- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
30 Jun 10
It is sometimes said that science addresses 'how' questions and religion addresses 'why' questions. I doubt that the distinction between the types of question is so sharp in general, and in particular I doubt that the alignment of types to disciplines is quite so neat.
What do you think?
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by Lord Sharkscience is a religion and religion is corroborated by true science.
It is sometimes said that science addresses 'how' questions and religion addresses 'why' questions. I doubt that the distinction between the types of question is so sharp in general, and in particular I doubt that the alignment of types to disciplines is quite so neat.
What do you think?
30 Jun 10
Originally posted by Lord Shark'Why' implies an intelligence with motives. You cannot explain any 'why' unless you first assume the presence of a god or other intelligence who caused the phenomenon to occur for some reason.
It is sometimes said that science addresses 'how' questions and religion addresses 'why' questions. I doubt that the distinction between the types of question is so sharp in general, and in particular I doubt that the alignment of types to disciplines is quite so neat.
What do you think?
30 Jun 10
3 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatwould you care to elaborate- Avalanchdaputtycatgoobly gook aaaah
Or, to put it somewhat more rationally, I disagree with your provocative proposition sir, would you care to elaborate?
i was afraid of that! but since you asked,
(Romans 1:20) For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship. . .
thus when we make an examination of the physical world through observation (scientific method), we can draw inferences about the creator. We see that there is harmony and interdependence, a type of justice, beauty, creatures with inherent wisdom etc etc Thus our religious beliefs are corroborated by what we perceive in the natural world as a reflection of the one who created them.
As for science being a religion, it is true that many have put faith in it to solve many of the worlds problems, with the advance of, for example medical science and nano technology, things never before dreamt of are now possible. We hear and read of 'the miracles of science', or, 'the miracle of technology', and it has supplanted and receives a kind of reverence and awe formerly given to the creator. Is it not the case?
30 Jun 10
3 edits
Originally posted by Lord SharkI don't think the statement is true for either side to be honest, where and when the two words apply to distinct problems is a murky question but for those where it is clear I say the lure towards mysteries that science has dealt with could have easily been
It is sometimes said that science addresses 'how' questions and religion addresses 'why' questions. I doubt that the distinction between the types of question is so sharp in general, and in particular I doubt that the alignment of types to disciplines is quite so neat.
What do you think?
why does X happen and not Y?
as opposed to
how does X happen?.
Infact depending upon the type of scientist, I assert that in many cases "why" is sought and "how" is the nature by which "why" is deduced. Perhaps the end application of science to the real world deals more with how, and that is the domain of engineers (and this is by no means a statement to denigrate engineers!), I could of course be wrong though.
Conversely I fail to see how any "why" questions are resolved on the part of religion any less trivially than it is some God's will that X happens. As I understand it, in a naive sense they have dealt with a lot more how questions!
01 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Lord SharkHow some times addresses the why, look at how people view our universe's beginning.
It is sometimes said that science addresses 'how' questions and religion addresses 'why' questions. I doubt that the distinction between the types of question is so sharp in general, and in particular I doubt that the alignment of types to disciplines is quite so neat.
What do you think?
If they think the how does not involve God, god, or gods in the how it touches the why.
If they do believe in a God, god, or gods are a cause that too touches the why.
Kelly
01 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Lord SharkHave to say that it seems to make little sense to try to carve things up that way as has been pointed out.
It is sometimes said that science addresses 'how' questions and religion addresses 'why' questions. I doubt that the distinction between the types of question is so sharp in general, and in particular I doubt that the alignment of types to disciplines is quite so neat.
What do you think?
Plus it doesn't seem to apply at all to religions such as Buddhism or the Bahai Faith. Was this meant from a Christian perspective? By a Christian? That might help explain the lack of clarity of thought behind it.
The position of the Bahai Faith seems to be quite healthy and reasonable. Other religions would do well to adopt theirs.
From http://info.bahai.org/article-1-3-2-18.html:
If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.
Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism.
When religion, shorn of its superstitions, traditions, and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then will there be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles--and then will mankind be united in the power of the Love of God.
--'Abdu'l-Baha
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkI think you make a damn good point here. My respect is growing for you with every post.
It is sometimes said that science addresses 'how' questions and religion addresses 'why' questions. I doubt that the distinction between the types of question is so sharp in general, and in particular I doubt that the alignment of types to disciplines is quite so neat.
What do you think?
My take on this , albeit a bit left field, would be to ask: Do you think God is a "He" or a "What"?
(You dont have to answer that)
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkA 'why' question can never be fully answered. My son plays that game sometimes.
It is sometimes said that science addresses 'how' questions and religion addresses 'why' questions. I doubt that the distinction between the types of question is so sharp in general, and in particular I doubt that the alignment of types to disciplines is quite so neat.
What do you think?
Q. Why do things fall down?
A. Because of Gravity.
Q. Why does gravity pull things down.
A. Because thats the way it is.
Q. Why is it that way?
A. It just is.
What Christians do is pretend to have answered 'why' questions but they never really do. All their answers are really 'how' answers pretending to be 'why' answers. The age old 'goddunit' is a 'how' answer not a 'why' answer.
Q. Why is the universe here.
A. God made it. - a how answer.
Q. Why is there evil.
A. Story of Adam and Eve. - how answer.
etc
01 Jul 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadto twhitehead
A 'why' question can never be fully answered. My son plays that game sometimes.
Q. Why do things fall down?
A. Because of Gravity.
Q. Why does gravity pull things down.
A. Because thats the way it is.
Q. Why is it that way?
A. It just is.
What Christians do is pretend to have answered 'why' questions but they never really do. All their answers ar ...[text shortened]... how answer.
Q. Why is there evil.
A. Story of Adam and Eve. - how answer.
etc
You Look at things with a fault finding attitude, because you are envious of god, and you deny the very power thats responable for your existence.
Then because you deny god, you conclude you are a monkey, thats really scientific you must be gloating with pride monkey man.
You want to know how god created the universe and if god doesnt tell you you deny god, but you dont even know how man hairs are on you head.
vishva
01 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Lord SharkBoth questions can be raised in most matters. I can't think of any instances offhand to which only one is applicable. Perhaps it is possible to narrow enquiry so as to exclusively focus on one aspect of some topic, bracketing off other aspects for convenience.
It is sometimes said that science addresses 'how' questions and religion addresses 'why' questions. I doubt that the distinction between the types of question is so sharp in general, and in particular I doubt that the alignment of types to disciplines is quite so neat.
What do you think?
Why do you suppose this false dichotomy is so prevalent? How did it come to be so? What's the difference between these two questions?