Still just fine with the term "God", but....

Introduce Yourself
21
Brm, I really don't see how adding a supernatural element is useful in explaining self awareness. It seems like trying to make an equation, that doesn't really work, add up by putting in a variable that one has pulled out of thin air.
I do keep trying to convince people that I'm not bringing in "supernatural elements". There is only one nature, the nature of the Entirety. For me that is represented by infinite potentiality.
Also, I am confused by what you are suggesting that there exists some innate infinite sentience that is somehow embodying us, which is the "I" that is aware of ourselves. This seems nonsensical to me.
This is offered as a counterpoint to your representation of self awareness as a adjunct to physical processes. You must have realized by now that I am inclined to look at things from a significantly different perspective. I see the prototype of our sentience as inherent in the foundations of the universe. Do you think of the light emanating from a candle as fundamentally different than the light of the sun? Beyond the qualities specific to their instances? Is light a singularity or multiplicity? This question is at the root of our conversation.
22

“Is light a singularity or multiplicity?” Pretty sloppy analogy, but maybe you could grant me the point I’m obviously trying to make.

23
TimB - I absolutely think that instincts are passed on genetically.
I would of course agree. However, your answer side steps the questions purpose. How, does memory get transmitted before the brain exists? Maps, to or from Mexico, for Monarch butterflies etc.? I realise that I better ask you to describe how you define "physical reality" before I press this point further. I might be making assumptions about your meaning. In the following quote:
TimB - Everything is part of a physical reality. Even those things that we refer to as mental or spiritual or emotional is an outgrowth of physical processes and natural physical laws.
Is this mainly meant to exclude "supernatural" phenomena from consideration? I certainly would have no problem with this. With the question about instinct I am hoping to bring the scope of "natural physical laws" under scrutiny. Implying that it runs to the entirety. Ultimately obscuring the distinction between "physical", "mental" and "behavioural" phenomena.
If we recognize the universe as a single all encompassing entity, why not call it the 'Universal Wholeness" of the universe, instead of God? a) this would exclude supernatural aspect altogether. Everything IS natural. b) if we accept the notion of spontaneously causal universal evolution, it excludes an outside causality. c) if we accept a notion of a dynamic (causal) wholeness we know such a "system" would be in a constant state of flux. This would exclude an 'eternal unchanging being' . d) a continual state of flux in accordance with Universal laws and constants would almost certainly bring order to the initial chaotic beginning. This does not require an outside causality. The use of the word God as defined in religion is a human attempt to explain this natural dynamic universal condition and assigns a purpose to mankind but completely ignores the existence and purpose of millions of other species which were able to evolve by natural evolution. If it seems in the way, kill it! Religion is psychological affliction from ignorance and only reflects man's hubris of trying to attain godly powers. So far the only "godly" powers man has exhibited is the ability to procreate, but no better than every other mammal. At best we can imitate a few natural functions and abilities of 'lesser creatures' and be creative from a human perspective. As to attaining godly powers? The very thought makes me laugh. Yes, when we die we go to heaven and become god's helpers in ruling the universe. Good luck with that. As to respecting god's sublime and divine creations we do a piss poor job of it, especially in the natural law of conservation. Almost all species, except man and a few other parasitic organisms who kill their host, live in harmony with their environment, because it is a survival tool. IMO, the most productive living atheist on earth is the honey bee. Some 70 % of all life on earth depends on flowering plants and fruit bearing trees, which in turn depends on the tireless work of the bee. It has emerged as one of the most important and essential living things on earth. Bee venom is a perfect natural cure for cancer and with nano delivery technology we can cure cancer. However, man was not satisfied with the natural order and invented pesticides to increase yields and as a result is killing off the greatest source of life on earth and by the time we can use bee venom, there may not be any bees left. They are dying because we have destroyed their once perfect immune system. Honey is a perfectly sterile food and has an indefinite shelf life. Royal Jelly has some remarkable properties which are beneficial in ways we don't even know yet. The extinction of the honey bee would a be calamity, with unimaginable consequences. If anything deserves the title 'godly creature" and deserves the utmost respect and protection, it is the simply marvelous honey bee. But alas, we are killing our best friend, because we "know better" than millions of years of natural evolution, but what do we know? We know God? And because we know God, we solve the problem of who has knowledge of "real Divine Truth" with religious wars in the security that God is "on my side". But a dynamic universe does not need any help from anyone or anything. It is a self sustaining and evolving system.
