Why versus how

[Elipticalvoyage]

My proposition is to ask of you; questions that contradict my logic.

Consider this; You ask me how the universe became. (you are asking 'HOW') The core precept of science.

I say; Ask me questions about the heart. (I am asking 'WHY'). The core precept of religion.

The two are not compatible; they are two different perspectives and thus cannot be contrasted against each other. Niether can disprove the other, so why the controversy people? Each to his own.

That's my take on it.
Whats your perspective?

 

[outhouse]

its not why VS how, its just not that simple.

science does fine on its own, the problem lies when people use the bible as a substitute for science. Then we have big problems.

science doesnt attack religion, religion however attacks science with vitriol because logic and reality go against its core beliefs.

In my opinion

OH and WELCOME to RF

 

[Riverwolf]

its not why VS how, its just not that simple.

science does fine on its own, the problem lies when people use the bible as a substitute for science. Then we have big problems.

science doesnt attack religion, religion however attacks science with vitriol because logic and reality go against its core beliefs.

In my opinion

OH and WELCOME to RF

I agree with this.

The same problems arise with other literalistic interpretations of mythology besides those in the Bible. Science and literalistic interpretations of mythology are not compatible, but religion is certainly more than mythology. :yes:

 

[LuisDantas]

The two are not compatible; they are two different perspectives and thus cannot be contrasted against each other. Niether can disprove the other, so why the controversy people? Each to his own.

That's my take on it.
Whats your perspective?

The existence of any controversy at this point in time is in and of itself rather sad. We should have been spending time discussing controversies such as nature vs nurture, or perhaps if it would make any difference if people had any kind of soul.

There is room for useful contrast and even compability between faith and science. It just turns out that evolutionism and creationism are nowhere near that territory. To the degree that there even is any controversy, it is direct witness of the failure of some believers.

 

[Penumbra]

My proposition is to ask of you; questions that contradict my logic.

Consider this; You ask me how the universe became. (you are asking 'HOW') The core precept of science.

I say; Ask me questions about the heart. (I am asking 'WHY'). The core precept of religion.

The two are not compatible; they are two different perspectives and thus cannot be contrasted against each other. Niether can disprove the other, so why the controversy people? Each to his own.

That's my take on it.
Whats your perspective?

When it comes to science, how and why are often the same question, especially when it comes down to something as fundamental as how a universe can exist.

And yes, science can disprove religious claims that contradict with reality. It's done so for quite some time now.

 

[Looncall]

My proposition is to ask of you; questions that contradict my logic.

Consider this; You ask me how the universe became. (you are asking 'HOW') The core precept of science.

I say; Ask me questions about the heart. (I am asking 'WHY'). The core precept of religion.

The two are not compatible; they are two different perspectives and thus cannot be contrasted against each other. Niether can disprove the other, so why the controversy people? Each to his own.

That's my take on it.
Whats your perspective?

The heart is a muscle that pumps blood. What more do you want to know about it? Or, are you still perpetuating the foolish errors of the ancients?

 

[ellenjanuary]

The heart is a muscle that pumps blood. What more do you want to know about it? Or, are you still perpetuating the foolish errors of the ancients?

Come on, now. It also sets the beat. Sympathetic alignment to cosmic vibration is more important than such "literalist interpretation" credits.

As to the OP, I say the same kind of thing; many scientists say the same kind of thing. On the scale of individuals, religion and science can coexist peacefully in this manner. On the scale of nations, however... religion is nasty. I don't know how else to put it. I don't see these large religious movements having anything to do with god. They are more the will of minister and mullah and they only benefit the congregation to the detriment of others. They are like mad dogs that need to be put down. That's my scientific opinion.

 

[Riverwolf]

The heart is a muscle that pumps blood. What more do you want to know about it? Or, are you still perpetuating the foolish errors of the ancients?

It's also where emotions are most strongly felt. ^_^

And they weren't foolish errors, because they didn't really have any way of knowing otherwise.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There are so many questions out there that are answerable, it just seems rather silly spending too much time asking questions which aren't. Of course, if it's just the pondering that you're into, go right ahead. Just don't confuse pondering with answering.

 

[Penumbra]

It's also where emotions are most strongly felt. ^_^

And they weren't foolish errors, because they didn't really have any way of knowing otherwise.

If they didn't have a way of knowing, then it would be wiser not to put forth answers than to put forth wrong answers that have no justification.

And that's a general statement rather than towards any specifically claimed "foolish" error of ancients.

 

[Riverwolf]

If they didn't have a way of knowing, then it would be wiser not to put forth answers than to put forth wrong answers that have no justification.

And that's a general statement rather than towards any specifically claimed "foolish" error of ancients.

Knowing otherwise, not just simply knowing.

Not to say that the ancients were flawless in their reasoning, but we aren't, either. Plenty of currently held ideas (unwise to try naming any of them lol) of the way things work will most certainly be demonstrated to be incorrect in the future, due to improved methods of study and reasoning, and new knowledge.

Would it be fair, then, to say we're currently in "foolish" error for not utilizing knowledge and methods we haven't formulated, yet?

 

[Penumbra]

Knowing otherwise, not just simply knowing.

Not to say that the ancients were flawless in their reasoning, but we aren't, either. Plenty of currently held ideas (unwise to try naming any of them lol) of the way things work will most certainly be demonstrated to be incorrect in the future, due to improved methods of study and reasoning, and new knowledge.

But that's an appropriate method of acquiring knowledge.

There's nothing foolish about saying, "Based on the current information we have, including experiments we have performed, X seems to be true." even if it turns out that X isn't true based on information that is not yet available.

There is a lot of foolishness in saying, "I don't have any justification, but X is the truth." whether it ends up that X is true or false.

