-age, secular concept for that, perhaps Einstein was just being polite. To me, what he means is that if you don't have some fascination with nature and how it could work so wonderfully, then you won't be a very motivated scientist (well, not the deep kind of theoretical scientist einstein was). Carl Sagan had a similar message. So we weren't created by an intelligent design, but that's even more fantastic of a reason to be impressed that we exist! I mean, science should be a way of life, science should be the meaning of life! That's a "religious" sentiment (i.e. non-scientific, non-fasifiable, a value judgment).

from the article above:

In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory

A deterministic universe, reduced to one equation, that was closer to Einstein's god than an anthropomorphic omnipotent dude that cares about human behavior. Christopher Hitchens refers to him as a deist, rather than a theist.
 
  • #45
ryan_m_b said:
... Einstein was opposed to quantum physics ...

In 1905, Albert Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect by describing light as composed of discrete quanta. This discovery led to the quantum revolution in physics and earned Einstein the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

So, I would rather say that Einstein is a father of quantum physics.
 
  • #46
computerphys said:
In 1905, Albert Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect by describing light as composed of discrete quanta. This discovery led to the quantum revolution in physics and earned Einstein the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

So, I would rather say that Einstein is a father of quantum physics.

They're not mutually exclusive.

I would say that he had an emotional reaction to the implications of some aspects of QM, not that he outright opposed it altogether. He didn't reject the observations he or Planck found, but a fundamental aspect of QM: the implications of Bell's Theorem.
 
  • #47
Pythagorean said:
I would say that he had an emotional reaction to the implications of some aspects of QM

Right, I agree with you, but that not implies he couldn't achieve some enlightenment from these very implications.

Taking the context into account (his life, his theories, his letters, his quotes, ...) I think he meant science is not enough to understand reality, a religious belief or sentiment is the complement.

Personally, I would also add philosophy to this receipt:

* Philosophy to define reality
* Science to describe reality
* Religion to understand reality
 
  • #48
computerphys said:
Taking the context into account (his life, his theories, his letters, his quotes, ...) I think he meant science is not enough to understand reality, a religious belief or sentiment is the complement.

I see no purpose to religious belief outside of people needing it.

I'm doing pretty well so far and I have never had to bring religion into it.
 
  • #49
computerphys said:
* Philosophy to define reality
* Science to describe reality
* Religion to understand reality

Religion does not help to understand reality, it has an assumption about reality - which is neither testable nor verifiable.
Philosophy falls under the same category as religion IMO.
 
  • #50
computerphys said:
Personally, I would also add philosophy to this receipt:

* Philosophy to define reality
* Science to describe reality
* Religion to understand reality

Agreed,
Agreed,
Disagree.

Religion does not help anyone understand reality any more than the Lord of the Rings does. As a mechanism for learning about the universe religion is a poor mental crutch for those who do not like to admit they do not have the answers (or that they live in an uncaring universe).

Religion simply replaces one "I don't know" with a magical answer. E.g. "Why does the Earth support life?" --> "God did it". Alternatively religion is a way of justifying events people find unacceptable e.g. "why did 10,000 people die in a tsunami?" --> "It's all part of the grand plan. It was actually a good thing that the tsunami happened, we're just unable to understand God's reasons why"
 
  • #51
ryan_m_b said:
Religion does not help anyone understand reality

You sure? A lot of people claims the contrary. At least there is one truth here: some people need religion included in the receipt and some people don't need it at all.

When I feel that I think, this is religion. When I conclude that I exist, this is philosophy. When I see myself in the mirror, this is science. I need these 3 acts of self-conscience to understand who I am. And you?
 
  • #52
computerphys said:
When I feel that I think, this is religion.?

What's religious about that?

Please give an example of how religion helps you understand reality.

It tries to tell you what reality is. It dictates how you should act within that reality. Where does the understanding come from?
 
  • #53
computerphys said:
You sure? A lot of people claims the contrary. At least there is one truth here: some people need religion included in the receipt and some people don't need it at all.

When I feel that I think, this is religion. When I conclude that I exist, this is philosophy. When I see myself in the mirror, this is science. I need these 3 acts of self-conscience to understand who I am. And you?

claims are not a good way to understand reality. what individual feels or experiences is his own has little to do with the workings of nature.
 
  • #54
thorium1010 said:
claims are not a good way to understand reality. what individual feels or experiences is his own has little to do with the workings of nature.

Just the contrary. Science is based on experiences.
 
  • #55
computerphys said:
You sure? A lot of people claims the contrary.

Everybody in existence (and all those who have ever existed) could claim something and that wouldn't make it true.

At least there is one truth here: some people need religion included in the receipt and some people don't need it at all.

Whether or not somebody "needs" religion to get by in life bears absolutely no relationship to whether or not religion provides answers to life. If I could not go a single day without reading Harry Potter does not mean that Harry Potter can provide me with answers about the universe.

When I feel that I think, this is religion.

When you feel that you think? How can one even do this? We can think yes, we know we think however this bears nothing to religion. Religion is an organised collection of faith based beliefs.

When I conclude that I exist, this is philosophy.

It is science, you're conclusions are based on evidence. Your definition of existence, definition of you and the manner in which you decided what counts as evidence, how to conclude etc is philosophy

When I see myself in the mirror, this is science.

No. Science can explain the mechanisms by which you stand, by which you see and by which light travels, reflects etc.

I need these 3 acts of self-conscience to understand who I am. And you?

No you do not. Understanding who you are has no religious requirement. Religion may play a part in your life but it cannot explain who you are.
 
  • #56
computerphys said:
Just the contrary. Science is based on experiences.

I was referring to religious experiences. What experiences have given to our understanding of reality (perhaps an example )?
 
  • #57
computerphys said:
Just the contrary. Science is based on experiences.

Science says nothing about individual experiences and 'anecdotal' issues.
 
  • #58
JaredJames said:
Science says nothing about individual experiences and 'anecdotal' issues.

Exactly. Science is based on verified evidence, not "experience". As if flicking through Nature or Science would comprise of reading various excerpts from scientist's diaries.

"Dear Diary

Today I experienced dark matter under my sofa. True story..."
 
  • #59
ryan_m_b said:
When you feel that you think? How can one even do this?

You really don't feel that you think?


ryan_m_b said:
We can think yes, we know we think however this bears nothing to religion. Religion is an organised collection of faith based beliefs.

One of these beliefs could be, depending on which particular religion we choose, the sense of spirituality.

You may call it the way you like, but the point is that there is a part of the reality that does not belong to science (because it is not based on rules) nor to philosophy (because it cannot be derived from logic). This domain of knowledge that comes from direct feeling is used to be called religion.
 
  • #60
computerphys said:
You really don't feel that you think?

What does that even mean?
You may call it the way you like, but the point is that there is a part of the reality that does not belong to science (because it is not based on rules) nor to philosophy (because it cannot be derived from logic). This domain of knowledge that comes from direct feeling is used to be called religion.

Could you give an example please. What cannot be described by rules or logic?

Remember, the inability to now simply reflects out current understanding, not that we will never be able to or that it doesn't follow it in some way.
 

Similar threads

Is Reality Just a Construct of Our Beliefs?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Graduate Can Gödel's Theorem Inform Our Understanding of Physical Reality?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Cool Optical Illusion and Our Created Reality
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Time, Ontology & Platonic Reality vs Material Reality
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Is Beauty an Aspect of Awareness or an Independent Reality?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
How Much Do We Really Know About the Universe?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
News The US Digital Service, aka DOGE
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Help me understand why “Block Universe” is not scientifically proven
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
How will public react if we discover life on another planet?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K