24
brmckay, - The Scientific method ignores God, but can not make God go away. The Scientific method is just a discipline we employ. It is not the Universe. It’s discoveries are minutely finite approximations of reality.
Yet religions claim to know who or what created it all? Your view of science is naïve. While each discovery may be minutely finite, when we compile all of our knowledge we and up with a pretty good idea of the evolution of the universe, and behold, that evolution does NOT need a god. As to the persistence of God in society, that has nothing to do with truth, it is just a belief that won't go away because it is not connected with physical reality at all. It is an expression of our best (perhaps only) asset, imagination. Those great works of art and music were not divinely inspired, they were 'products' of our imagination and the proof of that is the variety of beliefs in an unknown creative causality. We can make stuff, so why not a God who made all the stuff in the universe? But God did not make any stuff in the universe and we know this from science. At best God is that which came before reality, but that does not explain anything. However we do also employ a word which is eminently suitable for identifying causality. That word is Potential, which is defined as a 'latent excellence which may become reality'.
25
I am tempted to go along with you. I'm about 90% atheistic in my spirituality myself. That 90% tends to be 50% rational 50% intuitive. (At least I hope so.) The other 10% is because I am not 100% free of a sense of "otherness". It would be dishonest to deny a vaguely defined sense of wise companionship to life. A few points and questions: - Does "intuition" play a part in science? Or, is science something that only happens during the reasoning process? This would be sort of like having a lobotomy. - The Scientific method ignores God, but can not make God go away. The Scientific method is just a discipline we employ. It is not the Universe. It's discoveries are minutely finite approximations of reality. - Art, music, etc. represent other equally valid means of exploring our experience. Possibly more valid because, in their highest forms, they engage more of our human potential. Both hemispheres and the "heart", if you will. - Of course the term "supernatural phenomena", is a misnomer. No matter what happens, it is natural. If it seems to ignore laws; we just don't know what all the laws are yet?
I bolded the last one, because it seems key. IMO law and choice are in conflict. Science is based on the faith that nature obeys laws and has no choice. We can't have faith that science is true for nature but then make an exception for the human brain. We only feel like we are making choices because the mechanism is too complicated for us to understand. At times I've wondered if there might be discrete souls or a universal soul that somehow control the randomness in quantum mechanics. Maybe structures like a brain can magnify this randomness so a soul can control a physical being without actually being part of the physical universe or violating natural laws. That would allow spirituality and science to coexist maybe. I go back and forth on it all actually. :) Also there is another approach to deciding what to believe: who cares what is true, what belief is most useful? Science wins that contest easily.
26
Brm, I really don't see how adding a supernatural element is useful in explaining self awareness. It seems like trying to make an equation, that doesn't really work, add up by putting in a variable that one has pulled out of thin air.
I do keep trying to convince people that I'm not bringing in "supernatural elements". There is only one nature, the nature of the Entirety. For me that is represented by infinite potentiality.
Also, I am confused by what you are suggesting that there exists some innate infinite sentience that is somehow embodying us, which is the "I" that is aware of ourselves. This seems nonsensical to me.
This is offered as a counterpoint to your representation of self awareness as a adjunct to physical processes. You must have realized by now that I am inclined to look at things from a significantly different perspective. I see the prototype of our sentience as inherent in the foundations of the universe. Do you think of the light emanating from a candle as fundamentally different than the light of the sun? Beyond the qualities specific to their instances? Is light a singularity or multiplicity? This question is at the root of our conversation. You should have this discussion with Write4U. I don't know if what you are trying to say is over my head or out the window.
