JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

originally posted in:Secular Sevens
originally posted in: Are science and religion compatible?
Edited by darkcrusader117: 8/27/2013 10:56:51 AM
2
you're asking me why but you're expecting me to answer how well the most im gonna give you to that is sometimes there is no why, hell maybe theres never a why. maybe things just happen for no reason at all and we're just left to try and make sense of it. as ive said before, things like gravity and physics answer how things happen. when you ask why gravity affects the ball, you're asking the wrong question because gravity does not have reasoning and you need reasons or things that have reasons to answer why. and ya' know what, the same can be said for how questions. in fact, it can be said for question because when theres a fundamental understanding or explanation of something there's always a deeper and more fundamental understanding and explanation which [b][i]both[/i][/b] religion and science struggle to find. and no i'm not trying to implicate that a god is the reason behind everything, im trying to explain that science and religion have to fundamentally different goals that people confuse for the same goal and if you can't tell the difference between how and why you have no right make scientific or religious inquiry until you do because there is a whole world of difference. so to answer your question of why the ball is falling, its because some random guy threw it in the air or it fell off a ledge how is it falling? gravity reacts with the ball pulling it towards the larger mass (earth) until it makes a complete stop due normal force equaling the force associated with gravity. and religion tried to answer why questions, their best answer was some divine force and then they asked why it does it now please tell me [u][b][i]why[/i][/b][/u] we're here on this big rock flying through space, and you better not tell me the big bang or evolution.
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by JAMES Z666: 8/30/2013 1:53:15 AM
    So you're telling us that how and why are mutually exclusive? That's untrue. Plus gravity's got no intent. There is no why there is only how. Why does gravity exist? Because of gravitons. How did gravitons come to be? Energy during the Big Bang. [I]How?[/I] Ha, ha! Science explain that one. Why is known though. How? Is it God? Not necessarily it could be anything. Knowing why isn't as difficult as you think. However implying that it must have intent behind it and therefore God must exist is a ridiculous insertion. It must have intent? No, not really. We either can explain it or it's just because of God? What a false dichotomy! Religion's bullshit. All the intelligent babble you keep going on about is just straight up philosophy. Just because the question's good doesn't mean to say the answer's God and religion just because science hasn't found it yet (or maths, psychology, sociology, medicine, ethics, philosophy etc.) Religion isn't important in those things because it's a belief system not logic (philosophy) or empiricism (physics). It's stupid to answer something with either religion or God (yes those things are separate entities). It's not a valid argument for God's existence or for a coexistence of religion and science when they're clearly separate. Put it this way: Why? Is explained by philosophy, not religion, religious philosophy is not necessarily different from ordinary philosophy even if you change the context but it's still not inherently religion, it's philosophy which is different. How? Is empiricism and it's maths and science.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Seggi: 8/27/2013 11:51:47 AM
    Your contrived distinction between 'why' and 'how' is based on the premise that something can have a reason for occurring exterior to its cause for doing so. This is not the case: a 'reason' is at most a cause framed from a subjective perspective as being of use to a particular end, but is more practically just a cause arising from a person's whim. I can tell you why we're here on this big rock flying through space to a certain degree of satisfaction because I can explain many of the antecedent factors leading up to the current situation in which find ourselves, as you said, on this big rock - including the big bang and evolution. That is a valid answer. If, instead, you're asking what the [i]reason[/i] is for this to be the case, then I'd have to interject by asking you if you've stopped beating your wife. But, no, that's not all - the flaws extend well beyond those inherent to any loaded question: Firstly, as I'm sure you've gathered, I have to object to the hyperbolic way you've managed to glorify the concept, as if it's perfectly complementary and essential to the practice of determining causes and modelling reality - it's not. Like I said above, it's not about 'why', it's about 'why does God do that'. But more importantly for practical purposes, I'd like to know how exactly we can be expected to measure the veracity of any claim to know 'why'. Empirical claims can be verified or contradicted by observation, but questions of some spiritual 'reason' absolutely can not, and your insistence that they should be held to a different standard, one that doesn't demand that things actually, you know, try to be correct, only reveals its inability to serve as a means for determining knowledge - or 'answering questions', if you will.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon