So I guess the discovery that sentience is, in fact, a strictly natural phenomenon (aka it is created by the laws of physics, has no supernatural overtones) would trouble you, correct?
I should expect that sentience will show natural manifestations, and should we find the difference in those manifestations someday, that will be a massive scientific breakthrough and one with major potential, both for positive and negative use. Imagine how much repair work could be done if we could find how to give people with damaged brains, for instance, a fuller experience of the world! And on the other hand, imagine what we could do if we found out exactly how to systematically destroy the brain such that a person could no longer even have a chance to comprehend what's done to them from then on out, perhaps even continue to use their body while they are essentially cut off from it.
The
experience of sentience, on the other hand--that is something that goes far beyond anything we will ever be able to detect or quantify by material means. I do not believe there will ever be any means to prove or disprove the existence of the soul--only to quantify the means by which a person perceives and interacts with the world. And none of those discoveries bother me at all as far as my belief goes.
For instance, you can damage the brain and corrupt the way a person interacts with the world, but science will never be able to prove whether it's because all the person is is neurological electrochemistry, or whether it is because the damage has destroyed the ability of the soul to properly use the equipment to which it has been bound in life, just like a short circuit in a computer--the computer and the user are not one and the same. The relationship of the soul to the hardware, as far as I see it, is no different...the only difference being that we have no way to detect the user, only see the workings of the hardware.
Everything that goes on with the hardware, you will see and measure. The act of doing so, however, does not disprove the existence of the soul. It is simply information that I feel we ought to learn about and consider. We cannot observe the soul any more than God; we cannot prove or disprove it by scientific means. There will always be more to learn, and there will always be mystery. We should always strive to learn as much as we can, but we will never have all of the answers, no matter how many libraries we fill with our discoveries.
Of course, currently, humanity doesn't understand/can't ceate sentience. The best theory so far: if you build an artificial intelligence, this intelligence will become sentient - and we're nowhere close to creating a true AI.
I do wonder if such a thing will be possible, and to me as a believer it is a fascinating and disturbing possibility because of the potential consequences of a soul like our own being bound to machinery--consequences that could be incredibly far-reaching for the better or the worse. On the other hand, such a binding may never be able to take place and we may be creating vast processing power without ever taking on the sort of sentience that we have. We won't know, though, for a very long time.
Nerys Dukat, either God influences the physical world, or He doesn't.
If God does act directly in the physical world, his existance can be proven; if He doesn't, his existance or lack thereof is irrelevant (at least until death).
I understand you beleive in God - which alternative do you think/beleive corresponds to the truth?
I believe that God does influence the physical world--however, science simply does not provide us the means to quantify or prove that interaction. We do not have the capability to measure or quantify the metaphysical and theological, only to experience it through our own frame of reference.
I can describe a dream or a vision I have, for instance, or other meaningful experience--I know my experience firsthand, but I cannot pass it to you in the same form in which I experience it. You might be able to listen to my account, measure my brain waves and vital signs during that time, but those tell neither of us what the experience is or it isn't, in terms of
meaning or
purpose. Science does not tell us how we should feel about it, or what we should believe about its significance...only the means by which it happens. It is therefore a matter of my faith to decide what I am going to do with that experience, what it means to me, and why I believe it has come about.
This is why I am not threatened at all by science. Science tells us the means by which natural phenomena occur, what their natural antecedents and results are. It does not tell us the purpose of them in the sense of meaning, nor does it inform us ethically as to what we should do with them, nor does it tell us how we should reflect upon our personal experiences. It also is fundamentally incapable of proving or disproving God.
I believe that God has written the natural laws, constants, and phenomena that we experience. I believe that we should learn about them and not be afraid of what we might discover as though it would somehow debunk Him. Truth is truth, whether we find it by prayer or by observation. We were given our minds that we might come to understand the world around us and there is no need to shy away from it on any front, as far as I am concerned. There is a need to consider the rightness or wrongness of the courses we can follow with our discoveries--but simply to know? There is nothing wrong with that...in fact, it is one of our highest callings.
Let me tell you something about one of my fanfics you might find interesting. And perhaps this will do a better job of explaining how I feel about science and faith than any of my paltry attempts to describe it above.
I wrote a world in which there was no conflict between scientists and believers, and they were often one and the same. In this world, these people, instead of reacting to evolution with fear, found a greater depth of belief because of the intricacy and wonder of what they observed. They did not see chaos. They saw a painstaking shaping process that occurred over a billion years. Were there evolutionary "mistakes"? Wrong turns? Yes. And yet they, the sentient descendants of these beings, found that even these mistakes had a purpose: they could learn from them even more about how their world worked and how they had come to be.
And they were not afraid or dismayed...it was simply a broadening of their understanding. That is how I approach science. It is a broadening of my understanding of God's Creation--not a threat to my reverence of the God who did the creating. If anything, each discovery makes me even more impressed with the sheer intricacy of what He has done.
I simply wish that more people of faith could take this approach instead of feeling afraid of science or threatened by it, as though they need to shrink back or deny the truth about the material world that is right before their eyes. Just the same, I wish more scientists and others who love the discovery of the material world would not feel that it would destroy or discredit them to see greater meaning, purpose, and design behind what they observe.
)
