1. Comment #81360 by mknasty on October 24, 2007 at 4:13 pm

The truth is that science can't tell us why we're here or what the meaning of our lives is, but that doesn't mean that we should make things up to try to understand why we're here or give our lives meaning.

Other Comments by mknasty

2. Comment #81366 by quicksilver on October 24, 2007 at 4:17 pm

Developing equipment or methods to explain or postulate why we're here could be helpful.

Other Comments by quicksilver

3. Comment #81395 by scroipt on October 24, 2007 at 4:53 pm

Everything has and will come to be by a method. The how question is simply the search for that method. One could assume that everything happens for a reason, the search for which is the why, though this simply an assumption.
This does not mean that nothing has a reason, it simply means that the reason things happen is a much higher-level concept than method with which things happen. It is a concept that makes sense in the context of the intricate workings of the individual human brain, not in the context of the fundamental workings of nature.
Questions of reason cannot be answered by science (yet), as there is no scientific context within which the concept of meaning makes sense.

Other Comments by scroipt

4. Comment #81403 by Robert Maynard on October 24, 2007 at 5:04 pm

"Why" questions presuppose purpose.

It is an imposition to tell someone what they should be doing with their life. A universally applicable, non-imposing 'meaning of life' would be too abstract (and intuitive) to warrant even declaring it.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

5. Comment #81407 by aquilacane on October 24, 2007 at 5:07 pm

The overwhelming problem with trying to answer the "why" questions of life is the complete lack of intent on the part of life to exist. To be able to answer the questions—why are we here, or what is the meaning of life—one must first establish intent, or desire on the part of some entity to give us meaning. Meaning and reason are abstract variables in the universe that are limited to living beings only. They are questions of intent and not actual tangible qualities.

Unless one is able to prove that there is intelligence behind our existence, a will for us to be, one cannot even begin to ask the questions why, or what is our meaning. So, basically, science can't answer what does not exist. Without the proof of an intelligent creator with a desired intent, there can be no why question. There is no meaning behind happenstance; there is no reason (intended reason) why happenstance happens. There is merely a cascade of events that play off one another in a cause and effect relationship. All things are purely mathematical in their nature, and perfectly logical in their behaviour without purpose.

Trying to answer these questions is like trying to answer the question—"what is the meaning of the colour orange, or oxygen."

What the religious need to realize, is that even though there may be no purpose for them to exist, that doesn't mean they can't create one for themselves (which they have, whether they realize it or not).

Other Comments by aquilacane

6. Comment #81418 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 5:32 pm

Teleological ad nauseam. Read some Camus and get over it.

Other Comments by maton100

7. Comment #81481 by prettygoodformonkeys on October 24, 2007 at 8:12 pm

4. Comment #81403 by Robert Maynard

"Why" questions presuppose purpose.

This is exactly it; we shouldn't retreat from the purposelessness(sic) of evolution by being drawn into a discussion of 'morality'. We shouldn't be embarrassed by this evidence.

This is it, folks, we're doing pretty good for monkeys. Shouldn't the monkeys be getting along, and not fighting over what the EVEN STUPIDER monkeys fought over, four thousand years ago?

(If you argue with an idiot, first he drags you down to his level, then he beats you with experience. No one to blame but yourself.)

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

8. Comment #81488 by mrmatt on October 24, 2007 at 8:25 pm

Science DOES answer why questions.

Why does a hawk fly, but not an emu?
ans: specific, inherited evolutionary traits that were favoured.

Why does the moon orbit the earth?
ans: gravitational pull

...and so on.

The scientific answers are based on observation and evidence, and FALSIFIABILITY.

Religions may offer answers, but they are easy and cheap answers, and ensure that the truth about the world is superceded by the truth of their false, unproven dogma.

Other Comments by mrmatt

9. Comment #81498 by sent2null on October 24, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Just by chance, my older brother (who is still wallowing in faith but I am working on him..he's smart enough to get the truth) made the mistake of presenting this argument to me. In an email exchange I provided the following answers:

[His opening letter]
A professor of mine in undergrad put it well. He had one Ph.D. in theology and another in physics. He said that science gives the how. Religion gives the why. The conflict only appears, when religion tries to explain how things happen and scientist try to explain why.

[My response]

Well since you opened the can...


All lines of scientific inquiry start with "why", the how is what evolves in the attempt to answer the original why question.

eg.

Why do objects fall to the earth when dropped?

Why is the sky blue?

