Science’s worst nightmare is metaphysics. Science came to say that everything metaphysics says is wrong and that science knows better! Let us compare the general outlines of what the two have had to say.
Metaphysics claims the supreme reality to be the only reality that exists:
Supreme Reality is Absolute and Infinite. Its unity and unicity relate to the Absolute; and its totality and plenitude relate to its infinitude. It is an uncaused cause; there is nothing outside it.
Science posits that physical reality is the only thing that exists: Physical Reality is the supreme reality of science. It is absolute, in the sense that physical reality exists independently of our consciousness of it. It is infinite, in the sense that it has no edges and no outside. It doesn’t need a cause outside itself; it just came into existence without any reason; it is uncaused. Everything that exists falls under this physical reality and explained by it. Everything is reducible to this physical reality since it is the foundation of all that there is.
Both science and metaphysics posit an absolute, uncaused reality to underlie everything; unity and unicity, totality and infinity, are the essential characteristics of this Supreme Reality that exists on its own; it doesn’t depend on us for its existence but we depend on it for our existence.
These two talk about one and the same thing; only adopting different terminology. One calls its spiritual reality and governed by an absolute principle called god; the other calls it physical reality governed by absolute principles called the laws of nature. The difference is only in names.
Science not only didn’t refute metaphysics but confirmed it even better than metaphysicists could ever do. Their battle has always been over authority and terminology.
A few totalitarian individuals sitting in elitist circles, whether academic or religious, determining what the people should accept as their truth. But neither science nor religion has any right to truth whatsoever, for their own legitimacy and authority is at the mercy of the mass’s acceptance of them. Both science and religion are creations of man, yet we are too stupid to see that our own creations have come to tell us how we are created!
Particularly science, it is just like a hammer that works well; but is functionality a reason to stand and say “the hammer is the truth?!” A hammer may be perfect, but its perfection is determined relative to me and my needs. Science is a mere tool for theoretical modeling motivated by practical needs; it has nothing to do with reality and truth. Science exists only in the minds of scientists; but according to this same science human consciousness is subjective and relative, and hence not a credible source of truth and determination of objective reality. If this is so, then how can science, a purely subjective phenomenon, make objective claims about reality?!
On the other hand, if we accept the scientific picture of man as a being like all animals, motivated only by personal interests satisfying his need to survive, if man’s life is all about survival in nature and all human works are manifestations of his survival instinct, then science too as one of man’s achievements should have been motivated by self-interest and the need to survival; then how can this science have any objective value at all? How can it give a picture of reality as it is while it is itself biased under the weight of personal interests and needs!?
Science’s account of man which relativizes mankind and his existence, which makes man as meaningless as the rest, is a suicide for science, for if man is so relative and unimportant, then how can his science have any value and meaning whatsoever?! A science that brings man down also brings itself down. Modern science is a perfect instance of self-refutation. When there are scientists this stupid to say that “free will doesn’t exist,” then how can one have the slightest respect for this science?! Not that I favor free will; but for someone to claim that free will doesn’t exist, his own assertion is a refutation of the assertion itself; if free will doesn’t exist, then this stupid man could not have possibly say so out of free will; he is made to say so and could not say otherwise; thus, his assertion that “free will doesn’t exist” is devoid of any objective, scientific value; and this falsifies that “there is no free will!” But we see many such claims coming out of the scientific community. Is this the state of current science and its scientists!? One may even wonder if science is just another superstition; it is just that we are historically in it an thinking it to be real and factual. Only later we will realize that we left the Dark Ages only to enter into a darker one. When it comes to modern science and its fanatic followers who don’t allow themselves to think for themselves, one can only say: The outward arrogance is the reflection of inward ignorance.
The case of science and religion and the fanaticism that surrounds both of them indicate how people over and over again fall into the trap of letting themselves being determined by their own determinations.
Science can never tell me who I am, for I made science what it is.
Thinking for yourself, you must realize that you can never be anything that you are told to be, for you cannot be at once what you accept to be and the one doing the accepting.
We are what we have accepted to be. This is the truth to be realized.
NOEMAYA 
Like the topic. A lot in post that I can’t agree with. Not yet in possession of knowledge you’ve already mastered – pointing on theories with transcendental background. When about science, I can’t more agree with you, that there is no place for priests of science, for closed minds fanatics, no place for arrogance, for zealots and bigots any of kind.
In principle I can comprehend your claims against science, but despite close mindedness and inconsistencies, science is our only reliable tool that is preventing us to levitate in twilight zone, and under influence of such state of mind to take sacred books in our hands and from unclear content conclude that we must kill all humans who don’t believe the content of that book.
I don’t think that we are entitled to comprehend the infinity at once. Let the nature unfold gradually in front of our eyes. It is important for us the existence of the divine? No, as far as I know. We see destruction, killings across the globe. i never saw some supernatural force intervening, protecting at least children from suffering! Does anybody owns evidence about the supernatural? I don’t think so. Neither religion, neither science can come up with such evidence! So, better let this go!
Our main task and long term goal is to protect mankind from extinction, to stop suffering! All parties are welcome!
