The realm of science is the observable, testable, measurable
universe, the physical universe. There may be things that exists
entirely outside of this physical universe, or which can occasionally
be part of the physical universe, or occasionally affect it. Perhaps
higher dimensional things, the existence of which here are merely
lower dimensional projections, shadows so to speak, can on occasion
be observed. We can not reliably observe or control things while
they exist entirely outside our dimensions, certainly not if such
things have free will. It seems to me that to be an open minded
scientist it is necessary to accept the possibility there are some
things which are not knowable, which are outside the domain of
science and yet which might from time to time be part of everyday
life. There may exist both spiritual and physical realms, with some
intersection.
It certainly is true that science applies to almost all experience.
By definition miracles are not commonplace. Many people can these
days go through life comfortably thinking everything can be explained
by science. There were times when everything in life appeared to be
up to fate, to choices of fate, deities, or the one God. Until the
discovery of probability theory, most everything happening in nature
appeared to be purely arbitrary, outside the control or even
predictive powers of mere mortals. Philosophers controlled truth only
in their ideal conceptual worlds, with little to say about near
truth, probable truth. For predictions one needed to consult oracles
or shamans, etc. There is a beautiful book on the history of this
subject: Against the Gods, the Remarkable Story of Risk, by Peter L.
Berenstein. Understanding probability theory has played a huge roll
in the development of science and commerce, and has played a large
role in the diminishing of the daily need of religion or the occult
to provide some framework within which to live life with some degree
of comfort or understanding about the future. Things have progressed
so much with such regularity it is tempting to think the process can
be taken to complete knowledge, to think science is completely in
conflict with religion and vice versa, that science can now or
eventually can be used to understand everything. However, this is
not true if science has hard limits to its domain. As long as the
possibility of a non-physical part of the universe exists, science is
limited in its domain. Similarly some might think religion has all
the answers one needs. When religious faith contradicts well
established scientific evidence, as in Galileo's case, it usually is
religion that is ultimately embarrassed. Yet religion has much to say
about the ethics of science, and science has no certain say about the
miracles of religion despite the confidence of the scientists that
might confabulate regarding them. It seems to me not hypocritical for
a scientist to be religious, nor for the religious to study science,
and that the ethical thing to do is respect the rights of others to
hold their views and express them while the world struggles to find a
consensus, or determine if a consensus is even possible.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
