Chapter Two

One of the great myths of our time is the belief that David Hume, the 18th century Scottish philosopher, undermined the concept of cause and effect, or at least undermined our ability to establish with certainty that things are caused. Hume argued that it is impossible for the mind and senses to directly perceive causal links between the things we observe in the world, that there will always be "gaps" in our perception, as it were. Moreover, since we can never know what lies beyond our field of perception, we can never be sure of what influences this unknown realm has on the observable world, if any.

When we observe a match being struck to produce fire, for example, we cannot be certain that the striking of the match was the actual cause of the fire. Our minds merely observe a succession of events - first, the match being struck and, second, the flame erupting into being - and it is only through our past experiences of watching a similar succession of events that enables us to assume the two are causally linked. But we can never be sure that this assumption is valid. The fire might well have been produced by something else entirely, by an event or force that our minds, for whatever reason, are unable to observe. It could be that hidden space aliens orbiting the earth produced the fire, to use an extreme example. Who knows? And even if we were able to observe the aliens producing this fire, we would have no way of knowing whether this was really happening either. Perhaps there are yet further hidden factors involved?

Obviously, this could go on forever. Even if we were to spend the rest of eternity investigating the world in increasingly smaller detail, we would still not be able to bridge the apparent gaps in causality. We would still be no closer to establishing direct causal linkages between anything at all.

This inability to bridge the gap between objects is partly a result of the perceptual process itself. Perception always involves the perception of "things", and things by their nature always present an appearance of being separate to some degree from the rest of the world, simply by virtue of their being distinguishable. Hume's argument also takes advantage of the fact that empirical knowledge and observation is always uncertain. Because our brains and senses are limited in their ability to observe what is in the world, we will never be able to have access to the full picture. We will always be in a state of ignorance to some degree. As such, we can never be certain that the causal processes that we do observe in the world are in fact what they appear to be.

Now, I do not dispute this reasoning from Hume. It is undeniable that our brains and senses are limited and that all of our empirical theorizing, which ultimately rests on what we perceive through our senses, is inherently incomplete and uncertain. However, where I begin to diverge from Hume, and from modern thinking in general, is the idea that it is inherently impossible for us to establish with certainty that all things are caused. Granted, we will never be able to uncover the precise causal linkages between things in an empirical sense, but nevertheless, what we can do is logically prove that causality is a reality which links all things together. We can do this by proving that it is logically impossible for anything to arise uncaused.

Cause and effect, as a universal law, can be proven to be true in the same way that 1+1=2 and A=A can be proven to be true. Namely, by thinking about it and discerning the logic which underpins it. It is something that is true by definition, which makes it a purely logical truth rather than an empirical theory. The reason why it is not an empirical theory, even though it necessarily applies to everything within the empirical universe, is because it is impossible to accumulate any empirical evidence which could either prove or disprove it. It is utterly beyond the capacity of empirical investigation to resolve. Instead, it is a conclusion which can only be proven by logic alone.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we do observe what seems to be an uncaused event - for example, a strange object mysteriously popping into existence out of thin air. We have no way of empirically demonstrating that it did not have causes. This relates back to Hume s point about the inherent limitations of our brains and senses. Perhaps the strange object did have causes and we were simply not able to discern them?

Similarly, if we observe a random and unpredictable series of events - for example, many strange objects mysteriously popping into existence without any rhyme or reason. It still would not constitute evidence that non-causality was in action. This is because causality is also perfectly capable of producing random, unpredictable events - e.g. the stock market, the weather, the lottery draw, and so on.

In the end, there is nothing we can point to in the world as evidence of non-causality. Since the behaviour of anything which appears to be uncaused can just as easily be produced by causal processes, it is impossible for us to distinguish between the two. We have no means of isolating pure causal processes from non-causal ones, or vice versa, and thus we have no means of observing their differing effects. As such, the issue of causality vs. non-causality is wholly beyond the powers of science to investigate and resolve. It is purely a philosophical issue and resolvable by logic alone.

I realize that in this day and age the concept of "pure logical truth" is regarded with suspicion and usually placed in the same basket as religious belief. We are all brainwashed with the view that scientific knowledge is the only valid knowledge there is, and it is evident that most people cannot think beyond this. Most people happily submit to the conventional view that if an assertion or a theory about the world cannot be tested scientifically, then it automatically becomes an article of faith. As such, they no longer possess the skill to distinguish between those beliefs which cannot be proven by any means at all, such as the Christian conception of God, and those which can indeed be proven by the use of deductive logic, such as the principle of causality. In other words, their scientific conditioning has induced a form of blindness.