27
I am tempted to go along with you. I'm about 90% atheistic in my spirituality myself. That 90% tends to be 50% rational 50% intuitive. (At least I hope so.) The other 10% is because I am not 100% free of a sense of "otherness". It would be dishonest to deny a vaguely defined sense of wise companionship to life. A few points and questions: - Does "intuition" play a part in science? Or, is science something that only happens during the reasoning process? This would be sort of like having a lobotomy. - The Scientific method ignores God, but can not make God go away. The Scientific method is just a discipline we employ. It is not the Universe. It's discoveries are minutely finite approximations of reality. - Art, music, etc. represent other equally valid means of exploring our experience. Possibly more valid because, in their highest forms, they engage more of our human potential. Both hemispheres and the "heart", if you will. - Of course the term "supernatural phenomena", is a misnomer. No matter what happens, it is natural. If it seems to ignore laws; we just don't know what all the laws are yet?
I bolded the last one, because it seems key. IMO law and choice are in conflict. Science is based on the faith that nature obeys laws and has no choice. We can't have faith that science is true for nature but then make an exception for the human brain. We only feel like we are making choices because the mechanism is too complicated for us to understand. At times I've wondered if there might be discrete souls or a universal soul that somehow control the randomness in quantum mechanics. Maybe structures like a brain can magnify this randomness so a soul can control a physical being without actually being part of the physical universe or violating natural laws. That would allow spirituality and science to coexist maybe. I go back and forth on it all actually. :) Also there is another approach to deciding what to believe: who cares what is true, what belief is most useful? Science wins that contest easily. There seems to be a control mechanism in the universe as expressed in universal laws. But that does not imply a "motivated intelligence". At best this condition can be called a non emotional structural pseudo-intelligence. No one makes these natural laws work. There is no choice of any kind, divine or not. example, 2 + 2 = 4 is a true statement and cannot be changed, it is inherent in the mathematics of the universe. But does God actively decide that 2 + 2 = 4? No, it is NATURAL law that if you add two identical quantities you will end up with double the quantity of whatever it is you are counting. Is gravity a divine act? No, it is an expression of the potential of a massive body to distort spacetime. It is the massive body that is causal to the phenomon of gravity, not the 'unseen hand of god'. There is nothing divine about that consistency. Basically all Universal laws are of this nature. The laws of Cause and Effect are usually very simple, very precise and reliable. Effects are only those expressions in reality which were allowed by causal Potentials. Science's problem lies in the discovery of these causalities, not because they are divine, but because they involve extremely sophisticated instruments to do measurements. God is a naïve human interpretation of The Gestalt of the Universe, the dynamic self perpetuating Wholeness. It need no worship, just respect for its awesome dynamic power. from Webster's,
Definition of GESTALT, : a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gestalt IOW, even Gestalt is a result, not a motivated intelligent causality.
28

Write4U, I agree with what you said in your post. Would you agree that faith in the value of science and faith in the value of spirituality do not mix? They can’t both be valid. Myself and many other people might juggle the conflicting beliefs, but it’s a silly way to be.

29
I need faith that I'm not dreaming-up the universe. Also I need faith that God will not meddle with the experiments. In other words, I need faith that the methods of science will yield knowledge.
Not really, the universe remains consistent, and most scientists don't believe in God - or at least an intervening God, so that type of faith is not needed.
30
Write4U, I agree with what you said in your post. Would you agree that faith in the value of science and faith in the value of spirituality do not mix? They can't both be valid. Myself and many other people might juggle the conflicting beliefs, but it's a silly way to be.
I believe it is a matter of interpreting the terms 'soul' and 'spirituality'. These metaphysical concepts identify inherent qualities of all kinds. They are neutral in meaning in that they can be either positive (good) or negative (bad, evil). No one disputes there are good and bad souls. Nor does anyone dispute there is good and bad spirituality. In physics these things are identified as "properties" of a thing" and it's "potential" for positive or negative results. This is why I mentioned the term Potential which in physics is an 'inherent latent power' or a 'property' of a thing. Atoms are very spiritual things, collectively. They contains enormous latent energy and they can be used for constructing an entire universe. This quote from another forum,
To sum up: metaphysics is purely knowledge based, while spirituality combines knowledge with devotion.
