Can Science Reveal God?

[MeditationEye]

Can Science Reveal God?

The answer to that depends on your interpretation of what God is.
Science is a description. Proof that something is real is determined by repeated experiments that consistently obtain the same result.
At the edges of science are the theories and some of the theories on the fringes are very weird, but it can take a generations for scientists and engineers to come up with a way of proving or disproving those theories.
The hypothetical idea of multiverses for example is one of those theories. Could multiverses explain visits to the other worlds described by so many through the ages?
My view is that the scientist and the mystic may often seem to be travelling in different directions but ultimately they will arrive at the same place.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Lord_Viskey

This seems to be an interesting statement.

It was taken to from something Niels Bohr said:
"It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..." (wikiquote)

In your own "universal experience" - do you include yourself as an aspect "within" it, or as a "lone sentience" being separate from this universe?

I advocate the 'conscious universe' approach to science, and this means because I am conscious I am also the same as the substrate of the universe. This is to say, by being alive I connect to all life. It's much more difficult for me to categorically frame that as separate or not-separate. I will just call it 'connectedness'.

Niels Bohr centralises his philosophical discussion on the objectivity vs. the subjectivity of the universe, and I agree with him that nature is at least as subjective as it is objective. What this means is, we don't know what we're studying, and that we do know is only a knowledge acquired in context with our modes of questioning. In science, if we get the same answer to the same question using the same method/criteria in different times, rotations and and locations - then we say that is universal to anyone's experience. We do not, however, say anything about what that experience is like. e merely make a 'true statement' about it. Anyone can test it and see if it's true in their own experience. This means what we call 'objective' is not the object, but the statement, and what we call 'subjective' is not the statement, but the object in question. There's an irony in that.

In other words, if physics only verifies one's universal experience - how does one reconcile themselves with that universal ... shall I say, "organism"? What do you consider as the "pecking order" of influence within this universal experience - does it manipulate you, or do you manipulate it? Is this a give and take? if so, what do you believe is your contribution to the universe on the whole - not just to other sentient beings in your proximity of influence.

I very rarely think about these sorts of things, but obviously identifying the self is necessary, and I believe that this necessity to know self is the primary impetus for what Foucault calls 'the will to knowledge'. Foucault explains how knowledge is used as a power to influence, and this is clearly true. In our age, science is the institution associated with knowledge, and it has more influence on society (through technology) than other 'knowledges' like religion and philosophy. In the early enlightenment period, philosophy was king. Before that, religion was king. We are now at a turning point and a new form of 'truth' will take over the reign - but we never 'really' knew anything... we just said things about nature.

The new wave will have to incorporate 'what we know' (which is what we say) with the direct acknowledgment of our conscious presence. This is my train of logic: It's obvious that your conscious presence is the same as mine (while our experiences are dissimilar). This can be expanded to suggest that the cat here is also a conscience presence, and it follows that all life is a conscious presence (we can test this cognitively or neurologically), and from that, theorise that nature itself is a conscious presence. If we can make that assumption at least, then we are compelled to recognise what I have called 'connectedness', not only in terms of objective quantum mechanical statements, but as a direct 'subjective' acknowledgment

[mickiel]

Originally Posted by Curious-one

I like your "ordering" thought. What came first the chicken or the egg? Take my thoughts for example, I hear them, but cannot see them, yet how do I explain to others I can think without seeing my thoughts. Science eludes me to a point as far as the word energy is concerned. I have to use the word thought to understand the word energy. The words are not synonymous with each other, yet that is the only way I can understand the word energy, why I do not understand. Excellent thread. Curious

I agree that words have energy , in fact great power if used in a powerful way. Look at Martin Luther King, he gave many great speeches , some of them altered history. Our founding fathers in America formed the constitution and it made history; it formed and shaped a great nation. And we ourselves can do great things with words. Influence people for their entire lives!

So we need to do our best when we write, this opportunity we are given here at Spiritual Forums should not be taken lightly; this is one of the finest websites on the internet, more diverse and tolerant than any website I have been on, and I have been on hundreds.

[mickiel]

Science has made incredible gains , yet has spirituality?

[mickiel]

Science left the church during the great reformation, I wonder if it will meet the church again in the future under differing circumstances? Imo.

It's the other way around. God, Source, Brahman, whatever reveals science.

[mickiel]

Oh I like what Bruce Lee said. Very meaningful when we can see ourselves and others even in the reflection of change and grow.

[mickiel]

I am not saying science is trying to reveal God, I am asking could they? I wonder how they would do it ? They wouldn't evacuate their knowledge, I wonder what equipment they would try? I would like to see that.

[mickiel]

Where better to discuss science and God than a spiritual forum? We can celebrate science and God in unique ways.

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by mickiel

I am not saying science is trying to reveal God, I am asking could they? I wonder how they would do it ? I wonder what equipment they would try?

The equipment for revealing the Divine is readily available. It is called the human body.

The human body is our laboratory to explore the nature of Consciousness, as Yogis have done for millennia.

Scientists may peer through their telescopes and microscopes but until they look within themselves then God will remain a mystery.

Peace