Or else, if they do make this distinction, such as in the case of abstract mathematical truths, they reject the possibility that a purely logical truth can tell us something meaningful about the empirical world. According to this line of thought, all logical truths are of the "all bachelors are unmarried" variety - that is, logically consistent in an internal sense, but empirically meaningless. I have lost count of the number of times people have said to me that "we cannot pull ourselves up with our bootstraps" - meaning, again, that without empirical input in the initial premises, a train of reasoning cannot tell us anything new about the empirical world. But as I illustrate below, and throughout this book, such thinking is limited and lacks imagination

While it may be the case that many logical truths are empirically meaningless - for example, some forms of pure mathematics - it is certainly not true for all of them. There is a particular class of logical truth, specifically in the realm of philosophy, which is very meaningful as far as the empirical world is concerned, and yet whose validity is solely garnered by the sheer logic underpinning them and not on any empirical evidence. Although these logical truths do not, and cannot, conflict with what is observed empirically, neither do they rely on any particular pieces of empirical evidence for their support. They are transcendent truths, as it were. They are necessarily true in all possible worlds (and therefore necessarily true in the empirical world that we perceive through our senses) and cannot be falsified in any manner.

A simple example that anyone can understand is the truth that all things in the Universe are finite. By finite, I specifically mean "falling short of constituting the totality of all there is". In other words, a finite thing has a beginning and an end; it doesn t extend indefinitely to include everything there is. Since there is only one Totality by definition, it follows that everything within the Totality falls short of constituting the totality of all there is. That is to say, all things (within the Totality) are finite.

Note that this is a conclusion which cannot be tested empirically. You cannot devise a scientific experiment to test whether a single thing is finite, let alone a test for all things in the Universe. It is utterly beyond the scope of science to deal with. Yet the sheer logic underpinning it dictates that it is 100% true and necessarily applicable to everything in existence.

This is a very important issue and I will be addressing it in more detail later in the book. If a person cannot enter the logical realm and perceive the sheer omniscience of philosophical truth, then he has no chances at all of becoming enlightened. He will remain just another short-sighted gnat stuck within the empirical mindset. Logic is the means by which we can break out of the myopia of empiricism and gain access to universal and ultimate knowledge. It is like boarding a highly advanced spacecraft, one that is capable of travelling to all times and places in the Universe in a single instant. We can use this spacecraft to test various logical assertions, such as "all things are finite" or "all things are caused", and receive confirmation of their universal validity within seconds. It is a truly marvellous tool.

The Logical Proof of Cause and Effect

There are two ways of proving that things cannot arise without cause. The first involves recognizing that a thing cannot exist without its constituent parts, while the second involves recognizing that a thing cannot exist in the absence of an external reality. Although these two proofs may seem isolated on the surface, in reality they are both expressions of the one core proof - namely, that a thing cannot arise in the absence of other things.

It is easy to see that an object cannot exist without its constituent parts. A car, for example, cannot exist without the engine, wheels, doors and windows which comprise it. Eliminate these things and the car automatically disappears. Moreover, the existence of the car is dependent not only on these parts existing, but on their being fitted together in the correct manner. Or to state this in more general terms, a car only comes into existence when the causal circumstances are ripe.

The same reasoning can be applied to anything else in existence. If a thing exists, it will necessarily be comprised of parts. It is an inherent fact of existence. Even if a thing does not seem to have easily recognizable physical parts, such as a smooth sphere or a portion of empty space, it can nevertheless be divided up conceptually into parts. We can mentally carve a smooth sphere into two imaginary halves and conclude that the sphere cannot exist without the existence of these two halves.

It should be pointed out that the parts which constitute an object are not the object itself. The engine inside a car is not the car, nor are its wheels, doors and windows. Although they are part of the car, they are nevertheless objects which are distinct from it. Thus, the truth that a thing cannot exist without its parts is really an expression of the more general truth that a thing is necessarily dependent upon other things for its existence.

Objects are not only dependent on internal factors, but they rely on external ones as well, which now leads us to the second proof. Without the presence of an external reality, it is equally impossible for an object to exist. By way of analogy, consider the image of a black bird painted on a white canvas. It is only because of the contrast between the black and white colours that the painted bird is able to exist at all. If the canvas was exactly the same shade of black as the bird, the bird would simply merge into the rest of the canvas and disappear without trace.

