I'd like to see any religionist refute that.

That is not within its scope, and so it tells us virtually nothing (unless scientists overstep their disciplines and opinionatedly "speak as men/women"). Religion, on the other hand, has not really attempted to give accurate physical information, speaking more in symbols.

But esotericism, in the form of theosophy, rosicrucianism, or other branches of occultism, do have such information, typically on the energy levels behind phenomena. According to some (like physicist Fritjof Capra, "The Tao of Physics"), science is gradually validating the esoteric teachings.

. . . don't understand or accept science.

In other words, religionists make stuff up in order to account for physical realities that are beyond their uneducated comprehension.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2013 06:42AM by steve benson.

Is there the implication that people shouldn't ask "Why?" questions about the universe but be content with science's What and How discoveries? Where (in what fields?) do we acquire "educated comprehensions" that allow us to know the Whys without having to make them up ourselves? Philosophy?

... your questions?" They have a long and storied track record for getting it notoriously wrong.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2013 06:43PM by steve benson.

Humans are obsessed with the "why" of life because we are the only species capable of romanicizing our existance.

We imagine/romanticise our existance as humans to be much more than it actually is.

I'm ok with that.

You can ask away, but the answer is hazy. I just don't make up stuff to fill in the gaps, or believe someone else's made-up stuff. That's exactly what religion is.

Why what?

I've heard this many times, and it doesn't make sense to me. Science doesn't ask why about what? If you mean, it doesn't ask why things are the way they are, then you don't understand the motivation of science to uncover the what and how. "Why it is" rests at the foundation of the work to ask what and how.

Also, science has more answers to this "why" than do religions. Religions may have been asking the "why" question longer than science (given how short it's been among humans as a school of thought) but it hasn't really answered the why definitively or truly successfully.

Oh, sure, each religion has its guesses. Hundred-thousands of guesses, perhaps. Enough to satisfy most humans who want answers. Religion, like fiction writers, drum up stories that resonate with people, but they're contrived and packaged to resonate so that you'll buy the copy.

Science actually produces facts with interpretations that turn into tools useful for making actual devices and inventions. These in turn are helpful to humankind by extending life-expectancy, life-quality, ease, entertainment and enjoyment. Science uncovers facts about the basic yearnings and questions of most humans: Where did we come from, Why are we here and Where are we going? The answers are factual not fantasy, and a lot of wishful person don't like the facts, so they diss science's response to these yearnings and say science still hasn't answered them.

Then they search through all of the thousands of responses to "Why?" produced over ten-thousand years of religious dominance, and find the few responses that correlate to the facts of modern science and say "See, science is playing catch up". A broken clock is correct twice a day, out of 1440 minutes (or just over a tenth of one percent correct). Religion has its lucky strikes too.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2013 08:51AM by Jesus Smith.

Jesus Smith Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> "Why it is" rests at the foundation of the work
> to ask what and how.
>
Science uncovers facts about the
> basic yearnings and questions of most humans:
> Where did we come from, Why are we here and Where
> are we going? The answers are factual not
> fantasy, and a lot of wishful person don't like
> the facts, so they diss science's response to
> these yearnings and say science still hasn't
> answered them.

Do you mean that science asks why physical phenomena and processes occur (contingent on other physical phenomena and processes)? And that is supposed to answer the Whence, Why, and Whither questions of the existence of conscious beings--by reducing them to the "facts" of chemical reactions?

And then, surprise, "a lot of wishful person[s] don't like the facts"--No, they don't accept that mindless reduction of conscious being to material elements and objects of external observation. Do you really think there are "scientific" answers (in the realm of contemporary academic science) to the perennial questions of human existence, purpose, and the role of will in influencing these?


>
> Then they search through all of the thousands of
> responses to "Why?" produced over ten-thousand
> years of religious dominance, and find the few
> responses that correlate to the facts of modern
> science and say "See, science is playing catch
> up". A broken clock is correct twice a day, out
> of 1440 minutes (or just over a tenth of one
> percent correct). Religion has its lucky strikes
> too.