From this I would conclude that the metaphysical knowledge must be obtained before on can experience it fully and properly devote oneself to that experience. IOW, rather than treating these concepts as separate, they should be considered as a whole. The more one knows about a discipline, the greater the appreciation for that discipline. The more I learn about the universe, the more awesome it becomes to me. It truly teaches us how incredibly fortunate we are to have the earth as our mother, the sun for it's warmth, the moon for the ocean tides, the clouds for the rains, the oceans for their almost limitless supply of water. I should like to see a little more appreciation, respect, and devotion to keeping these physical things pure, because they represent the soul and spirituality of life on earth. This IS our paradise, an oasis in a deadly universe.
31

(Note: A little disconnect on my part. I apologize to Write4U and TimB. The first edition of this cited TimB instead of Write4U for the quotes. Interesting experience; visualizing the wrong person the whole time I was writing it.)

Write4U - If we recognize the universe as a single all encompassing entity, why not call it the 'Universal Wholeness" of the universe, instead of God?
I am fine with it. Though currently I've been enjoying the visceral ring of, "the Entirety".
Write4U - a) this would exclude supernatural aspect altogether. Everything IS natural. b) if we accept the notion of spontaneously causal universal evolution, it excludes an outside causality. c) if we accept a notion of a dynamic (causal) wholeness we know such a "system" would be in a constant state of flux. This would exclude an 'eternal unchanging being' . d) a continual state of flux in accordance with Universal laws and constants would almost certainly bring order to the initial chaotic beginning. This does not require an outside causality.
Since 'Universal Wholeness' ecompasses the Entirety entirely there is, by default, no outside causality. The Emergent Property of Infinite Potentiality. Very dynamic, I would say. Also, it's own spontaneous Causality. As you say. If science can refine its understanding of It, It can be taught to the religious. Each generation is seeking a truer expression of it. We all share an instinct to sort this out. The ruff and tumble of the jungle tends to distort things, yes, but I think that the greatness of a civilization is reflected in the answers achieved and sustained, regarding this subject. Same with an individual's personal quest in the matter.
Write4U - The use of the word God as defined in religion is a human attempt to explain this natural dynamic universal condition and assigns a purpose to mankind but completely ignores the existence and purpose of millions of other species which were able to evolve by natural evolution. If it seems in the way, kill it!
Yes, we have anthropomorphized God, doesn't mean we can't turn it around the other way. As we evolve right. Sorry 'Universal Wholeness'. Here is a point relating to the beautiful perfection of the Honey Bee. What is it, about the unmitigated naturalness of evolution, that created this perfection? How can we as humans achieve the same degree of unmitigated naturalness in our own interactions with evolution? I'm sorry, but the answer to this might be the true purpose of religion. No matter what has gone before. As we see religion expressed now, it is not sustainable. Evolution should weed it out. But also, a science that allows itself to be used to subvert, and even replace natural evolution, will also run afoul of 'Universal Wholeness'.
Write4U - IMO, the most productive living atheist on earth is the honey bee.
If this is what you mean by atheist, I'm right with you. It has been called the TAO. Original Mind, The Garden, Buddha Nature, It is also what I mean when I ask, 'what is keeping me from being like that?' I don't much worry about the 'productivity' part though; Just the authenticity of being. The rest just takes care of itself.
Write4U - But a dynamic universe does not need any help from anyone or anything. It is a self sustaining and evolving system.
And we are its children. The ones ripened by evolution, to a particular opportunity to know about it. And I would say, to know about ourselves in relation to it.
32
I need faith that I'm not dreaming-up the universe. Also I need faith that God will not meddle with the experiments. In other words, I need faith that the methods of science will yield knowledge.