It might be pedantically argued that a painted bird of the same colour as the rest of the canvass could still be distinguishable by virtue of, say, the different thickness of the paint used on the bird, or by the use of a different brush technique, or whatever. While this is certainly true it would only support my essential point, which is that things can only exist via contrasts. It does not matter what kind of objects or contrasts we care to focus upon, the basic truth is unchanged: without the presence of contrasts nothing can exist at all.

Imagine a tree existing on a plain. Now mentally take away everything that is not the tree - the plain, the distant mountains, the sky, the grass, and so on. Keep on doing this until there is nothing left except the tree existing in a void. Now take away the void. Do you think the tree can still continue to exist in such a situation? Logically, it cannot. Its very being as a tree, its features, its structure and shape, is as much dependent upon the existence of the void, or whatever happens to be surrounding the tree, as it upon its own constituent parts.

Existence is always dualistic in nature. Just as "up" can only exist in relation to "down", and "big" in relation to "small", so too an existing object can only exist in relation to what is not that object. In more formal language, "A" (which stands for any object or event in the Universe) is always dependent upon "not-A", and vice versa.

To sum up, then, a thing cannot exist in the absence of other things existing both inside and outside of it. When these internal and external things are causally arranged in the appropriate manner, the thing in question comes into existence. But what exactly does come into existence in that moment? In the final analysis, nothing. Not a single sliver of anything extra. If anything does seem to arise in that moment, it is purely a conceptual projection on our parts.

To use the above example again, a car only comes into being when its parts are assembled correctly. Before then, there is no car at all. Only when the final component is put into place does the car suddenly emerge. Nothing substantial is added in the process, only a rearrangement of what is already there. What we call the car, then, is simply a conceptual creation that we project onto a particular arrangement of components. It is an abstraction that ultimately has no physical referent.

We are essentially no different, of course. Our existence as an independent and substantial entity is also an illusion. We are nothing more than a conceptual construct which is projected onto a conglomeration of parts. We are like the fist that vanishes as soon as the hand is opened.

Physical Creation

It might be argued that the logical proof of causality described above does not really address the question of physical creation. While people might agree with me that it is impossible for a thing to exist in its own right, as it is always dependent upon its parts and upon what is external to it, there seems to be nothing in my argument which discounts the possibility of it popping into existence uncaused. Sure, the argument might continue, once a thing is already in existence, then it is necessarily reliant on other things, but what about in the moment of its creation? Can it be logically proven that it is always causally created?

To answer this, let us assume for the sake of argument that a particular thing, such as a positron-electron pairing, just pops into existence out of nothing whatsoever. Initially, there is an empty void, and then suddenly, there it is: a brand new pairing. Now imagine the existence of a hypothetical force which is powerful enough to prevent the pairing from arising. It is easy to see that if such a force were to exist in a particular location, then no pairings would be able to arise in that location. The natural impulse of the Universe to spontaneously produce a pairing would be negated by the existence of the force. The creation of the pairing necessarily depends on this force not being there at the moment of its creation.

It does not really matter if such a force actually exists or not. Just the fact that we can imagine its existence is enough to validate the argument. It proves that quantum particle pairings are indeed dependent upon the right causal conditions for their arisal, the same as anything else in the Universe.

The pairing is also dependent upon the Universe possessing a natural tendency to spontaneously produce them in the first place. If the Universe was set up in a different way, or if it did not exist at all, then it would be impossible for the pairing to arise. Similarly, if there was no space or time or quarks, or if there was no Big Bang to begin with. All of these things count as contributory causes of quantum pairings. It is clear, then, that the idea of things being able to pop into existence without any cause whatsoever is absurd. It simply cannot occur.

It might be argued that things like space and time, and the Universe itself, should be classified as "background conditions" of the quantum pairing, rather than its causes. While they are certainly necessary to the pairing s existence, the argument might continue, they do not constitute a sufficient cause of it. The sheer fact of their existence does not directly lead to the pairing s existence. They merely lay the platform for its possible arisal.

The problem with this argument is that it is ultimately impossible to distinguish between a "background condition" and a "cause". All causes are merely "background conditions" in the end. It is impossible for any one thing to cause another thing into existence all by itself. It always needs the help of countless other causes (or "background conditions") to do its creative work. It is powerless all alone.