Scientists seek answers for all kinds of "why" too. In physics we have the antropomorphic principle: The basic constants of the basic forces of nature seem to be finely attuned to make biological life possible. Why? The obvious first answer is that we wouldn't be here if it were otherwise. Still the question why suggest all kinds of speculations. Is there an intelligent creator afterall? But if the universe was created for biological life it seems contradictory that as far as we know it doesn't exist anywhere else but this insignificant planet, shouldn't it be everywhere?

But since no supercomputer is able to compute the effect of altering the 20 parameters that seem to be basic constants to check every possible outcome, and even a supercomputer that could wouldn't be able to predict if these alternative universes could harbor some kind of life it seems a bit premature to draw conclusions. This has driven physics to explore 2 possible solutions that might somehow leave physical evidence behind them. One is speculations of multiple universes, the other is the possibility that those 20 parameters aren't independent but really aspects of the same thing. Various advances in mathematics and ever more precise mapping and measuring is done to confirm or reject these speculations. There is no guarantee that the "why" will be answered but the question leads to new discoveries anyway.

For most people, I'd guess, the answer to the Why of their existence, the meaning of their lives, lies not in some intellectual explanations, theoretical physics, or multiple universes, but rather in the pragmatic sense of how they should live: why they have their particular lot in life and how they can change it, how they can assume responsibility for their present and future, how they can realize their life's purpose, what happiness is, how they can become something greater than their past and current patterns--how they can live more fulfillingly than those who don't question these things but just follow the course of the day in accordance with social conventions.

These are more in the realm of character and are not the concerns of science, but of philosophy, religion, spirituality,

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...why they have their particular lot in life
> and how they can change it, how they can assume
> responsibility for their present and future, how
> they can realize their life's purpose, what
> happiness is, how they can become something
> greater than their past and current patterns--how
> they can live more fulfillingly...

> These are more in the realm of character and are
> not the concerns of science, but of philosophy,
> religion, spirituality,

Do you really believe science cannot address your list?

That is,
1) your lot in life (your genes, economic conditions, geographical location, etc)
2) responsibility for present
3) find purpose
4) define happiness
5) being greater in future
6) live more "fulfillingly"

Everything on your list can be quantified in or by biology, anthropology, sociology, psychology and neuroscience.

Science can address directly #1, #2, #4. Science could address #3, 5 & 6 once we accept the answers of 1,2 & 4.

You may think that science cannot answer how to live a more fulfilling life, but if you address the physical needs, the emotional needs (neurobiology, psychology) and the need for sociological connection (family science), you can begin to answer how to fulfill yourself.

Having "god" as a myth can help you, but it isn't required. And Science can still study which god-myth fulfills best for different cultures. Perhaps it can even optimize the god myth for humans through measurement.

"Why do I love her"?

Scientist: It's because at the sight of this person, your brain releases a cocktail of dopamine, norepinephrine, and phenylethylamine in pathways involving the limbic system, raphe nucleus, locus ceruleus, hypothalamus, basal ganglia, and frontal cortex, hence a feeling of bliss, elation, intense energy, racing heart, sleeplessness, and craving. People in love also have lower serotonin levels, causing you to obsess about her, plus the neural circuits associated with the way you assess others are suppressed.

"Oh, now I understand my love for her. Duh! Case closed."

"But why do I have those brain reactions to her?"

Scientist: Because her face likely exhibits the Golden Ratio (pi, 1.62) in its features, with great horizontal symmetry,a nearly ideal ratio of nose length to ear length, her eye width compared to her innerocular distance, the nose width compared to the face width, and the mouth width to the nose width. A study from the University of Nebraska has shown that a smaller nose, along with a larger distance between they eyes and a smaller mouth width are deemed desirable traits for women. Also her hip-to-waist ratio (waist measurement divided by hip measurement, with the waist circumference measured at the midpoint between the lower margin of the last palpable rib and the top of the iliac creast, using a stretch-resistant tape that provides a constant 100 g tension, and hip circumference measure aroung the widest portion of the buttocks) is most likely close to 0.7, a universal ideal signifying genetic fitness and fertility.

"OK, got it. Anything else would be irrational."

How do we instinctually know/care about that? Why would that be important to anyone but a randomly-born person that just happened to be born liking that? What is the likelihood of that happening as opposed to someone being born not exactly that way?

It's silly to say someone loves someone because of a bunch of chemical reactions; we're more than that. Those are just the machinery of feelings. If he were to actually ask himself why, he'd find an answer that would more than just a bunch of chemical reactions, and he would have a real reason that benefits not only himself but her too.

