Science answers to the HOWs, faith to the WHYs [YOU RESPOND]
Offline From:
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 6:14 AM
Subject: [Defend my God!] The main problem
Antonio Pappo sent a message using the contact form at http://www.rationalresponders.com/contact.
Hey there,
I'm not actually defending my god, but I'd like to clarify a point. In the big debate between science and faith one forgets a point. Science answers to the HOWs, faith to the WHYs. It is a common misbelief that science can explain everything. Science can explain everything (with some limitation, obviously, but scientists have always work to do) just a fraction of second AFTER the big-bang. Some theories tries to go further, but it's all speculation, since everything depends on the mass of the universe, that is still unknown with enough precision.
This is the big point: faith tries to explain WHY the big bang happened, and why all the things in the world exist. Science doesn not, and luckly MUST have not any answer for that, because to answer that kind of question the rationaility that applies to the real world simply does not hold anymore. Science cannot, because of her inner nature, go beyond the HOWs. E=mc2 holds. Thats a FACT. Why? Why not E=mc3? F=ma holds as well, bu why not F=3ma? Nobody can explain, but science tells us that NO MATTER why, those relations are TRUE in our universe. The why is left to the faith, and probably no explanation is better than anoher one.
I think that this concept is one of the most important things realized by our culture, and probably one of the most less understood. That's why I look with the same eye people that believe in creationism and people who says that science can explain everything.
I hope that you seriously consider this mail, and not just drop it.
A friend
SUPPORT RRS:
That kind of faith is nothing more than Spackle, filling the crevices and cracks in our knowledge. Sadly, that kind of faith makes knowledge appear complete when in fact it is far from complete, retarding research and discovery of real answers.
We are afraid of the known and afraid of the unknown. That is our daily life and in that there is no hope, and therefore every form of philosophy, every form of theological concept, is merely an escape from the actual reality of what is. All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have failed completely to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society. - Thomas Jefferson
Ok, then HOW does Faith answer the "Why" ?
Do we need science to answer THIS?
Or, do we just need more faith?
"...no matter how pernicious it is; the cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas." ~ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
http://www.youtube.com/user/VETSAGAINSTMCCAIN
http://therealmccain.com/
WHY questions are pointless. They are simply vague ways of asking HOW and WHAT questions, and not all of those are valid. Why should I answer your e-mail? In that case, I'm asking WHAT benefits accrue by accomplishing the task. Why does DNA replicate? In that case, I'm asking two questions: HOW does DNA replicate; and, WHAT process led to DNA replication. If the English language did not have the word WHY, nothing would change except an increased precision in asking questions. You posit a distinction between WHY and HOW/WHAT but I fail to see how they could conceivably be distinct from one another. Your distinction is, as far as I can tell, complete gibberish. Since your argument in favor of theology depends on a valid distinction, your argument makes no sense.
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
Thanks for writing,
My response would be that faith can't explain why. Faith is having belief in an idea that hasn't been proven. So how could something that isen't proven to be factual in itself explain why something else is a fact. It doesen't make sense.
That's pretty basic.
On to the big-bang which you mentioned quite a lot throughout the passage.
Scientists know the big bang is factual it's just religion plays in to make it seem like it's not true, same with evolution.
(Weird how everything that defy's the bible must not be true.)
Sited from http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ if you want more information on that.
Thanks for writing in and hopefully I've changed your thought process, if not then.. good luck with that.
-Blake.
Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family. - Steven Colbert
wow. I sorta see where this person is coming from. I do understand what hes trying to say. But he said it himself. Religion TRIES to explain what is unknown up to that point in time. But also, religion also likes to explain HOW things happened as well. Not just WHY. Adam and Eve? God creating Earth and such? Ring any bells?
At that point in time? Isn't it meant to be infallible? If so, then it should be accurate.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
"This is the big point: faith tries to explain WHY the big bang happened, and why all the things in the world exist...to answer that kind of question the rationaility that applies to the real world simply does not hold anymore. "
It seems your scientifically irrelevant and logically fallacious premise, is that "because something (in this case, everything) exists, its MUST be the result of a conscious purpose" (preferably that of a "loving God" ).
