I can't so clearly distinguish science from faith.
Awareness is a phenomenon that science has no terms for yet, or
perhaps ever. Its attempts so far to explain awareness are nothing more
than causal and chemical, encapsulating nothing of the nature and
essence of awareness. There is nothing about awareness that science can
model because nothing about awareness can be quantified in a way that
mathematics and science can grab a hold of.
The foundation of scientific method is empirical measurement from
experiments designed to demonstrate some phenomenon. Evidence for the
existence of awareness is empirical (everybody with it knows they have
it) but not demonstrable (nobody with it is able to prove that they or
others have it). I do not mean that people cannot demontrate their
ability to react to stimuli, I mean that people cannot prove that they
perceived stimulus in their conscious awareness. A reaction to something
is not proof of being aware of it. Someone saying "I am aware of that"
is not proof of awareness either.
There are billions of people on this planet with personal experience
of awareness, but with no way to demonstrate that what they have is
distinct from mere causal, mechanical, chemical or physical activities.
This means that science is unable to address awareness in spite of
overwhelming evidence that it exists.
The whole of Human endeavour (and I use the word with care -
awareness can endeavour, non-aware things can only react) is about
emotional appreciation of the things it touches. Without awareness
emotion doesn't exist. The chemicals may still react in a way science
understands well, but without awareness to give it all meaning and to
appreciate it, everything is pointless and worthless. Awareness IS the
value of things and consequently the purpose of things.
Because of the huge importance of awareness to all that have it,
science's only value is as a tool to expand the field of its owners'
experience. Science does not transcend awareness, it exists to serve
awareness. I do not wish to diminish the value of science, only to put
it into perspective.
Science does not pretend to encapsulate awareness, as religious and
spiritual doctrines tend to, but it is perceived by many as being more
than it is. For some, science is usurping the role of religion. People
may turn to science for direction and purpose, as they always have with
religion, simply replacing one source of "divine rule" with a better
one. Science is clearly more objective, but that allure makes it easier
for an aware being to forget that purpose and direction are defined by
awareness itself, and are not to be subjugated. Science is a strong
system, with good reason and honest objectives, but the temptation to
treat it as form of gospel is strong.
Ultimately, if you can't measure it, science can't deal with it,
because it requires repeatable experiments that demonstrate quantifiable
effects. If we can't measure it, does that mean it doesn't exist?
Awareness isn't measurable, but that definitely exists. How much of what
goes on in the world are we able to measure? Of all possible phenomena,
how many are we currently able to reproduce and quantify on demand? I
suggest the answer to this question is close to 0%. And of the other
"nearly 100%", how many can be reproduced and quantified at all? It is
arrogant to assume that all phenomena are reproducible by experiment,
and quantifiable. It is more likely that a lot of what goes on in the
world and universe is beyond what science can ever hope to model,
precisely because of the regulation and rigour that science imposes upon
itself. In other words, the very strengths of science are what limit
Consequently, and notably, science does not say anything about the
nature or existence of God, or the nature of awareness. This
disqualifies science from debates concerning awareness or God, since it
has no experience or opinion in those matters, but neither does it deny
their existence. Clearly awareness exists, and science has not a thing
to say about it.
I am a scientist, and I see that science permits us to create
new things to do, and new ways to do old things, but I know that science
keeps redefining what is true as it looks closer at things and as it
looks from further out. New truths will eventually become old truths,
and old truths always turn out to be approximations or generalisations. I
think that in any discussion about religion, theism or spiritualism,
the claim that "science is right" is bogus. The existence of awareness,
and its incompatibility with science as it stands, means that science
cannot yet claim a more elevated status than religion in such debates.
It can only claim to be a more modern and more productive system.