That's right, Richard.

Despite Jesus Smith's claims for Science, most scientists recognize that Science is not capable of answering the kinds of why questions most people ask. How the Camel got his hump (evolution) is similar to Why does a Camel have a hump (To store fat). Such is the way everyday biology goes about its business. But, as you point out, that is an altogether different kind of "why" question than, say, why should Camels exist, or spotted Leopards or throaty Whales or what you will for that matter. Science cannot tell us *why* this or that animal should continue existing, including human animals, or why the planet should continue existing, etc. From a scientific standpoint these are nonsense questions; yet, they are among the most pressing questions to everyday people going about everyday lives.

For Science to even attempt to answer these kind of "why" questions, without simply renaming Utilitarianism "Science" as Harris does, for example, requires Science making a step it seems loath to make. Science must begin to think about the kind of Teleology that scientists like Terrence Deacon (Incomplete Nature) and philosophers like Thomas Nagel (Mind and Cosmos) have introduced. Since most popular science writing is unquestioningly married to Materialism as it's a priori starting point, there has been a lot of push back against this idea (the mindless responses to Nagel are actually depressing). They seem to fear that teleological musings leave the door slightly ajar for God (Kant). But not going down a certain path of thought simply because one does not like where it might lead is intellectual cowardice, and in a scientist, unscientific.

Until Science meaningfully grapples with Teleology as something possibly other than a random epiphenomenal event, it will have nothing to say about how one should live or even why one should live or why anything should live. Sans Teleology, these are nonsense questions from a scientific perspective. Honest scientists admit as much.

Human

"most scientists"

and

"Honest scientists admit as much"

I had some big bullshit to share, but really I need to get back writing.

Literature vs. Science.

They both tell us about being human in different ways because there are areas where stories break down, and areas where stories make us more human.

So - there's a little bullshit for y'all.

that made sense. was it supposed to?

Science can answer why, but the actual answer requires evolution, biology, and physics, a long difficult answer for a simple-minded religionist to absorb.

Scientists can't actually answer the question of "what is the purpose of its existence" because that implies a purpose and they see no evidence of a purpose in their existence. Assuming they must have a purpose or they have no reason to exist is silly; that's anthropomorphism, requiring human intelligence for all that exists. It's a bizarre thing to see when you're outside of the religion.

But here at Aperature Science, we focus on the "Why not?"!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_Johnson

Hey, he introduced sheet stamps and postal collection boxes. How's that for first class trivia? :)

That is a very large assumption. What real evidence do you have that there is a reason for it all? No, just saying "It exists, there must be a reason" is not evidence.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2013 06:52PM by MJ.

They can and do refute the contribution of science very easily.

The use of a mythical entity with equally mythical limitless powers provides the perfect excuse for anything, with the religionists conjuring up ridiculous explanations which are impossible to refute. By saying that their god has confused the scientists, planted fossils to deceive us, taken objects back into heaven etc etc, they are providing "rational" (in their mind) justification for anything.

Unlike science, where statements have to be supported with reproducible evidence, the claims of religion are supported by the naive and superstitious "god did it /said it", which invalidates any scientific evidence, according to the religionists.

A good exampe would be the arguments put forward by the young earth creationists, who justify their position by dismissing the entire mass of scientific knowledge by invoking the name of a mystical sky daddy.

Essentially, religionists can claim or refute anything they desire, whereas scientists have to actually prove and justify their claims.

Richard Fox kinda did beat me to the punch. Science have revealed a universe that is filled with weird and wonderous things. Yet the kind of things we learn from science isn't of the nature that usually satisfy our quest for 'spirituality'. Not only does science reveal our insignificance in the scheme of existence instead of assuring us to be of any importance to the cosmos. It also takes us to the borders of human knowledge where we have to struggle with this fact that beyond the most basic conclusions followed from direct experience there is nothing 100% certain. It is not particularily satisfying to abandon simple black-white thinking where (in your own mind) you can never be wrong and instead pretty much resort to probability guesstimates about everything.

And assuming that spirituality is something science can not explain is another huge assumption.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2013 06:54PM by MJ.

I haven't made those assumptions. It's just an observation that large clunks of humanity has them.