This presumably stems from the refusal to accept its antithesis, the premise that "it was a coincidence; it JUST HAPPENED." But this is cannot be dismissed without evidence. To the contrary, arguments can be made to support it (sometime, check out "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger).
Further, even if faith explains(?) God's reasons behind the existence of everything, it does't explain WHY God exists or why God's existence matters; just as you can ask, "who created the creator?", you can ask "What is the purpose of God?"
Anyhow, apart from being illogical, the premise that "everything must have a purpose" is a tempting comfort to the human ego - what is your ego?
The ego is a paradox that exists as a result of evolution/natural selection. On one hand, animals increasingly evolved intelligence - the capacity to make decisions that would improve their odds forsurvival. On the other hand, they increasingly evolved the "will to live," because organisms that were indifferent to their own survival did not last.
But while both are important in themselves, they do not always compliment each other well. While intelligence, in itself, can grasp the proposition that "life just came into being, by coincidence," the will to live is an irrational drive that tends to reject this proposition. The "ego", in this case, is a corrupted thought process: the illogical need to believe, despite all evidence, in one's own intrinsic, externally-endowed importance.
Further, if "importance" must be derived from an external "purpose," then an intelligent creature is not "important" merely as a result of being an intelligent creature; therefore, there may be intelligent creatures that are devoid of any kind of "importance." I know what you're going to say, but entertain this scenario for a moment, and consider that there probably are people who believe it to be true - people who would say that "God had a purpose for ME, but not for YOU," etc. Thus, your implied assertion that "a creature's importance can only result from the intend purpose of a "higher" creator" becomes a justification for all kinds of atrocities, in the wrong hands and minds.
Scientists know the big bang is factual...
No, they don't. As the name of the website you cited (not sited, btw) indicates, it is a THEORY. If you don't know the difference between FACT and THEORY, please look it up. The odds of us being able to ever establish the Big Bang as fact are very small, unless we can travel back in time to directly observe it happening or replicate it. Hell, read the language you cite: reasonably certain, appear to be, as the Big Bang suggests, This is thought to be the remnant, are thought to support.
The above screams "we think" (or theory) as opposed to "we know" (aka fact).
While looking up fact, you may want to measure your comment :
My response would be that faith can't explain why. Faith is having belief in an idea that hasn't been proven. So how could something that isen't proven to be factual in itself explain why something else is a fact. It doesen't make sense.
against
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_holism
If you know, you don't think.
That logic is so bad I fear I will begin to bleed from the ear. The only statements of merit appear to be: I fail to see and as far as I can tell.
Maybe we should start with a definition of the word:
why
adverb, conjunction, noun, plural whys, interjection –adverb
Is your argument that the word "why" should cease to exist and be replaced with "for what reason, cause, or purpose?"
If you know, you don't think.
You obviously are clueless about science as you don't even know what a theory is in science (hint - it's very different from what it means to the general public.) A "theory" in science is a well estblished explanation that is not in doubt - gravity is a theory. Get a science education above 6th grade.
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
Richard Dawkins
I think I know what a theory is in physics, as I have been granted a degree in that field. Everything is "in doubt" to a scientist, who continues to think and question.
I guess Dr. Hawking is clueless, too:
"any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory". - A Brief History of Time
I assume you've at least heard of Stephen Hawking.
If you know, you don't think. You seem to think you know quite a bit.
I refer the writer of the e-mail (if he/she is reading this), and to anyone else interested in this topic, to my response to the e-mail in the OP. I have started a thread in the "Theist vs. Atheist" forum on the subject, which can also be considered a response to the e-mail above
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/14983
Hi Antonio. I deeply regret that you think this is an important concept, and fear that you've wasted time on it that could have been spent picking your ass.
But there are consequences of a supported theory which you can't just call into question cause you feel like it and the Big Bang definitely involves such consequences.