Why do fish have gills?

All of these questions at one time didn't have an answer that could be definitively and empirically determined UNTIL someone investigated those things scientifically and determined the how. Once done , the previous "why" question became moot. Sure, new "why" questions may bubble up further down the line but it is important to note that those new questions have less and less relevance to the importance of the preceding answers to our world. For example, by answering "why do objects fall to the earth when dropped?" Gravity, the scientists that worked out the "how" of it's workings were then able to come up with detailed rules to allow us to control the behavior of objects under the control of any gravitational field , be it on the Earth or on the moon or else where. The veil of mystery was peeled back quite a bit, by showing how gravity attracts objects to earth (and generally any matter) still begs a deeper "why" of why does the Earth have gravity? Scientists (most notably Albert Einstein) have posited answers for this question as well but it's relevance to our daily living is essentially nill compared to the answers that came from answering the first "why" question. An astute observer though will notice a pattern, that as science conquers lesser "why" questions and replaces them with "how" answers, the newer "why" questions are less material or immediate to the workings of our daily lives. The answers for why objects fall has been used to great effect in our kinematics, ballistics and propulsion technologies that run our modern world, where as even if we knew "why" The Earth has gravity, there is little in which that knowledge can be useful to us at our current state of technological development. Similar examinations of the other questions reveal the same thing, science is instrumental in pushing back the veil of the "why" questions that can be asked from the realm of the physical and important to the realm of the metaphysical and irrelevant. I assert this by example of the previous questions but you can find it to be true by examining closely any series of "why" questions of a given topic that can be subsequently investigated to determine empirical veracity. Now, one can choose to argue with the claim that the more metaphysical questions are "irrelevant" but in the context of the only way in which we can judge (by empirical experience) that is the only conclusion that presents itself as illustrated above. I'll be willing to amend my statement if some new method of examining any concept under discussion can be found that does not presage forming an opinion on empirical experience. In fact this is a loaded challenge, the only other way to investigate the ideas is through empirically devoid supposition and adherence to faith which make any "conclusions" drawn as relevant to the truth of the matter as discussing the hypothetical strength of fictional super heroes. The argument can be won or lost but to no avail or import to the real world, as the super heroes still are fictional.
So it appears that empirical analysis serves as the only instrument that allows us to repeal the power of "why" questions by providing "how" answers that can materially impact our lives, this opens the stage for more metaphysical "why" questions , but these questions are less relevant to our lives and sometimes undeserving of our immediate consideration entirely ....that is until our desire to live in the ways we wish is encumbered by us NOT knowing the answer to the latest "why" question. *wink*

[His second response(note he switched my original why questions into how questions as if to indicate that the questions were really how questions not "why" ones...which was really lame)..]

Not exactly...

HOW do objects fall to the earth when dropped?

HOW is the sky color blue?

HOW do fish use their gills?

[my second response:]

The original claim was that "why" questions are supposedly "answered" in the domain of non scientific or metaphysics investigation (as embodied by Religions) where as "how" questions are answered by science. I showed clearly that "why" usually forms the first question asked of any scientific inquiry and then is quickly followed by how answers to those why questions. You are free to disagree with me and others on what question we ask first when investigating the world but I don't think that would be a good tactic for you to take in making your point. Are you doubting that before the "how" question is asked that the "why" question can be asked first? In my experience "why" is what I and many scientists want the answer to but we extract how answers from it by extracting the truth from the originating question using empirical analysis. This reduces the scope of the subsequent "why" questions relevance to the world and there for it's significance to our lives. The point of my over all argument is that as you provide the "how" answer to a "why" question you make the next "why" question increasingly irelevant to our reality. It may be fun to know that some questions can not currently be answered, but to a scientist if those questions have no material import asking them in the first place is a waste of time. (see super hero analogy)

Other Comments by sent2null

10. Comment #81545 by lukerazor on October 24, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Before I answer this question you will first have to prove to me the question is even valid.

My assumption would be that life has no "meaning" other than what we invest in it.

Other Comments by lukerazor

11. Comment #81551 by Diacanu on October 24, 2007 at 10:40 pm

Funny, I never desired, much less sought some cosmic central "meaning", to my existence.
The things that make me happy have always been enough.
Have never gotten why it wasn't supposed to be enough.
And what if I heard the meaning, and it was stupid?
Like 42, y'know?
Or what if it was awful?
Or just something I plain disagreed with?
Like, we're all supposed to get into ballet?
Like not just into, but everyone has to totally rigidly conform to it?
Um, no, I hate ballet, and I'd hate doing it even more. I'd have to rebel against that meaning, and find my own meaning anyway.
So, the big cosmic meaning is meaningless.
Has no appeal to me.