Would it be fair, then, to say we're currently in "foolish" error for not utilizing knowledge and methods we haven't formulated, yet?

No it would not be fair, except for those that assert something as definitely being true without being able to justify it, whether it's now or 3000 years ago.

Being limited in information is not foolish. Not knowing how limited one is in information is foolish.

 

[Riverwolf]

But that's an appropriate method of acquiring knowledge.

There's nothing foolish about saying, "Based on the current information we have, including experiments we have performed, X seems to be true." even if it turns out that X isn't true based on information that is not yet available.

There is a lot of foolishness in saying, "I don't have any justification, but X is the truth." whether it ends up that X is true or false.

Oh, the ancients did provide justifications. After all, they were very scientifically able.

No it would not be fair, except for those that assert something as definitely being true without being able to justify it, whether it's now or 3000 years ago.

Being limited in information is not foolish. Not knowing how limited one is in information is foolish.

That I agree with. I do not think it's an accurate description of the ancients' claims.

Many religious leaders have said this, sure. But they're not really representative of the ancients as a whole.

 

[Penumbra]

Oh, the ancients did provide justifications. After all, they were very scientifically able.

That I agree with. I do not think it's an accurate description of the ancients' claims.

Many religious leaders have said this, sure. But they're not really representative of the ancients as a whole.

You seem to be lumping the ancients into one big whole. The ancients provided justifications and were scientifically able? All of them?

Surely not. Some of them put forth ridiculous claims without justification, just like today. They are the ones that were foolish, not each and every ancient.

 

[Riverwolf]

You seem to be lumping the ancients into one big whole.

I'm responding to a statement that did that.

The ancients provided justifications and were scientifically able? All of them?

The great ones. Egypt, Maya, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley...

Surely not. Some of them put forth ridiculous claims without justification, just like today. They are the ones that were foolish, not each and every ancient.

And they're the ones who didn't really last that long.

 

[Penumbra]

I'm responding to a statement that did that.

Which one? Refer to a post or quote it, please.

The great ones. Egypt, Maya, Mesopotamia, Indus Valley...

And they're the ones who didn't really last that long.

Can you provide examples of how they justified their metaphysical frameworks, including the existence of their respective deities?

 

[Riverwolf]

Which one? Refer to a post or quote it, please.

Here you go:

The heart is a muscle that pumps blood. What more do you want to know about it? Or, are you still perpetuating the foolish errors of the ancients?

Can you provide examples of how they justified their metaphysical frameworks, including the existence of their respective deities?

And that's the only thing that defined them?

Let's not forget that these people were scientists. Their scientific achievements are still a wonder today. These people, therefore, were not idiots, nor were they fools.

Let's also not forget that many of these peoples' legacy has been lost. For many of them, we don't know exactly what they believed. But I think the fact that they had achieved much tells me this: they weren't just assuming anything foolishly. They had reasons to believe the things they believed, even if those reasons wouldn't fly nowadays, because of the knowledge we have that they didn't.

I prefer not to judge apples by the standard of oranges.

 

[Penumbra]

Here you go:

Ok thanks for clarifying which post you were speaking of.

And that's the only thing that defined them?

Let's not forget that these people were scientists. Their scientific achievements are still a wonder today. These people, therefore, were not idiots, nor were they fools.

Let's also not forget that many of these peoples' legacy has been lost. For many of them, we don't know exactly what they believed. But I think the fact that they had achieved much tells me this: they weren't just assuming anything foolishly. They had reasons to believe the things they believed, even if those reasons wouldn't fly nowadays, because of the knowledge we have that they didn't.

I prefer not to judge apples by the standard of oranges.

No, it's not the only thing that defined them, but like today, metaphysics was a big area for which unjustified claims were asserted in ancient times. And those that do so are not behaving according to reason or logic.

I don't judge apples by the standards of oranges. I judge reason by the standard of reason. If someone puts forth a claim, asserts that it is definitely true, and yet cannot justify it, then it doesn't matter what era they are in to be considered lacking in reason. It's not a matter of not having enough knowledge; it's a matter of how to approach and acquire knowledge.

And you're still lumping them together. Sure, there were inventors in ancient times, and many of them were brilliant. There were also brilliant philosophers. And along side them there were people that were not very intelligent, not very moral, or not very wise.

The ones that described and asserted elaborate metaphysical frameworks without justification were the ones that I certainly would not consider reasonable or logical.

 

[Riverwolf]

Ok thanks for clarifying which post you were speaking of.


No, it's not the only thing that defined them, but like today, metaphysics was a big area for which unjustified claims were asserted in ancient times. And those that do so are not behaving according to reason or logic.

I don't judge apples by the standards of oranges. I judge reason by the standard of reason. If someone puts forth a claim, asserts that it is definitely true, and yet cannot justify it, then it doesn't matter what era they are in to be considered lacking in reason. It's not a matter of not having enough knowledge; it's a matter of how to approach and acquire knowledge.

And you're still lumping them together. Sure, there were inventors in ancient times, and many of them were brilliant. There were also brilliant philosophers. And along side them there were people that were not very intelligent, not very moral, or not very wise.

The ones that described and asserted elaborate metaphysical frameworks without justification were the ones that I certainly would not consider reasonable or logical.

Fine. But we don't know if they did or not. Therefore, we are left with nothing by which to judge them.

Besides, reason and logic has taken many forms, and has formulated through the ages, and still needs improvement. Even now, reason and logic aren't perfect.

 

[Penumbra]

Fine. But we don't know if they did or not. Therefore, we are left with nothing by which to judge them.

We are left with a lot. The religious scriptures are a good start, along with all sorts of archeological evidence about their practices.

Besides, reason and logic has taken many forms, and has formulated through the ages, and still needs improvement. Even now, reason and logic aren't perfect.

In what way do you suggest that they be refined?