Not really, the universe remains consistent, and most scientists don't believe in God - or at least an intervening God, so that type of faith is not needed. (I hope I'm not derailing the thread by continuing to debate this point.) Here is a wiki quote that hopefully explains better:
Skeptical hypotheses in philosophy suggest that reality is very different from what we think it is; or at least that we cannot prove it is not. Examples include: * The "Brain in a vat" hypothesis is cast in scientific terms. It supposes that one might be a disembodied brain kept alive in a vat, and fed false sensory signals, by a mad scientist. * The "Dream argument" of Descartes and Zhuangzi supposes reality to be indistinguishable from a dream. * Descarte's Evil demon is a being "as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me." * The five minute hypothesis (or omphalos hypothesis or Last Thursdayism) suggests that the world was created recently together with records and traces indicating a greater age. * The Matrix hypothesis or Simulated reality hypothesis suggest that we might be inside a computer simulation or virtual reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality#Skeptical_hypotheses So people who think science doesn't require faith are overlooking this issue. And the faith of science is in a model of reality that doesn't leave room for spirituality. That doesn't mean people can't juggle faith science and spirituality/superstition, but they can't fit them together into one consistent model of reality IMO.
33
Write4U - Yet religions claim to know who or what created it all? Your view of science is naïve. While each discovery may be minutely finite, when we compile all of our knowledge we and up with a pretty good idea of the evolution of the universe, and behold, that evolution does NOT need a god. As to the persistence of God in society, that has nothing to do with truth, it is just a belief that won't go away because it is not connected with physical reality at all. It is an expression of our best (perhaps only) asset, imagination. Those great works of art and music were not divinely inspired, they were 'products' of our imagination and the proof of that is the variety of beliefs in an unknown creative causality. We can make stuff, so why not a God who made all the stuff in the universe? But God did not make any stuff in the universe and we know this from science. At best God is that which came before reality, but that does not explain anything. However we do also employ a word which is eminently suitable for identifying causality. That word is Potential, which is defined as a 'latent excellence which may become reality'.
We were so much more sympatico when I thought you were TimB (see: #30). I'll point out again that I use the term God as shorthand for God. It is only grudgingly a concept because it is a word. I have said quite a few times already that my understanding of it's relation to us, (i.e/ what you are calling "reality"), is not as creator to creation, but as an expression of its (i.e. 'Universal Wholeness') own nature. When you say this doesn't explain anything, I don't understand. In the next paragraph you use the same term that I have employed, (with much delight, I might add), "Potential". What do you think I have meant by using "Emergent Property of Infinite Potentiality" as my definition of God? I'm quite pleased by your enhancements by the way. "latent excellence which may become reality". Very nice. But I would have to say that the "latent excellence" and "reality" can not be separate. The paradox is the thing. Why is this a problem for you?
34
ufo-buff - So people who think science doesn't require faith are overlooking this issue. And the faith of science is in a model of reality that doesn't leave room for spirituality. That doesn't mean people can't juggle faith science and spirituality/superstition, but they can't fit them together into one consistent model of reality IMO.
It feels like you're right about the faith part. But I'm not convinced, an improved version of spirituality will not arise from scientific enquiry. And/Or, an improved science arise from spiritual inquiry. Getting past the ideas of god/s that are obviously left over from the middle ages, and beyond, would help. Flat Landian explanations of the mysterious infinite/multidimensional/singularity have become dangerous and stifling. The sooner the better. We need this planet to remain a viable place to live and learn.
35
Write4U - Yet religions claim to know who or what created it all? Your view of science is naïve. While each discovery may be minutely finite, when we compile all of our knowledge we and up with a pretty good idea of the evolution of the universe, and behold, that evolution does NOT need a god. As to the persistence of God in society, that has nothing to do with truth, it is just a belief that won't go away because it is not connected with physical reality at all. It is an expression of our best (perhaps only) asset, imagination. Those great works of art and music were not divinely inspired, they were 'products' of our imagination and the proof of that is the variety of beliefs in an unknown creative causality. We can make stuff, so why not a God who made all the stuff in the universe? But God did not make any stuff in the universe and we know this from science. At best God is that which came before reality, but that does not explain anything. However we do also employ a word which is eminently suitable for identifying causality. That word is Potential, which is defined as a 'latent excellence which may become reality'.