Other Comments by Diacanu

12. Comment #81592 by donn on October 25, 2007 at 12:01 am

What the heck, another reply by poem:

~ Why ~

How does religion
answer why?
We can ask this question
because we try
by degrees to
do, not die.
To find conclusion
ask, don't lie.
Invert the meme:
Why does religion
answer how?
Does this make any
sense right now?
In the end, it's
only us
asking why, how
and thus.

/d

Other Comments by donn

13. Comment #81615 by Conrad on October 25, 2007 at 1:13 am

Even if I did conciede that science didn't answer "why" questions, we still have no way of knowing which religion actually answers the "why" questions correctly. Thus, it's possible we may be worse off with the wrong answer than with no answer at all. Suppse the answer you're given is that you must engage in self flagellation for every "impure" thought.

Yet I'm not even going to go that far. Meaning is placed upon life by the one living, (I could state the meaning of your life is to do my dishes, but you may not want that. So it is with everyone who attempts to give you your meaning for you. You may like or dislike the suggestions, but at no point is the meaning you're given the one you've given yourself) leaving this question dead in the water, by begging the very question that it is trying to assert.

Other Comments by Conrad

14. Comment #81643 by infidel_michael on October 25, 2007 at 1:48 am

Science cannot answer the question whether we are alone in the universe, or not. But Steven Spielberg answered this question in "Independence Day". You see? Science is "limited" by logic and evidence, but science fiction isn't! Science fiction can give you answers which science cannot. Does it mean that science fiction is something "more" than science?
Of course not, science gives you answer + evidence. Science fiction or religion only answer. Giving evidence is something additional, extra, not something what limits your view.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

15. Comment #81663 by GBG on October 25, 2007 at 2:28 am

Science can very much tell us why we are here. Our purpose is no different than the beetle or the field mouse, Try to stay alive and have some babies.

Other Comments by GBG

16. Comment #81670 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 2:45 am

ME: Here's a why question for you, my friendly neighbourhood theist. Why must there be an ultimate meaning or purpose to our lives?
THEIST: Because there must be!
ME: But why?
THEIST: Well, this can't be all there is!
ME: Why not?
THEIST: Because there must be more to life than this!
ME: But why?
THEIST: Because there just must be!
...and so an ad infinitum.

Does religion really provide an adequate answer to this "why" question, or isn't the only real answer that dying isn't a very fun thing to do and religious people like to think that there's something on the other side of it to make it worth all the bother. If they only had the courage to realise it, they'd see that there are many things which make death worthwhile, but there all on this side of the divide, rather than the other.

Other Comments by oisha

17. Comment #81671 by epeeist on October 25, 2007 at 2:49 am

It must be Thursday. Thursday is the day I operate in Winnie the Pooh mode (bear of very little brain and long words bother me).

It seems to me that both religion and naturalism can ask why questions and both can give answers. The question then is, how valid are the answers?

Other Comments by epeeist

18. Comment #81680 by monkey74 on October 25, 2007 at 3:06 am

After science begins to reveal the how answers, we as human beings have to answer the why questions on our own. The conclusion that we arrive at will be the best choice we can propose at that given time. Just as a child learns as it grows, we work by trial and error. Knowledge and wisdom reshape and improve themselves. Humanity has to accept responsibility for the social state of the world and learn that we cannot take life for granted. I can only hope that we will grow out of the immature adolescent stage we are in now.

Other Comments by monkey74

19. Comment #81691 by LeeC on October 25, 2007 at 3:37 am

Science answers the "how" questions – I am glad we can all agree on this, but who said the universe should have a "why" answer?

However, let not fall into the trap with the theist with this type of question on "why" - since religion does not answer either "how" or "why".

Answering a "how" question with only an unknown is an empty and meaningless answer. Unless God can be first explained, any answer involving "God did it" is useless, and creates more questions than answers. (Who made God? What was there before God? What is God? What are the limits of God? etc etc)

And if a theist claims religion answers the "why" questions, then try these:-

Why did God create the universe?
Why did God create such a large universe?
Why did God create man?
Why did God create evil?
Why does God allow suffering?
Why does God require worship?
etc etc

The best you might hear is "It is God's will" or "Who am I to explain the mind of God" and any other such rubbish.

Oh, and lets not forget my favourite:-

Why is there no evidence for any miracles described in any holy book attributed to God?

So, religion can only answer "how" questions with an even greater unknown (i.e. God) and cannot answer even simple "why" questions relating to God and the universe.

Stick with science… it works, and if you do not believe me – test it yourself.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

20. Comment #81716 by Conjuror on October 25, 2007 at 4:58 am

What proof is there that life has a meaning other than what we invest in it?

Other Comments by Conjuror

21. Comment #81722 by BillySands on October 25, 2007 at 5:18 am

In a way, science can tell us why we are here and the route we took getting here - big bang, natural selection and evolution. Understanding the randomness of the events driving evolution (mutation, climate change, geographical isolation - and many more) and the non random (but impartial) nature of natural selection, strongly imply no higher purpose to being here - reproduction is what we are here to do.

The second point is that to ask why in the sense the religious mean, pre supposes a higher purpose. They can not demonstrate that one exists - as mentioned above, science shows one probably doesn't exist. Therefore until such times as they can demonstrate a purpose, their question is meaningless

Other Comments by BillySands

22. Comment #81749 by dsainty on October 25, 2007 at 6:02 am

Science, the search for knowledge, can not only answer "how" questions, it can also help us determine which questions we are in a position to answer. The quest is for truth.

Religion can answer "why" questions because religion, any religion, is unencumbered with concerns of truth. Religion gives answers to the questions science refuses to, because religion deals in the realms of fantasy - where any answer will do, and any answer will be believed.

Other Comments by dsainty

23. Comment #81752 by Philip1978 on October 25, 2007 at 6:06 am

Why? 42! NEXT!





Other Comments by Philip1978

24. Comment #81761 by infidel_michael on October 25, 2007 at 6:24 am

"Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions"

Tips for quick responses:

- Which religion? How can you distinguish true answer from fantasy?

- I can give you thousands of answers to "why" questions, just don't want any evidence from me ..

- Giving answers without any possibility to verify them doesn't make sense. It is so, because these answers can be arbitrary - and that's why there are so many different, mutually incompatible religious answers.

Other Comments by infidel_michael

25. Comment #81805 by bitbutter on October 25, 2007 at 8:07 am

Science can't tell us why we're here or what is the meaning of our lives.

It's important to notice that some of the questions that science cannot answer are the wrong questions. For instance "why are we here?"

The question isn't wrong in the sense that it's impolite to ask because science can't answer it. The question is wrong because it makes some assumptions that aren't warranted.

'Why' is generally only an appropriate opening to a question if an agent (a person or thing that acts or has the power to act) is assumed to be responsible for the situation: "why did Jack leave his bike there?"

'Why' questions presuppose an agent unless they are actually 'how', or 'how come' questions in disguise. An example would be "why is the sky blue?" This question actually gets answered as though it had been "how come the sky is blue?".

Science is silent about the god-assuming question: "why are we here?" But if we instead ask "how did we come to be here?" then science fills libraries with its answer which becomes increasingly detailed and accurate for each generation that asks it.

(taken from my answer at http://tinyurl.com/2oz4eb, i think there are other good answers on this page too)

Other Comments by bitbutter

26. Comment #81806 by irate_atheist on October 25, 2007 at 8:09 am

Stock reply -

"I don't see that Religion answers any questions at all."

Other Comments by irate_atheist

27. Comment #81829 by thirdchimpanzee on October 25, 2007 at 8:44 am

Who says science doesn't answer "why" questions? For example,

Why is the half-life of Carbon-14 approximately 6,000 years?

I'm not saying we have come up with a definitive answer, and what answers we are turning up necessarily involve deep matters of sub-atomic physics, but this is a legitimate "why" question.

The same holds for more obvious "why" questions such as Hitchin's "why do I give blood?". I think its been a huge mistake to concede any ground here.

I understand that the religious version of a "why" question regarding the Carbon-14 half-life would be:

What is the purpose of Carbon-14 having a half-life of 6000 years?

The obvious answer is to mess with Genesis, but the real problem is that the second question uses a very narrow definition of "why" - which translates to "what is the purpose". If that is the intent, then the dilemma should be rephrased to read:

Science can answer how and why questions, only Religion can answer purpose questions

I think this formulation is more accurate, but has far less zing to it!