Consider the birth of a human being, for example. Under the schema provided above, the parents would constitute the main "cause" of the child, while space would merely be a "background condition". The latter would be relegated to its lowly status because, although it is necessary for the child s existence, it lacks the power to bring the child into being on its own. The trouble is, the same reasoning can equally be applied to the parents. The parents too lack the power to bring a child into existence on their own. Without the help of other things, such as food, air, molecules, atoms, genes, womb, time, and yes, space, the parents would not be able to create a thing. So they are no different to space in this regard. They too constitute nothing more than a "background condition" as far as the child is concerned. In the final analysis, the child is a product of countless background conditions, of which the parents only play a very small part.

We can see, then, that the millions of causes which contribute to the creation of an object are really just background conditions, each playing a small contributory role, none of them standing out as having any greater importance than the rest. It is only our imaginations which zero in on one or two of these background conditions and blow them up to gigantic proportions, thereby dwarfing the rest.

It is in our practical interests to do this, of course. It is usually more practical for us to think of the parents as being the main cause of the child, even though from the ultimate perspective they are no more the main cause than space or time or carbon-based molecules are. It is more practical because we potentially have a far greater influence over the existence of the parents than we do of space or time. Parents are much more fragile and fleeting, whereas space seems stable and constant. Parents easily go in and out of existence, which influences the probabilities that a child will be created.

I use the word "probabilities" because the very occurrence of two people becoming parents in and of itself does not guarantee the birth of a child, for the child might die as a foetus or as a conceptus. All it does is increase the probabilities that a child will be born. Being aware of these kinds of probabilities is of practical benefit to us, even though it can easily distort our picture of the Universe if we are not careful.

If an ecologist was asked to list the main causes of a tree, he would naturally focus upon those causes which are of more interest to him as a biologist - seed, genetic material, water, fertile soil, sunlight, carbon and nitrogen cycles, and so on. It probably wouldn t occur to him list the causes which fall outside of this realm - e.g. time, space, subatomic particles, gravity, the formation of the earth, the Big Bang and so on - even though these causes are just as important to the tree s existence as those in his main list. The ecologist is operating from a purely practical standpoint, rather than from the standpoint of Ultimate Truth.

In a similar vein, the scientific assertion that subatomic particles arise without cause is one made from a practical standpoint, rather than from the ultimate one. Physicists assert it because they cannot yet find causes (or "background conditions") for the particle that fall within their area of interest. In narrowly focusing their attention upon those kinds of causes, they tend to ignore the array of causes which fall outside of this arbitrarily defined realm, such as the existence of space and time and the Universe itself. The reader needs to be aware of this dynamic whenever he hears or reads a scientist making a philosophical pronouncement, not just in connection to quantum physics, but to any aspect of life. The sheer fact that it will be generated out of a scientific perspective almost guarantees that it will have nothing to do with what is ultimately true in life.

God Does Not Play Dice

Another example of philosophical clumsiness on the part of scientists concerns the successful manner in which quantum theory can make predictions within the subatomic realm. Quantum physicists often point to the very strength of quantum mechanics as a scientific theory as proof that non-causality is a reality. They refer to the theory s consistent ability to make accurate predictions of quantum phenomena (albeit ambiguously or statistically) and its major role in the development of modern technology, such as televisions, computers, laser technology, and so on. They say that non-causality must be real because quantum mechanics is a well-established theory which has been tested countless times and has never yet failed.

This is a very funny argument when you think about it. I m not sure that the scientists who preach it discern the hidden irony in it. Predicting anything at all is only possible if the thing being predicted either has discernable causes (which enable us to form a prediction) or displays repeated behaviour which we have experienced in the past (which also indicates the presence of causes). Either way, the very fact that quantum theory is able to predict the behaviour of particles (however ambiguously or statistically) only serves to disprove the idea that these particles are uncaused. But in their blindness, scientists think it does the opposite.

One of the fascinating things about the quantum realm, apart from its well-documented weirdness, is the fact that we only ever observe the same handful of particles arising. It is always the same old electrons, positrons, neutrinos, bosons, quarks, etc, that we see. We are not seeing an endless variety of phenomena, which is what we would expect if they really were uncaused. Not only that, but each species of particle consistently displays the exact same characteristics and attributes, with seemingly no deviation at all. Electrons, for example, always possess the same size, mass and spin. If they were truly uncaused, then, by rights, we would expect to see all sorts of variations. We would see huge electrons the size of mountains suddenly popping into existence, or electrons with half the mass of a normal electron, or indeed billions of other objects that are nothing like electrons at all. There would be little or no repetition at all, just an endless variety of unique entities. Why then, if they are supposed to be without cause, do we keep seeing identical electrons over and over again?