Anyone, even large chunks of humanity are making a large assumption.

I'm being bold here, but IMO science has told us more about religion than any religion has. Science has shown us unambiguously that religion is ultimately an invention of the human brain. That leaves open several questions, such as the how and why certain ideas take hold in a particular individual's brain, but to claim that religion holds the key to any sort of cosmic consciousness outside of each individual's psychological needs and hopes, and is therefore on an equal footing with science, is simply absurd.

As for the Why questions: each person must ultimately answer that for him or herself. No longer can we cling to the outdated tribal mythologies of the past. They worked for those people. They do not work now. Religion talks up a good storm, but has nothing to back it up and instead relies on psychological coercion to force itself on the vulnerable. There are two things religions never encourage. One is to go out and find God. The other is to go out and find yourself.

I agree completely. As for the "religion tells us the why" thing, that seems rather silly. Asking why may not even make sense. There may simply not be a "why." I don't think there is. I think it's up to us to decide our own "why." But I guess I just restated slskipper's post, but less eloquently!

Incidentally, there are two kinds of why. "What for?" and "How come?" Science does well on the "how come?" part. Asking what for is often just a malformed, nonsensical question.

"Why is that mountain there?" Well, because that's where the earth folded when the land compressed because of a tectonic plate collision.

But "For what purpose was that mountain formed there?" doesn't make sense, does it?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2013 09:52AM by rationalguy.

Even a two year old in their "why" phase can show that religion does not really answer the question "why?".

Why does humanity exist?

Because of God?

Why does god care?

God love humans,

Why...

For any explanation Religions uses, we can still ask, WHY?

I've given up trying to defend science to those too indoctrinated or stupid to allow themselves a free thought on the matter...

Ron Burr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9kJ_NdZT1A

that which science and MORmONISM reveals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV1NYP60274



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2013 01:51PM by lucky.

So there, smarty pants. And glass planets, and bloodless god bodies, and lunar Quakers, and windowed submarines.

JS could have been Einstein, I tell ya!

He certainly could have been an L. Ron Hubbard, that's for sure.

According to my limited understanding of a science based evolutionary biological explanation called the "human condition" (good verses evil - why do we have Jesus and Hitler as part of the human family) religion has been rendered obsolete. My limited understanding of this is summarized below, but it seems like a very powerful idea. The full idea can be found here:

http://www.worldtransformation.com/human-condition/

First of all, religion is about helping us cope with the idea that we are somehow lacking, sinful (are we good or evil) etc., and allows us a way to prove we are good and find "redemption." As an example, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Graden because they were "bad," and religion helps find a way "back."

According to this idea very early humans (pre-conscious brain 2 million years ago) instinctively were selfless as a way to survive in groups etc.,but when the thinking brain developed about 2 million years ago it started a constant stuggle with the instinct. In other words, we/humans are instinctively good, but our brain wants to experiment and find understanding and this constant need and search for undertsanding pits our instinct against our thinking brain. This sets up a self inflicted very long standing "human condition" that impels and drives people to prove they are good (because of the instinct/brain conflict) by getting the most money, being the strongest person, power etc. As an example consider if you put a thinking brain in a migrating bird. The bird instinctively wants to follow a certain path, but the new brain wants to understand "why" this path and is in conflcit wiht the instinct as it looks for understanding.

Now that we understand the source of this inner conflict and driving need to "prove" we are good there is no more need to invent religion. Religion has greatly helped people cope with this conditon and work thorugh the inner "am I as a human good or evil" conflict, but with this new understanding (the brain craves) of the source of the human condition and th eunderstanding that we/humans are instinctively good, science has rendered religion (and all other human conditions related to our need to prove we are good, the best, the richest, #1, biggest tits etc..) obsolete. This also can used to explain why people are so egocentric etc.,and why the humans range from Jesus to Hilter.

My two cents for an interesting subject.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2013 05:08PM by perky.

If all you get from this thread is:


Please read whatever Brian Greene has written.


Read "Brian Greene Wikipedia" first if you need to perk your interest.

This is what keeps me sane.

Again: Please read whatever Brian Greene has written (or wrote).


Reading about "science" is not dispassionate and lets you form your own spiritual conclusions.


Also: please read some Joseph Campbell.