We were so much more sympatico when I thought you were TimB (see: #30).
I think we may have been slightly talking past each other from a different perspective. I think we are in conceptual agreement
I'll point out again that I use the term God as shorthand for God. It is only grudgingly a concept because it is a word. I have said quite a few times already that my understanding of it's relation to us, (i.e/ what you are calling "reality"), is not as creator to creation, but as an expression of its (i.e. 'Universal Wholeness') own nature. When you say this doesn't explain anything, I don't understand. In the next paragraph you use the same term that I have employed, (with much delight, I might add), "Potential". What do you think I have meant by using "Emergent Property of Infinite Potentiality" as my definition of God?
We are in total agreement here. I am arguing against the word God because of its historic Implications. You are talking physics and I agree with you secondary choices . My personal favorite term is 'potential'. IMO, it is a profound concept which in part allows the knowledge how to make use of 'potentials' .
I'm quite pleased by your enhancements by the way. "latent excellence which may become reality". Very nice. But I would have to say that the "latent excellence" and "reality" can not be separate. The paradox is the thing. Why is this a problem for you?
The definition of Potential is "That which may become reality". IOW, a reality is Implied non materially before it becomes reality. The equation E = Mc^2 is an implied universal function. But not all potential becomes reality. Some potentials are never used. Visualize a navigable river. What are the potentials implied in its properties? This river can function as tool for drinking water, trade and travel, energy, agriculture. All these possibilities are Implicate of what is to become reality. But some or all of these potentials may never be used. Like a car with the potential to go 150 mph inside a 30 mph speed zone. 120 mph in potential lies unused, until you leave the city and floor the gas pedal and express the car's full Potential of it's soul as a sportscar. As a non scientist I am deeply impressed with the works of David Bohm. I am able to visualize his narratives, some of which seem quite spiritual at first glance, but in his books he presents the theoretical physics for his arguments. From wiki,
The holomovement is a key concept in David Bohm's interpretation of quantum mechanics and for his overall wordview. It brings together the holistic principle of "undivided wholeness" with the idea that everything is in a state of process or becoming (or what he calls the "universal flux"). For Bohm, wholeness is not a static oneness, but a dynamic wholeness-in-motion in which everything moves together in an interconnected process. The concept is presented most fully in Wholeness and the Implicate Order, published in 1980.
One of my favorite visuals is his proposition of a "state of pure potential".
36
(Note: A little disconnect on my part. I apologize to Write4U and TimB. The first edition of this cited TimB instead of Write4U for the quotes. Interesting experience; visualizing the wrong person the whole time I was writing it.)
Well I hope you visualized me as more handsome and erudite. (Though in reality, Write probably is.)
37
It feels like you're right about the faith part. But I'm not convinced, an improved version of spirituality will not arise from scientific enquiry. And/Or, an improved science arise from spiritual inquiry. Getting past the ideas of god/s that are obviously left over from the middle ages, and beyond, would help. Flat Landian explanations of the mysterious infinite/multidimensional/singularity have become dangerous and stifling. The sooner the better. We need this planet to remain a viable place to live and learn.
What you say makes sense. I have a little different perspective due to some psychosis issues. Intellectually I think spirituality is nonsense, but some spiritual practices might be beneficial - particularly if we can understand them psychologically instead of mystically. For example, I try to pray regularly because it settles my mind. I imagine there are all kinds of subconscious irrational programs running in my head, and if my intellectual program is too domineering then they might revolt. Anyway, enough of my silly ideas. :)
38
I need faith that I'm not dreaming-up the universe. Also I need faith that God will not meddle with the experiments. In other words, I need faith that the methods of science will yield knowledge.