The crux of the whole issue is as follows: If you assert that a certain class of things is constantly arising uncaused, then you are, in effect, asserting that coincidences of mind-boggling, stupendous proportions are constantly occurring within the Universe. The two inherently go together. To insert non-causality into the fabric of Reality is to assert that at least some things happen by unbelievable coincidence.

To illustrate this point more clearly, let us consider the everyday act of turning on a light switch and observing light flooding a darkened room. As we all know, the appearance of the light is due to the many causal processes which are initiated when the switch is turned on. A circuit is closed, allowing an electric charge to flow through the connecting wires, which then causes the filament within the light bulb to become charged, and so on. This is why, barring unforeseen or unusual circumstances, whenever we turn on the switch, light always appears an instant later. It never appears by itself, for example, with the switch remaining off. Nor does it ever appear ten seconds before the switch is turned on. On the contrary, the same ordered process always seems to occur, without fail, until the components break down in some way.

Now suppose, for the sake of argument, that scientists were to assert that light from a bulb arises without any cause at all. This might sound ludicrous, but it is essentially no different to asserting that electron-positron pairs arise without cause. You would reckon the fact that light always seems to appear whenever the switch is turned on would automatically present a major problem to the scientists. If light really does arise uncaused, then why does it always appear in that particular instance and in no other? Why does it not appear at other times, or in other kinds of circumstances? Wouldn't the fact that it always appears the instant after the switch is activated constitute the most amazing coincidence? Undoubtedly it would.

We could perhaps accept such an occurrence happening once or twice in a lifetime and put it down to ordinary coincidence. But if it happened time and time again, without fail, in the same ordered way, then clearly we would be looking at something which is far beyond the realm of coincidence. It would indicate without any shadow of a doubt that the hypothesis that light arises from a bulb uncaused is nonsensical.

To grasp the scale of the coincidence that we are looking at here, imagine an infinitely large barrel that contains an infinite number of lottery balls. Imagine, also, that this infinitely large barrel somehow gets spun each week and six numbers are drawn out of it. Finally, imagine that the same six numbers are pulled out each time. Such an occurrence would be truly amazing, to say the least. Even if it just happened twice in a row, it would be incredible - let alone three or four or five zillion times. And yet this is precisely the sort of mind-boggling coincidences that quantum physicists are asking us to believe is happening within the quantum realm all the time.

I realize that the subatomic realm is a very mysterious place, with some pretty strange things going on. But clearly, non-causality is not one of them. It is time that quantum physicists stop leading us up the garden path and accept that, on a fundamental level at least, Einstein was right all along. God does not play dice.

The Limitations of Science

Protestations from the physics community notwithstanding, a positron-electron pairing always has causes. They may not be causes that we are easily able to recognize or can model with perfect precision, but that does not undermine the logical truth that they do have causes. All it means is that our physical and mathematical tools are too currently limited to observe them. It could be that they will always be too limited, or perhaps one day we will indeed be able to develop better tools and create better theories to replace quantum mechanics. Who knows? Either way, it does not make any difference to the logical fact that causality reigns just as supremely in the subatomic realm as it does in the larger world.

Don t ever let physicists fool you over this point. When they speak of quantum particles arising uncaused, they are not really asserting that they arise without any cause whatsoever. They are fully aware that certain causal circumstances need to be in place before a particle can be generated - for example, the presence of energy, the existence of a quantum fluctuating void, the existence of anti-matter, and so on. Some even believe that they need the presence of an observer.

What physicists really mean, then, is that the particles do not follow the usual causal patterns that we are familiar with in the everyday world. The old theories of classical physics are unable to model their behaviour; we cannot always pin down the properties of a particle s behaviour with the same precision that we can with, say, a moving tennis ball. We have to instead use cumbersome statistical-based theories which seem to work best when using the assumption that particles pop into existence without cause.

Physicists have no trouble accepting this assumption because they are happy enough that quantum theory works. That is the only thing which matters to them. They do not really care that it involves a philosophical falsehood. If it is a choice between sticking to a workable scientific theory or adhering to philosophical truth, they will always choose the former. Understanding ultimate reality and becoming philosophically wise does not particularly interest them. They only want to make scientific breakthroughs, receive praise and approval from their peers and win Nobel Prizes.