Am I wrong?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your comment sirgb. You are absolutely right and I agree with most of that. My own criticism of science is not something that favors religion at all. But as much as I respect science as the objective pursuit of what can be known, but I see many tendencies within science that are destructive to its objectivity. The kind of corruption that inflicted church can inflict science; we must understand that scientist is human, and as human it can be corrupt as a priest. I personally like science to remain objective otherwise it will destroy itself; but the fanaticism that you pointed out can only destroy science. One thing against destruction is to be conscious of limits; this is my main point of criticism, that science must be conscious of its limit; science was not invented as something to reflect the nature of reality; it was a mathematical projection of experience. The fanatics that engage in arguments with religion damage science even more; first because science is in principle a tool, a theoretical model, and not about experiential reality. This was obvious at the outset but then later forgotten. The other problem is that science by definition must stay away from enmity with religion. This enmity just drains science out of its objectivity. Science and religion are two different things talking about two different topics; the scientific picture is a mere theoretical model, experience made quantitative; eg, the objects of physics are entirely other than real objects of experience, etc. A lot of these considerations that can damage science when not taken into consideration. Science has many internal issues kept away from public; science cannot yet explain why it is a human possibility. There are sorts of questions that science takes for granted and can be addressed only from without science. A lot of these issues were swept under the rug in the 19th century; what is lacking in most fanatics is an understanding of what science actually is, what is its origin, and how is it done. We both favor science and dislike that fanaticism that can corrupt it. But I believe that science is very limited; it cannot do the job of religion or spirituality or philosophy, and I am myself agnostic and not religious at all, but we must understand religion as it is if we are to remain objective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Toomajj, I appreciate your kind reply! I can’t agree more with you. Please, don’t take me wrong, despite I don’t read religious literature, I’m deeply interested in understanding it – I have some intuition, some inner voice, that the truth is somewhere else, somewhere in the middle perhaps. Just to make my point: not is the concept of religion that I dislike so intensively, but the hypocrisy, zealotry and bigotry that is hiding behind.
Well done, really elegant explanation. Hope to read from you and to exchange thoughts with you in future. Thank you! Best regards!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes exactly. It is always people within religion or science that become hypocrites and use the power to influence and propagate their own ideas. Like yourself I too agree that the truth lies in between and not exclusively to either one of them. I think we are at a point that the individual takes the responsibility for knowing the truth for himself, the time that faith, whether in science or religion, is not needed any more. But I think this middle is the person himself, his heart and intellect; I don’t think science or religion have anything to offer except distortion. Science is not about truth; we sure need science for other things, but it should not be the source of truth and self-understanding. I think for knowing the truth nothing is needed from the outside. Though this is absolutely my personal opinion. I prefer avoidance of both science and religion in the search for truth, if we believe such a thing exists. I think we both prefer the individual’s independent search for truth, though one may use things from science as I do myself; for instance, I find quantum mechanics very useful in understanding metaphysics; and ironically quantum mechanics is really a metaphysical theory of nature since it is a description of reality in the absence of experiment. I personally use more science that religion 🙂 It is very nice to chat with you sirgb; and I really really appreciate you reading my blog and commenting. Thank you.
Best
LikeLike
Reblogged this on sirgb's Blog and commented:
Like the topic. A lot in post that I can’t agree with. Not yet in possession of knowledge you’ve already mastered – pointing on theories with transcendental background. When about science, I can’t more agree with you, that there is no place for priests of science, for closed minds fanatics, no place for arrogance, for zealots and bigots any of kind.
In principle I can comprehend your claims against science, but despite close mindedness and inconsistencies, science is our only reliable tool that is preventing us to levitate in twilight zone, and under influence of such state of mind to take sacred books in our hands and from unclear content conclude that we must kill all humans who don’t believe the content of that book.
I don’t think that we are entitled to comprehend the infinity at once. Let the nature unfold gradually in front of our eyes. It is important for us the existence of the divine? No, as far as I know. We see destruction, killings across the globe. i never saw some supernatural force intervening, protecting at least children from suffering! Does anybody owns evidence about the supernatural? I don’t think so. Neither religion, neither science can come up with such evidence! So, better let this go!
Our main task and long term goal is to protect mankind from extinction, to stop suffering! All parties are welcome!
Am I wrong?
LikeLike
According to my religion, I am not allowed to proselytize, so I am going to simply invite you to check out The Baha’i Faith on google. You have a perfect balance in your thinking, thereby uniting science and religion. This is a principal that Baha’u’llah brought close to 200 years ago. I honestly am not trying to convert you, as I said we aren’t allowed to do that, I just offer you the chance to see what you think. God bless you and I never regret reading your magnificent posts!
LikeLiked by 1 person
writersdream9, thanks for your comment; I agree with you. The Bahai faith is one of the few that promotes universal unity and for this reason I personally see it as a religion of peace and unity. My ex was a Bahai and got to know it through her and reading some of their text books. I really liked its ideas and found them similar to my own esoteric approach to truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly and I see in you great truth, a rare commodity in this day! More power to the way you serve mankind. I hope you will write a book. Or have you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you :). I have published one book which is more about the relations between quantum physics and mysticism. But I am currently editing another one more about mysticism and consciousness, to be published in a few months. I will post about it when it is out. Thanks a lot for reading my material. I value it very much.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are many good observations here. You say, “Both science and metaphysics posit an absolute, uncaused reality to underlie everything.” To solve this, I posit this thought: In order to have a finite, there must be an infinite. To have a beginning and an ending, you must have an arena outside of space and time that has no beginning nor ending, something that exists and does not exist at the precise same moment, that moment being an eternal now. So far as first cause is concerned, it need only be thought, a brief electric connection that rumbles timelessly through a field of virgin consciousness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. This is a point that I wish more people thought about. That we are conscious of our finitude can happen only because we have a consciousness of infinity. Relativity cannot be without absolute. What you say is a matter of logical necessity. This world and spacetime cannot be unless within an eternal now. Physics is never complete without a metaphysics. Now scientists are just getting close to this. For instance, quantum mechanics is really a metaphysics since it is about what nature is in the absence of observation. The quantum world is not entirely immersed in space and time; it is located in an abstract algebraic space called Hilbert Space; but isn’t this metaphysics! Mathematics is metaphysics.
LikeLike