Non-scientific truth

[Unesh52]

I'm currently in a YouTube argument with this guy who's apparently a pastor. (It's remarkably civil for YouTube.) He expresses a sentiment that I've heard several times before, both around here and on YouTube, but I haven't gotten a satisfactory explanation of it. The long and short of it is this:

"Science can't answer some questions about the universe, e.g. What is beautiful? What is love? What is good? What happens to the soul when we die? There are truths to be known about these things, and they will be found outside of science."

Usually the person who makes this claim then cheekily implies that science's inability to "explain" their paranormal or religious claim is evidence that it is true, though they'd never be so presumptuous as to say that. From my POV, there are at least 2 flaws with this kind of thinking.

First, it assumes there are answers to these questions. Indeed, I think it's rational to think of concepts like love, souls, and beauty as products of the consciousness and therefore do not have any relation to objective reality. In other words, subjective things are subjective. Don't know why things like this are so hard to understand. Second, even if I accept that there is some absolute truth about the nature of beauty or love or whatever, why should I assume that your opinion about it is that truth? After all, science is an empirical method for discerning the nature of the universe -- it works by creating hypothesis and eliminating alternative explanations (and self-checking by repeating experiments with other scientists). It doesn't matter what you personally believe about the phenomena, science will only yield one answer in the long run. What method supersedes science for these questions? Can anyone describe it? What makes it reliable? This is the most important question, and I've yet to have it answered. It's especially important if the claimant is arguing that science needs to change and "accept the paranormal" or some such thing...

Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Do you believe this? How do you search for objective truth outside science?

 

[Dr Jones]

Maybe a bit over my head, but i'll lay it out simple. Of course science can't answer "What is beautiful" I mean that is relative. Besides, *TWIST COMING UP* Who said that beauty even exists? If science hasn't proven beauty yet then of course it can't prove what is beautiful, dumbass question on his side IMO.

 

[zehydra]

I know what you're talking about. I've heard this sort of thing before.

I believe the answer to your question though is Math (which isn't science), unless you're talking about objective truth about Reality, in which case Science is really the most reliable tool.

When a religious person wants to claim that Science can't explain some religious phenomenon, they should appeal rather to the fact that Science can never explain things in terms of purpose, or answer the question, "Why is there anything rather than nothing".


Unfortunately for them though, neither can their religion. Religion answers these questions, but it does not provide adequate explanation as to why they're valid answers.

 

[cWg | Konka]

Q. What is beautiful? A. Anything that is pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically
Q. What is love? A. Love is a chemical reaction in the brain
Q. What is good? A. It's morally subjective, whats good for some is evil for others
Q. What happens to the soul when we die? A. Nothing, It doesn't exist

How do you search for objective truth outside science? You dont, you just make shit up and say its turth!

 

[Lazarus Long]

I always find it amusing that people who make those arguments always disregard the other, mutually exclusive non-scientific "truths." Your Youtube pastor "knows" what happens after death, but what about everybody else whose "knowledge" of the afterlife is completely incompatible with his, and equally uncontaminated by evidence?

Beauty is utterly subjective. Only some kind of collective hive-mind could ever claim some kind of absolute truth regarding aesthetics.

I imagine you're looking for people who disagree with you, but I'm the parent of a 9-year-old. I will jump on the opportunity to have any sort of conversation about something other than Spongebob.

 

[Dr Jones]

Q. What is beautiful? A. Anything that is pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically
Q. What is love? A. Love is a chemical reaction in the brain
Q. What is good? A. It's morally subjective, whats good for some is evil for others
Q. What happens to the soul when we die? A. Nothing, It doesn't exist

You sir. You are the win.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Trying to prove your argument by stating certain subjective concepts don't have one real true definition is pretty stupid.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

Descartes: cogito ergo sum. from this we see that all life is subjective to the observer. however when two or more people compare the truth of their subjective realities the result is an objective (to the arguers) reality marble(if i may quote fate/stay night). However this is meaningless because that reality is subjective to all other observers.
tl;dr: my world is mine, yours is yours ad infinitum.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

Beauty lies in the Eye of the Beholder(but you can call him Bob). Thats the only truth there is. Your soul goes nowhere, because there is no such thing. Another problem solved. Love is a clever trick of our subconcience so we will stay with our partner, because our offspring wont be able to survive on their own and need a lot of attention, without the regular basis of happy-hormones that reward that behaviour we wouldnt have survived long enough to become civilized, its actually not more than an addiction to a drug that we produce ourself, with the same results when we are forced to go through a cold turkey. Still its a nice thing.

 

[LostCrusader]

For science to prove what happens to the soul, someone must first definitively prove that there is a soul. The rest is subjective to your culture, etc.

 

[Woodsey]

What is beautiful? Actually, it can explain that, using maths of all things.

What is love? That too (chemicals).

What is good? In terms of what? For example, you could surmise that we know killing people is bad because, at a very baseline level, it damages the progress/survival of our species.

What happens to the soul when we die? Science can't answer shit that you've just made up.

I once had a religious guy on Youtube who had the balls to tell me I didn't know my history, because I disagreed with him and said the Earth wasn't only a few thousand years old.

Sometimes, its easier to just not bother. There are too many loopholes and suppositions for these people to use.

 

[kinggamecat]

As much as I hate to agree with a religious figure, I gotta say he's got a point, but you ALSO have a great counter point, the "do these things even HAVE answers" thing.