All this is nothing new, of course. Science has always progressed on the back of philosophical falsehoods. The ancient astronomers, for example, used to believe that the sun and the stars revolved around the earth as part of their anthropocentric philosophy. Despite this delusion, they were still able to make accurate predictions concerning the movements of stars. Even though their vision was radically flawed they nevertheless managed to make significant advances in their field.

There are many other similar examples. Big Bang cosmology was created out of the fiction that the Universe (i.e. utterly everything) had a beginning. Classical physics arose out of the fiction that Nature was a giant, clock-like machine that had been wound up and set in motion by a creator God. Advances in neurology and neuropsychology have been made on the assumption that the brain is essentially a computer, and so on. It happens all the time. Science thrives on philosophical lies.

This is particularly true of quantum physics, which currently steeps itself in the fiction that subatomic particles arise uncaused. Obviously, the adoption of such a fiction simplifies things for the quantum physicist and helps make his mathematics run more smoothly, but it is still a fiction nonetheless. It still brings the physicist into self-contradiction and philosophical delusion.

In summary, then, a scientific theory does not have to be philosophically grounded in reality for it to be an effective theory. It is possible for it to contain serious metaphysical flaws and yet do a sound job in predicting empirical phenomena. Indeed, having a distorted philosophical perspective almost seems to be a prerequisite for doing good science! Because of this, scientists are the last people we should be looking to for guidance in philosophical knowledge. They are no more attuned to the wisdom of the Infinite than is the average hairdresser or bank clerk. Although they love to pretend they are deep thinkers, their philosophical musings are nearly always very juvenile and immature.

Albert Einstein was a classic example of this. Although he may have been a great thinker within the field of abstract physics, whenever he stepped outside this realm he invariably became very mediocre. It was as though a switch inside his brain automatically turned off the moment he stepped out of his office. One minute he was a great genius probing the outer limits of physics, the next just another bland bumbling fool, indistinguishable from all the other bland bumbling fools that grace this earth. The best philosophical insight he could come up with was a kind of vague awe at the vastness and complexity of the Universe. I mean, what an achievement! Any pimply adolescent who happens to smokes a joint has the same insight. It is nothing.

True, Einstein did steadfastly adhere to the concept of causality in the face of stern opposition from his colleagues in quantum physics. But it was a superficial concept of causality that he adhered to, one that exclusively aligned itself with the theories of classical physics. It was not the deep understanding of causality as understood by an enlightened sage.

Unfortunately, Einstein is not alone in this behaviour. Scientists the world over consistently display their ineptitude when it comes to philosophizing. It is simply not their field of expertise. They are but methodical technicians within the ant-like collective of the scientific enterprise, not world-shattering thinkers of the Infinite.

Philosophy is all about reaching beyond the uncertainties of empirical investigation and taking hold of timeless logical knowledge. Science, by its very nature, can never yield this kind of knowledge. So it would be foolish to base your philosophical outlook upon whatever theories scientists happen to believe in. Not only are scientists themselves unaware of the nature of Ultimate Reality, but their theorizing is always tentative and provisional in nature. Nothing in science can ever be 100% certain. Even the most rock-solid theories, such as the theory of evolution or the laws of thermodynamics, can be overturned in a blink of an eye with the discovery of new evidence. They will always lack a solid foundation. Thus, to base your philosophic outlook on scientific theory is to build your house on sand. Sooner or later, it will all come tumbling down.

It is often said that this is the very strength of science, that its theories are always tentative and open to falsification. While this is certainly true, it is also its great weakness. Because its theories are always tentative and provisional, it cannot produce the kind of absolute truth and absolute certainty that great philosophers hunger for. Thus, as far as ultimate knowledge is concerned, science is a completely useless tool. Apart from stimulating the mind into exploring the philosophical realm (that is, stimulate it into leaving the scientific realm behind), it has nothing to contribute.

Of course, this is not to say that science is a worthless enterprise in other areas of life. It clearly excels in what it is specifically designed to do - namely, creating interesting models of the universe s various processes and using these models to develop useful technology. No one can dispute the far-reaching effects this has had on modern society. But we should never get carried away with its successes and try to stretch science beyond its inherent limitations. That would be irrational. Just as the Bible has its limits and cannot be used as a tool for scientific knowledge, in the same way science too has its limits and cannot be used as a tool for comprehending reality.