An increasingly familiar tactic of the right wing in the US is to take common words like "liberal" and burden them with such connotations that they cannot be used with their original meaning. This happens naturally over time in any language, but the last few decades have witnessed a very determined effort to "politicise" language. We should not let that happen to the word "Why", which is, in fact, central to scientific inquiry.

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

28. Comment #81845 by oisha on October 25, 2007 at 9:18 am

Though it's something of an unrelated note, I thought you'd be interested to know, thirdchimpanzee, that the right-wing here in Australia ARE the Liberal (capital 'L') Government - presently under John Howard with all his stone-age policies of mandatory detention towards asylum seekers (with its associated human rights violations), refusal to allow gay marriages etc. And the SOCIAL liberals (little 'l') are the left-wing Labour Party and various minor parties such as the Greens (who are not necessarily economic liberals).

How the pendulum swings ...and how confusing it becomes keeping track of all the varied meanings aross the world.

Other Comments by oisha

29. Comment #81848 by thirdchimpanzee on October 25, 2007 at 9:31 am

Thanks for the reminder oisha, and before any other Canadian makes the observation, the traditionally dominant Canadian Liberal party occupies the political centre. Well, at least I haven't seen a left wing Conservative Party (although Joe Clark's 1980's Tories in Canada would have passed muster as liberal Democrats in the US).

Of course, left-wing and right-wing refer to French revolutionary days - if you have one of those fancy new horseshoe shaped legislatures, what terms do you use instead?

Other Comments by thirdchimpanzee

30. Comment #81870 by bamafreethinker on October 25, 2007 at 10:23 am

This is a great little article dealing with the meaning of life. I read it every now and then for inspiration.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/augustine1.html

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

31. Comment #81887 by Steven Mading on October 25, 2007 at 11:00 am

Here's the response I'd give:

"How" and "why" are very similar questions, But the one real way in which they differ is that "why" is asking about motive instead of method. "Why" is asking what the INTENT was. Therefore, if you are in a debate about whether or not god exists then the moment you even ASK the question "why instead of how" the universe is the way it is, you have already generated a circular argument - because the very question, the way you are asking it, ASSUMES some sentience made things the way they are on purpose. If you want to debate honestly, then FIRST you have to establish the sentient designer existing, and THEN you can act as if the inability to answer "why" is some kind of a weakness or deficiency. If you haven't established the sentient designer yet, then the question "why" the universe is like it is is completely meaningless.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

32. Comment #81898 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 11:22 am

"Science can answer how questions but only religion can answer why questions"

Why do planets orbit the sun? Science answered with gravity. QED.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

33. Comment #81901 by Bonzai on October 25, 2007 at 11:25 am

Religion answers neither the how nor the why.

Other Comments by Bonzai

34. Comment #81918 by Bonzai on October 25, 2007 at 11:47 am

Religious apologists apparently try to spin the utter ineptitude of religion in answering "how" into a credential for answering "why".

So if you are proven to be no good on books it follows that you must be talented in sport even though no one has seen you play any sport.

Other Comments by Bonzai

35. Comment #82050 by Mewtwo_X on October 25, 2007 at 3:36 pm

"Philosophy also can answer why questions. Atheists use philosophy over religion."

Other Comments by Mewtwo_X

36. Comment #82052 by NormanDoering on October 25, 2007 at 3:38 pm

I like Steven Mading's answer. He hits the basic points in the least words.

Even more condensed:

"How" and "why" ...way - they differ is that "why" is asking about motive instead of method. "Why" is asking what the INTENT was. ... in a debate about whether or not god exists then the moment you - ASK the question "why instead of how" the universe is the way it is, you have already generated a circular argument - ... very question... ASSUMES some sentience made things the way they are on purpose. ... to debate honestly, - FIRST you have to establish the sentient designer existing, and THEN you can act as if the inability to answer "why" is some kind of a weakness or deficiency. ...

There's another, more subtle, point to add to this because another assumption hidden in that question is the assumption that "intents," "purposes" and "motives" don't have "how" answers.

The hows and "whys" of why we have desires, intentions and motives are assumed by those of us with naturalistic beliefs to be rooted in biology, physics and the hows of the universe's workings. It's the root of most of neuroscience.

Other Comments by NormanDoering

37. Comment #82110 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Mewtwo X-
"Philosophy also can answer why questions. Atheists use philosophy over religion."

Indeed.
That's all religion really is, is a crappy primitive stab at philosophy.