 

[Gennadios]

Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Do you believe this? How do you search for objective truth outside science?

The question of "what happens to the soul when you die," is best answered by "science doesn't care."

Honestly, the soul doesn't exist, but even assuming it does, it ceases to interact with the living world in any verifiable way, it's outside of the scope of the sciences. No shame in that, you shouldn't lessen it by dragging it into territory it wasn't meant to explore.

What is good/bad/beautiful is best handled by philosophy, suffice it to say that scientifically it all boils down to "whatever leads to the human race as a whole producing the most offspring."

Notice I didn't say "whatever leads to the individual..." that's a pretty shitty and short-sighted outlook, and evolution works better with populations, not individuals.

 

[Xenetethrae]

From a philisophical standpoint, who can even say objective reality exists?

But if you believe that, then the only way to ever know something is to observe it. This is formally done via "Science", however in everyday life it is all too obvious. ie: I know it isn't raining today because I can see that there is no rain in the sky.

Yes, it is true that these obervations could be based upon false assumptions and therefore may not be true. As in, it may actually be raining right now, but it is evaporating well before it hits the ground and so you cannot see it. etc...

However, it is irrational to conclude that it is raining when you observe that it isn't raining just because there is a slight possibility of your observation being irrelevent.

I can believe that I am the great alien Blarsnak from the Kleeborp Nebula, placed on Earth to trick humanity into an inevitable downfall from infighting and petty squabbles. Sure, there is a slight chance this is true (0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 % chance by my nonexistant calculations), but that doesn't mean I should logically entertain this absurd idea just because there is a chance that all the proof of the contrary is wrong.

As to what is beautiful and questions of that nature. Clearly they are subjective and hence have no empirical truths.

 

[dagens24]

Pastor needs to read The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Morality by Sam Harris.

 

[Closet Superhero]

As humans we do still want answers to those kinds of questions. And they are outside the realm of science as well as any other method of proof. Nevertheless, for some people, it is comforting to have the answers based on some kind of absolute foundation, usually religious in nature.

Obviously, they can't prove that that foundation is truth but at the same time they really, really need to believe that it is truth. In other words, they will call it 'truth' and you will say that it is not because there isn't 'proof'. Don't get hung up on the semantics, just agree to disagree about what the meaning of 'truth' is.

 

[Wierdguy]

I'm currently in a YouTube argument with this guy

Almost stoped reading at that and dissmis it as trolled...

But reading further all I can say is that everything can be inserted into sciense in one way or another. Love is nothing but a chemical reaction in your brain urging you to find a suitable mate to create the next generation. Its the same as any animal, even the whole "love forever" kind of deals. Swans for instance choose ONE mate for their whole life.
Theres also an emotional attatchment in play that works pretty much like any drug you can find. It makes you dependable and addicted to the feeling of love you experience with the person in focus. There are highs, withdrawal syndromes, relapses ect. Someone said love is a drug - they are 100% correct.

Beauty on the other hand is undefinable. Whats beauty to you isnt beauty to me for instance but again we find similarites in the animal kingdom. Why are some birds decorating their nests? Why do animals tend to their fur and feathers? Because they want it to look beautifull or pretty in order to attract the opposite sex. Beauty attracts us. Its just another variable in the equation of mating. Its that simple.

Finaly about souls - a soul is supposedly something without a mass. It cant be measured by any scientific methods and if it cant be measured it has no mass. But if it has no mass then it cant interact with that which has mass ie your body/brain ect. So even if we had a soul it would be irrelevant because it would have no effect on our body and mind. Ive heard a suggestion that the soul resides within a shell, a shell that binds it to the body but for that to be possible the shell must have mass and if it does the soul canot interact with the shell... an endless loop.

In short - finding answers without science means believing in something that has no proof. As soon as something has proof it becomes scientific. Believing something without proof of said beliefs autenticy means you might aswell believe in the invisible pink unicorn.

 

[loc978]

In essence, what has been said before me.
Beauty, love, good, the existence and disposition of a person's "soul"... these things are merely cultural phenomenon. There is no truth to discover about them, though there may be truths about oneself to discover through them... if you need a crutch, anyway.

 

[joebthegreat]

Q. What is beautiful? A. Anything that is pleasing the senses or mind aesthetically
Q. What is love? A. Love is a chemical reaction in the brain
Q. What is good? A. It's morally subjective, whats good for some is evil for others
Q. What happens to the soul when we die? A. Nothing, It doesn't exist

I'm going to have to step forward and also give this a +1.

Every question worth answering does in fact have a scientific reality on which the answer is based.

 

[Unesh52]

But reading further all I can say is that everything can be inserted into sciense in one way or another. Love is nothing but a chemical reaction in your brain urging you to find a suitable mate to create the next generation. Its the same as any animal, even the whole "love forever" kind of deals. Swans for instance choose ONE mate for their whole life.
Theres also an emotional attatchment in play that works pretty much like any drug you can find. It makes you dependable and addicted to the feeling of love you experience with the person in focus. There are highs, withdrawal syndromes, relapses ect. Someone said love is a drug - they are 100% correct.

if it cant be measured it has no mass.

See, I told him that and he went, "Science can tell us how things work, but not what they are," (or something like that).

Also, you can measure energy, which has no mass. I get what you're saying (how can we know something exists if you define it as undetectable?), but I just wanted to make sure you didn't say that in front of someone who would use it against you.

And frankly I'm surprised at how many replies I've gotten.