I think my analogy stands. "Lem-Sip" for the afterlife, "the house" for reality, "the kitchen" for that part of reality specifically and comprehensively described by physics. Hawking hasn't demonstrated that the afterlife is impossible to achieve, he's just asserted it. Coincidentally, I've just re-read a rather good piece by Chesterton on this very subject, in which he comments on a medical man who similarly asserted that the life of the mind ceases with the death of the body, the evidence for this assertion being that the body is dead. Um, yes, and?
Subjective experiences are certainly of no use in the physical sciences, we agree on that. Are they then of no use in defining how *any* of the universe works? I'd say the jury's still out on that one, at least till we know we've seen all the levels of the universe that exist.
When I make a big effort to try to understand some bits of physics, they don't even make rudimentary sense to me (e.g. one electron going through two slots at the same time and not being in any sense two electrons--as the standup comics say, what's up with that?). My computer works, certainly, but as far as I'm concerned it's as much a matter of faith as the transsubstantiation of the host, which I am assured with equal authority by experts in that field works just as reliably as my computer whether I happen to believe in it or not.
The difference is that I believe science will one day come up with an explanation of physics that fits all the facts and does make sense to me. But just as I would not expect that explanation to emanate from the Archbishop of Canterbury, so I wouldn't expect any scientist, no matter how eminent, to be ipso facto qualified to pronounce on the afterlife.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-05-29 10:07 pm (UTC)Subjective experiences are certainly of no use in the physical sciences, we agree on that. Are they then of no use in defining how *any* of the universe works? I'd say the jury's still out on that one, at least till we know we've seen all the levels of the universe that exist.
When I make a big effort to try to understand some bits of physics, they don't even make rudimentary sense to me (e.g. one electron going through two slots at the same time and not being in any sense two electrons--as the standup comics say, what's up with that?). My computer works, certainly, but as far as I'm concerned it's as much a matter of faith as the transsubstantiation of the host, which I am assured with equal authority by experts in that field works just as reliably as my computer whether I happen to believe in it or not.
The difference is that I believe science will one day come up with an explanation of physics that fits all the facts and does make sense to me. But just as I would not expect that explanation to emanate from the Archbishop of Canterbury, so I wouldn't expect any scientist, no matter how eminent, to be ipso facto qualified to pronounce on the afterlife.