An example coming to mind is one used here recently: 'the speed of light'
You can call into question whether light actually has a 'speed' since 'speed' is a model of an empirical observation in the phenomenal universe made from the arbitrary posit of an inertial reference frame - you can call the existence of 'light' into question easily since light is merely one particular state of a fundamental property of the universe. However, you cannot just capriciously call into question that in the framework of an entity moving at speed through the universe, "lightspeed" has an observed constant value. The consequence of the theory of mechanics is the provision of a value transferable throughout the theory and beyond it. This kind of transferable, translatable information is the cornerstone of science and a damn good reason for people to stop abusing the word "theory" to their own ends.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
The local church has cancelled their Nativity play owing to an inability to find three wise men or a virgin in the group.
and a damn good reason for people to stop abusing the word "theory" to their own ends.
Yet if people misrepresent a theory as "fact", or "not in doubt", doesn't that facilitate the abuse by those who seek to discount it? It has been argued here that theories are "factual" and "not in doubt", both of which are incorrect. That is the sum of my issue. Do you argue that theories are factual or not in doubt?
"lightspeed" has an observed constant value.
Yet that value has changed as time passed.
Fizeau - 313,000 kps in 1849.
Foucault - 298,000 kps in 1862.
Michelson - 299,796 kps in 1926.
Essen - 299,792.5 kps in 1950.
The current value was determined in labs, so, given the tiny scale of the distance measured, relative to the speed, it would not be unreasonable to consider the possibility for error. Why is it that every era of scientists is dominated by people who believe that they have discovered ABSOLUTE TRUTH, when the thing scientists have most clearly proven over time is their fallibility?
No insult intended, but I tend to gauge a person's mastery of a topic in inverse proportion to the complexity of the explanation (an unfortunate result of a couple of decades in IT buzz-land). The best measure of one's mastery of a topic is the ability to explain it to someone who has minimal knowledge of the topic. The more complex the language, the more I suspect the person is trying to BS.
O, I see you have jokes. Congratulations! Do ensure, though, they do not stop up your big mouth.
My use of the term did not depart from what you cited, so what did you hope to accomplish by citing it?
I do not advocate a simple word replacement strategy—good attempt at caricaturing my position. If you read my post, you'll see that WHY questions often combine two questions and obscure one of them. Even when the question does not do so, the WHY phraseology often leads to ambiguity. Simply changing "why did you do X" to "for what reason did you do X" makes very little difference in clarity. I wouldn't recommend doing away with WHY just to replace it with FOR-WHAT, as that makes no significant difference. I would suggest doing away with WHY and actually unpacking and clarifying the questions.
Take this question for example: Why did you behave so badly? This packs several questions into one. Does it ask about the emotions of the person? The thought process? The things that lay behind the emotions or thought process? The justification? While it might ask about emotions, the child that hears it can easily interpret it to mean you want to hear a rational justification. The child, unable to provide one, then lowers his or her head in despair. (Look at me when I talk to you. Answer the question!) The child feels like crud. I'm sure many of us have been in that situation, and it always follows the WHY question, doesn't it? If you actually do respond to the question, you rarely answer it, instead trying to deflect blame: but mom, sissy did X! (You're responsible for your own actions, Johnny!) The WHY question can easily cause problems. This wouldn't happen if parents unpacked their questions and presented them clearly. What did you feel that made you want to do that? Who or what caused those feelings? What did Z do? What made Z want to do that? The child will easily follow along, not perceiving any need to justify, rationalize, or deflect blame. You can quickly get to the heart of the problem and solve it, without raising the tension between family members.
One can often present WHY questions more concisely, but one should practice caution, lest one should unknowingly obscure one's meaning from others or even oneself. I don't think the increased concision offsets the detriments that go with WHY phraseology. I would prefer that WHY phraseology were dropped from the English language.
If you wish to respond, do so by posting an examination of my reasoning and the flaws you think you see in it. Your earlier response contained no reasoning at all. I have no interest in your pathetic aspersions, caricatures, and rhetorical ploys.
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
In the sense that the OP has presented "why", is WHY it is pointless. Philosophically, drop the why. Only the "how" can shed light on the "why" .... ((( if the why could/can even be "enlightened", as every helpful How answer leads to the same wasteful Why question.
The ridiculous war between man and his god, called "WHY". Make war on why , not g-awe-d, as meaning cosmos eternal existence reality ....