Not really, the universe remains consistent, and most scientists don't believe in God - or at least an intervening God, so that type of faith is not needed. (I hope I'm not derailing the thread by continuing to debate this point.) Here is a wiki quote that hopefully explains better:
Skeptical hypotheses in philosophy suggest that reality is very different from what we think it is; or at least that we cannot prove it is not. Examples include: * The "Brain in a vat" hypothesis is cast in scientific terms. It supposes that one might be a disembodied brain kept alive in a vat, and fed false sensory signals, by a mad scientist. * The "Dream argument" of Descartes and Zhuangzi supposes reality to be indistinguishable from a dream. * Descarte's Evil demon is a being "as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me." * The five minute hypothesis (or omphalos hypothesis or Last Thursdayism) suggests that the world was created recently together with records and traces indicating a greater age. * The Matrix hypothesis or Simulated reality hypothesis suggest that we might be inside a computer simulation or virtual reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality#Skeptical_hypotheses So people who think science doesn't require faith are overlooking this issue. And the faith of science is in a model of reality that doesn't leave room for spirituality. That doesn't mean people can't juggle faith science and spirituality/superstition, but they can't fit them together into one consistent model of reality IMO. UFO, Your point that our Universe may actually be something akin to what is in the movie, The Matrix, could be the case. Who knows? But assuming on the off chance that it is, we are still in this Universe, which for all practical purposes follows natural discoverable laws. There is plenty of evidence for this, so we don't need to believe (without evidence) that our Universe does follow natural discoverable laws. If we are living in The Matrix, perhaps we can one day discover the evidence that this is the case. Meanwhile, we don't need to have faith that this is or isn't the case. We can be content to know that we don't know everything, but that we are likely to know more if we base our beliefs on evidence, rather than on just deciding to believe something. This is not to say that we should not be wary of the posibility that our perceptions are not always a true reflection of what is. (As there is plenty of evidence that our perceptions are limited and sometimes faulty.)
39
UFO, Your point that our Universe may actually be something akin to what is in the movie, The Matrix, could be the case. Who knows? But assuming on the off chance that it is, we are still in this Universe, which for all practical purposes follows natural discoverable laws. There is plenty of evidence for this, so we don't need to believe (without evidence) that our Universe does follow natural discoverable laws. If we are living in The Matrix, perhaps we can one day discover the evidence that this is the case. Meanwhile, we don't need to have faith that this is or isn't the case. We can be content to know that we don't know everything, but that we are likely to know more if we base our beliefs on evidence, rather than on just deciding to believe something. This is not to say that we should not be wary of the posibility that our perceptions are not always a true reflection of what is. (As there is plenty of evidence that our perceptions are limited and sometimes faulty.)
As a practical matter, being told that scientists at CERN have discovered something about physics is not much different from being told that Moses parted the Red Sea. I personally don't have the capability to verify or even understand either claim. A person's memories can be fabricated to create a false history, so I might think I verified a claim when actually a hypnotist planted that false memory in my mind. It seems like science has faith that the future can be predicted by understanding the past. That isn't so true if we are living in the Matrix with Neo fllying around or an omnipotent God performing miracles.
40

I don’t expect any practical applications, (which would be a kind of evidence) anytime soon, from the discovery of the Higgs Boson, but there have been plenty of scientific discoveries in our lifetime that have had accompanying evidence and eventual applications that can be apparent even to us laypersons.
As to whether we live in The Matrix, as I said, we can safely put that possibility aside, as, so far, there is only evidence that we are in a Universe that is operating according to the natural laws that have been or can be discovered (even in the unlikely possibility that we are, in fact, in The Matrix). And so far, there is no confirmed objective evidence of Neo flying around or of an omnipotent God performing miracles. So far, every day of my life, the sun has risen in the east and set in the west. I expect that this will be the case tomorrow.
I do recognize, however, and am not discounting, that some can have unique challenges in regard to reality testing.