So many things can’t be explained
We all seek for answers, we all want to make a box and fit everything neatly inside. Yet despite all the advances in science, so many things still can’t be explained.
For instance, do you believe in love? In courage? In beauty? How should science explain all these?
Is love nothing more than the outward appearance of things? The fine arrangement of one’s molecules? And if it is not, if you tell me that love, as well as beauty consists not only of the external, how can you define it? How can you believe in that which you cannot explain?
Is courage the strength of one’s muscles or of one’s heart? And what is a heart if not more than an organ pumping blood into one’s fragile body? What makes a man courageous and what makes another man a coward? Is it courage to die for the sake of another? Why should a living organism defy nature’s law of self-preservation anyway? Why should one die for another creature which would only be tomorrow’s dust or another one’s fertilizer?
To what extent must we risk our lives? To what extent should we love? And what is love anyways?
Can you grasp it? Can you see it? Can you measure what it can do? Can you explain the reaction of the atoms of a person falling in love? Why must we love anyway? And why is there such a thing as love? Is it a power or a sickness? Is a person who loves still rational or merely crazy?
There are so many things we cannot explain, so many things our minds cannot grasp. Yet is this the most important thing?
To the person who has really known love, there are no more questions, only declarations of the salvation he has found.
Find hope in your darkest hour.
"Download e-books"
2 replies on “So many things can’t be explained”
“Yet despite all the advances in science, so many things still can’t be explained.” – You haven’t really said anything to justify that there is anything that cannot be explained. There are only things which have yet to be explained, nothing which cannot be explained.
“For instance, do you believe in love? In courage? In beauty? How should science explain all these?” – That statement is starting with the assumption that science SHOULD explain these.
Science explains how things in the natural world work. We must first objectively prove there is such a thing as love before we can go about attempting to explain it. I can define love for you right now, love is a word. We use it to describe a feeling. So how do you justify suggesting that it is the place of science to explain what “love” is? It is the same as saying “haha, science cant explain what being happy is!”. There is nothing to explain as there is no objectional truth to what happy (or love) is, as different people use the word to describe different things, it is not a physical entity, it is a description.
It seems you raise endless questions and instead of providing any reasonable attempt at answering them, instead simply state they are unanswerable. If most people thought like you, we would never have made the “advances in science” that you alluded to in the beginning. And our average life expectency would still be half of what it is today.
We used to think the sun orbitted around the earth. This was perfectly understood by everyone, infact it was obvious… just look at the sun, its moving around us! Right?……. Imagine where we’d be if nobody questioned their OWN beliefs and actually ANALYZED and INVESTIGATED them. Everything ever claimed to have been “unexplainable!” has only ever turned out to later be explained. As we learn more about the brain through science, we will understand more about this evolutionary feeling we describe as “love”.
@James McGuire – Why do you sound so angry, James? 🙂 If you can explain everything, or if science in its present advancement now can, why not explain it? All I’m saying is that there are so many things yet that can’t be explained. That we shouldn’t limit our lives just because we can’t find the explanation for everything yet. But that doesn’t mean we should stop looking for answers. That’s the other point. Some people just content themselves with the present explanation that is available and stop looking for answers. Now what would happen to science if people did just that? I know you have many questions right now, and you feel I failed you because I couldn’t give you an explanation myself. That’s where the challenge is, isn’t it? To find the answers to those questions. And sometimes, the answer is “experiential” instead of philosophical. Even love doesn’t matter if it’s just a word coming from another person. Only the person who experiences it knows it for what it really is and needs no explanation because he has been satisfied with what he has found.
You were also talking about “physical entity”. Could you define what a physical entity is? Something measurable by the human senses? How about sounds only the senses of a dog can detect? Is that included? How about other sounds not even a dog could hear? Is that “physical entity” only about solid, liquid and gas? Could science now explain where the state of matter ends and where the state of energy begins? We could go on and on with our questions. Questions to which I believe I have sought out for answers more than you ever did. And yet you judge me already that I am not the kind of person who looks for answers. A man of science does not judge without sufficient investigation. But that was what you just did. In the end, it is not the number of questions that we are able to answer that counts. It is finding the answers to questions relevant to us that truly matters. I hope you find them before you start condemning everyone who couldn’t give you immediate answers to questions that are relevant to you.