I take it anon is a theist because he's being completely injudicious.
Yes the website I sited says it's a theory, a theory doesen't mean it isen't factual.
Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit.
Remember, Jesus would rather constantly shame gays than let orphans have a family. - Steven Colbert
"anon" has a degree in physics and 20 years in IT development, analysis, and project management, with a bit of requirements elicitation ("what do you need", frequently clarified by "why do you need it" ) and quality management (what do you do, how can you do it better) thrown in. How 'bout you?
I never said it couldn't be factual, just that it couldn't be proven. So did Stephen Hawking (see previous post).
If you know, you don't think.
I do not advocate a simple word replacement strategy—good attempt at caricaturing my position. If you read my post, you'll see that WHY questions often combine two questions and obscure one of them. Even when the question does not do so, the WHY phraseology often leads to ambiguity. Simply changing "why did you do X" to "for what reason did you do X" makes very little difference in clarity. I wouldn't recommend doing away with WHY just to replace it with FOR-WHAT, as that makes no significant difference. I would suggest doing away with WHY and actually unpacking and clarifying the questions.
One can often present WHY questions more concisely, but one should practice caution, lest one should unknowingly obscure one's meaning from others or even oneself. I don't think the increased concision offsets the detriments that go with WHY phraseology. I would prefer that WHY phraseology were dropped from the English language.
A poorly phrased or directed "why" is worthless. Any poorly phrased or directed question is worthless. I'm evaluating the value of "why" from a scientific and profession stance. You do not discard something because it is ill suited to one of many tasks. ( I can't drive finishing nails with this sledgehammer, so I should throw it away.)
"Why not E=mc3?"
Because any simple experiment will show that energy does not behave thusly. E=mc2 is accepted as fact because it has been proven time and again that energy does behave in that manner. Go study some physics.
Why do we have thunder? Because god is bowling.
You can make up whatever stories you want for your whys, but don't tell me I have to accept them. If you want me to take something you say seriously back it up with proof.
"I am that I am." - Proof that the writers of the bible got stoned.
Anonymous, you pretend to engage in an evaluation of the scientific merit of WHY-formulated questions. Where might I find the fruits of your imaginary labor? You've put forward no evaluation, nor evaluative reasoning. Of course poorly worded questions have little worth. That was not my point. I argued that WHY-formulated attempts at inquiry serve no purpose of their own, existing as a clumsy redundancy of other formulations. You simply cannot find a WHY-formulated question that cannot be worded as a WHAT or HOW question; none exist.
[ Sodom and Homosexuality | The Classic Ontological Argument ]
You seem to have deep-seated psychological issues attached to the word "why". You really should deal with that. Enjoy your little play-logic game. My co-workers are laughing at me for trying to have a rational conversation with you, so I'm outta here.
I don't know, it seems to me it would be easier to latch on to an admission of doubt if you want to discount the epistemic value of an activity. Of course I agree that it's not right to declare absolute certainty, but isn't it better to simply say that if a person is ill-equipped to grasp what certainty you can have then they should just leave it alone, don't attack it on on the grounds of a prudently chosen word.
Well I'd argue that scientific theories generally are not to be doubted in what they are, coherent reasoning thrown into doubt is strange and should be approached with some caution, don't you think? I guess I have no quarrel with you, though, because don't argue that theories are factual only that supported theories present important information to us which we would be hard-pressed to have the privilege of using without them.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
The local church has cancelled their Nativity play owing to an inability to find three wise men or a virgin in the group.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
On the other hand, if you deny the possibility of any error in the theory, you've put yourself in an all or nothing position. Present it as indisputable fact, and any error destroys your credibility. If I admit that the theory is the most likely explanation, based on available information, I allow myself the option of revising the theory if new information is discovered. If someone wants to challenge the validity of any position, they can. Their argument may be ridiculous, and the masses may believe it, but all you can control is you. If you want to influence people, demonstrate that you know what you're talking about, without insulting them, and, eventually, they'll probably start listening. Of course, if a person refuses to even consider other points of view, they're probably not worth the effort.
Thank you for your response, and I've enjoyed discussing this with you.
If you know, you don't think.