10 Sep 2014
The demonstration of fact is based on empirical repeatability and measurability. But that is only for physical, tangible things. What about for for moral absolutes?
The Deductive method is a method of logic that seeks to prove something based on already-present facts, and then deduce from them to a conclusion. It seems a very sound method, until one calls into question the validity of the original facts being reasoned from. Something can be logically sound, yet still ultimately incorrect. On the other end of the spectrum is inductive reasoning, which takes several facts and compiles them together to create one cumulative conclusion. Both methods have their strengths and weaknesses, and it’s not hard to come to solid conclusions about things that are clearly measurable and weighable. But what about morality?
Can conclusions be made about things in life that do not have dimensions, or even a temporal existence? Are things that lack these attributes even in existence, or are they merely scribblings on the papers, and chalkboards of theoretical physicists and philosophers? Can science claim something exists beyond what it can see? Is the lack solid, dependable evidence an indication of anything? In a world where little can be determined, is the complete (or maybe partial) lack of verifiable information an indication of a scientific consistency? Is morality something that exists on a higher dimensional plane? Is it something that is very real, but not by any present human means of measuring it? Is it truly scientific by way of complete exemption?
Is there a complete different set of measurement tools that has yet to be acquired that would validate this different realm of rules and laws which seem very constant? If science finds it’s limit, but quantum physics turns out to be something akin to spiritual/prophetic material found in Judeo-Christian Scripture, Hindu Vada’s, or the Quran – is this a place where theologians and scientists will take a greater partnership together in the mutual respect of their counterparts? Which is more significant, the physics, or the metaphysics? Do we deduce from the known physical world, and conclude a quantum spiritual world, or do we deduce from a presently-unknown spiritual reality, and conclude the physical world is hinged upon it? Or do we induce what is found in the physical world, and make speculative conclusions about what is possible in the metaphysical world? Is this question dangerous to pose?