Truth and science

For most people, science represents the search for and the current body of found truth. Even many scientific theorists and philosophers who stresses the falsity of such a view in their articles and books often have a tendency to take the truth of discovered science as a given. We are so surrounded by the scientific dogma in our world today that it is difficult to remember Kant's theories when discussing topics other than the topics his theories touch in themselves.
But it seems inevitable, as Kant says, that we are always limited by our senses and our mental capacity when interpreting the world around us, the the world as it is in itself will be forever inaccessible. Science depends on sensory data as the foundation for its arguments, and thus can not be said to represent absolute truth about the world. It is limited by the filters in the human mind and sensory apparatus that will automatically and incessantly be in effect when observing anything.
Surrounded as we are by what seems like the evidence of the success of science this is, as I have stated, easily forgotten. Planes fly, thus proving the laws of aerodynamics, right? Not necessarily. What the flying plane proves about science is that it is a valid interpretation of sensory data useful for finding practical solutions. Science gives no understanding or real knowledge or truth, as people seem to think. What science brings are practical solutions, and in my opinion this is the one and only thing the scientific method can be said to do well. As a basis for a complete view of the world, it can only lead to insanity.

Civilisation and progress

The concept of progress is something that has occupied my thoughts considerably over the years. The problem embedded in this term is that according to modern science, there is no such thing. What is called progress is nothing more than change, and it is our own chauvinistic attitude favouring our own culture that makes it seem to us that progress has taken place.
This, however, is a very counter-intuitive approach, and it is hard not to fall into the trap of thinking in terms of progress when studying both other cultures and our own. I myself am very careful in trying to avoid this primarily from a moral perspective. The dangers in trying to rank cultures in comparison to each other seems obvious in light of 20th century history. Still, intuitively, the difference between a culture basing its mobility on electricity and the combustion engines compared to one where people are still walking on their bare feet seems to be evident.
So, of what is this difference actually comprised? On the surface, you´d say more advanced technology, but what does that mean excactly? I will argue that the one basic element that can signify degrees in progress or civilisation is a term most commonly used in relation to modernity: fragmentation.
Fragmentation on every level is what makes "progress" possible, it is the division of the parts into ever smaller units, this speeds up all the particular processes within the whole, enabling it to grow in size. Please notice that there is no normative judgement in this whatsoever. Fragmentation, speed and size are not automatically better than their opposites, any advantages they offer are countered by equally strong disadvantages. For individuals in a society, this can be exemplified by the feeling of isolation and/or alienation that many in modern societies feel. From a different perspective, the destruction of the environment might be another.
So my main point might be that progress exists, but progress does not involve an increase in quality, only an increase in size (or potential size). Wandering aimlessly around in a forest, one can not be said to make progress. Progress is defined by its goal, in other words, once you decide to walk towards a particular tree, you can start making progress towards that tree, but who is to say, objectively, that this tree is any better than others?
This means, that all civilisations (not all cultures), at least the ones I have come across through my limited studies of history, try to make progress towards it´s goal of greater size. It´s means to this end is the fragmentation of social life, technology, philosophy and all other sides of existence. The citizens of any civililisation will usually pretend that their progress is a progress of morals, and will try to demonstrate this by comparing their own civilisation to other contemporary civilisations and to it´s own historical predecessors, hiding in their comparison certain facts about their own.
A good example of this is the way Athens is portrayed in most history books (or at least the ones I´ve read). The Athenians are usually given the credit for inventing democracy but, it is said, their democracy was not a true democracy, as many people where excluded from taking part in it. Women, slaves and foreigners where not allowed to participate in the democratic process. The implication here of course, is that today´s modern democracies have reached this "true" democracy that they speak of, which includes everyone.
I would argue that this is incorrect. Today, only citizens of a particular nation have the right to take part in that particular nation´s democratic process. So, even though Europeans own most factories in Africa and can run them more or less as they see fit, the people working in those factories have no vote in any organ that could control the owners of these factories. Europe and the rest of the vest through it´s superiour economic power, controls the African economy, and thus making any local democracy that might exist close to powerless.
The true democracy our haughty historians are looking for, can only exist when all national borders are erased, and that would also be a true progress in quality and morality. I will get back to this later. For now, suffice it to say that I have seen nothing that can be called progress towards a better society in the historical record, only the afforementioned increase in size.

-GD

God?

In this post I will attempt to clarify my views on the divine, and as a warning I will state upfront that some of this will seem far-fetched or even absurd to the more strictly scientifically oriented reader. I include this because it is the basis upon which all my other ideas are founded. That being said, I do not think it necessary to accept these concepts for the rest of my arguments to be valid, but to me it serves as a starting point to help keep things consistent. It may also serve to place my thoughts on the philosophical map, so to speak.
I believe in God. That is my first basic point. I believe, but being scientifically educated, I find it impossible to accept any of the established religions´ view of the world and the divine. Since all the prophets say different things, none of them can have brought us the absolute truth about God´s will and His nature. This may not even be possible, but my main point is that I believe that such a truth exists, and I believe that the truth about God must be the truth about everything.
In other words, philosophy is about trying to find the nature of God. This brings me to my next point, which is that I believe this to be possible. Our minds, through our souls are directly linked to the spiritual world where God “lives” (I warned you some of this would sound absurd, but I beg your patience), making them capable of finding truth. In other words, our minds are equipped with the tools necessary to find the deepest truths of existence.