betty boop: On the one hand, I can grant the truth of what you say here; on the other, I would suggest that putting religious consciousness in the forefront of scientific investigation will probably get you "science" that isn't science. Religion is not science, and vice versa. They are two separate domains -- complementaries -- both of which are necessary. And because they are necessary, they must be kept separate in order to preserve the integrity of their unique functions in human life. At the end of the day, a believer such as myself doesn't feel "threatened" by science; for science can only make its discoveries based on what is; and what is is what God made.
By all means we must eschew scientific materialism! But that science pertains only to the material is the classical view, which seems increasingly displaced by the insights of quantum theory. Of course, I am hardly an expert on that, and the learning curve has a long ways to go. But when one reads statements such as the following by Henry Stapp, one gets the sense that there is an impending sea change in the self-understanding of science:
"...[E]ach atom turns out to be nothing but the potentialities in the behavior patterns of others. What we find, therefore, are not elementary space-time realities, but rather a web of relationships in which no part can stand alone; every part derives its meaning and existence only from its place within the whole."
Thus the purely reductionist approach to understanding physical reality -- the goal of classical physics -- seems no longer appropriate.
Kafatos and Nadeau write:
"While the formalism of quantum physics predicts that correlations between particles over space-like separated regions is possible, it can say nothing about what this strange new relationship between parts (quanta) and whole (cosmos) means outside of this formalism.... Wholeness requires a complementary relationship between unity and difference and is governed by a principle of organization determining the interrelationship between parts. This organizing principle must be universal to a genuine whole and implicit in all parts that constitute the whole, even though the whole is exemplied only in its parts."
That is to say, neither the organizing principle nor the whole itself is directly accessible to scientific observation. So Kafatos and Nadeau say, "this does not, however, prevent us from considering the implications in philosophic terms."
And the implication of that statement, to my mind, is that science is not the proper domain for such questions. Philosophy must step in here. Science needs a strong epistemology in order to ensure the accuracy of the descriptions it makes. But it simply isn't geared to metaphysical/ontological questions; and when it nevertheless engages them -- consciously or unconsciously -- in its descriptions of reality, the result may be only ambiguity, or just plain "bad" science.
That is the sense in which I meant that I thought science needed to be separate from philosophy/ontology/metaphysics.
One can understand the complete relationality of all the constituting parts of the whole -- and science can observe the relationality. And yet it can only infer the whole: It can never observe it directly, nor describe it -- there is no language in science to describe it. That "description" must come from outside of science. And historically, from the earliest times, it has been the religious consciousness that has engaged the "wonder of the Whole."
The authors write further:
"But since the actual character of this seamless whole cannot be represented or reduced to its parts, it lies, quite literally, beyond all human representations or descriptions. If one chooses to believe that the universe is a self-reflective and self-organizing whole, this lends no support whatsoever to conceptions of design, meaning, purpose, intent, or plan associated with any mytho-religious or cultural heritage. However, if one does not accept this view of the universe, there is nothing in the scientific description of nature that can be used to refute this position. On the other hand, it is no longer possible to argue that a profound sense of unity with the whole [or with God, Who made the whole], which has long been understood as the foundation of religious experience, can be dismissed, undermined, or invalidated with appeals to scientific knowledge. While we have consistently tried to distinguish between scientific knowledge and philosophical speculation based on this knowledge, let us be quite clear on one point -- there is no empirically valid causal linkage between the former and the latter."
It's as if quantum epistemology [science, the study of the physical world] and ontology [the study of Being, essence] are yet two more "complementaries"; and both are needed to conceptualize the idea of the whole, the "total system," which is the Universe. And to me, that conceptualization/contemplation leads us to the contemplation of God.
I'm reflecting on this entire issue, and expect I will be reflecting on it for some time to come. I may yet come to a better understanding. But this is the best I can do for now.
Thank you so much, A-G, for your thoughts, which are deeply appreciated.
...and at the same time, eschew any kind of error, yes, and of course whether a statement is an error or not is not up to us nor any of our methods.
Your maxim sounds like something Hamlet's uncle or whomever he was, would/should have told him prior to going to University, A-G. ;-) Amen.
I intend to read your next post cc'ing me, bb, after going home from work. (I be a borrower with lenders.)