Other Comments by Diacanu

38. Comment #82191 by kurtdenke on October 25, 2007 at 8:30 pm

"Only religion can answer 'why' questions."

I can agree with that one, actually. Example:

Q. Why are people so *&#%^% stupid?

A. Religion.

Other Comments by kurtdenke

39. Comment #82243 by EastCoastAtheist on October 25, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Science answers 'how' questions.

Religion answers 'why' questions for the intellectually dishonest and lazy.

Of course scientists can't tell you what the meaning of your life is! If you want to know the real meaning of your life, you'll have to go find it yourself. Take some responsibility!

Other Comments by EastCoastAtheist

40. Comment #82244 by Diacanu on October 25, 2007 at 11:32 pm

The meaning of your life is to gimme all your money!!

Hurry, or the sky spook will kill me!!



Other Comments by Diacanu

41. Comment #82397 by sent2null on October 26, 2007 at 8:21 am

LOL, "sky spook"! I tend to use "cosmic puppet master" myself but I like the ring of your term as well!

Regards,

Other Comments by sent2null

42. Comment #82466 by slowe on October 26, 2007 at 11:51 am

"Why?".... this is a trick question and a trap. If you accept the question, you accept its premise that there is a Why, and therefore a purpose and therefore an intent, and therefore an intentional agent, i.e. God ! Got'cha!

Because humans perceive themselves as intentional agents, they attribute agency to many things, especially those things they don't understand. [the Rain god and the fire god, of antiquity, and the god of today that can intervene and cure cancer, etc. ] This fallacy creates the question in the mind of many humans who insist there must be a "why", a purpose, a reason to be alive, a reason to exist. We should turn to science (psychology, sociology, etc.) to tell us why do so many humans think or feel this way. How is it that many, if not most humans, think there is a god? Why is there religion or theism? Once science can explain this, we will be a long way to curing the fallacious presumption that there is a "why" to our existance.

Other Comments by slowe

43. Comment #82472 by Erik on October 26, 2007 at 12:11 pm

LeeC nailed it. If the question "What is the purpose of our existence?" is a valid question, then the question "Why does God exist?" is also valid. You quickly discover this is an infinite regression, i.e., a variant of the First Cause argument.

Other Comments by Erik

44. Comment #82484 by hopeful on October 26, 2007 at 12:38 pm

I think the distinction between "why" and "how", in the sense used here, is contrived to allow religion to claim some intellectual territory.

Increasing scientific knowledge in more and more subjects is steadily eroding the supposed intellectual domain of religion. For example that old chestnut morality is being increasingly shown by evidence (what many atheists would have intuited anyway) to be merely evolved animal behaviour. It is their final claim to authority and they will not let it go easily.

There is no "why" or "how":- there are only "questions", and science aims to find answers and gain understanding by rational methodology.

Other Comments by hopeful

45. Comment #82691 by jaf on October 27, 2007 at 8:51 am

I offer this (previously posted at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1361840.ece)



"What is life all about?" [or, if you prefer, 'Why are we here?']
It's not that no-one can find an answer, it's more that it isn't a valid question. Life isn't 'about' anything. It just is. It's a Monty Python sketch, without a punch-line. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Other Comments by jaf

46. Comment #82887 by david_mac on October 28, 2007 at 6:16 am

The first part of this statement is actually quite correct, science can not answer 'why' questions. At least not at the highest level.

We can make three distinctions in terms of levels of questioning: WHAT, HOW and WHY. Each of these can be further divided into levels of WHAT, HOW and WHY to give a 3x3 grid. We then get WHAT, HOW and WHY of WHAT...the WHAT, HOW and WHY of HOW and the WHAT, HOW and WHY of WHY.

So when it is argued that science can answer WHY questions ie: 'We know why hawks fly' we first have to consider at which level this WHY is being proposed. In this case it is probably a WHY of the HOW but that is very different from a WHY of the WHY. To answer that question as a WHY of the WHY we would need to know something of a specific hawks motivation.

WHY at the WHY level is about meaning and purpose and science can not answer that.

Religion attempts to answer that but just makes up stories to do so. The only real WHY at this level is the WHY that we as conscious beings create.

Science can tell us what and how but only we can provide why's.

Other Comments by david_mac

47. Comment #83048 by Corky on October 28, 2007 at 5:45 pm

"Science can't tell us why we're here or what is the meaning of our lives."

Who says there is a why? Probably to procreate, like any other creature on the planet. The meaning of our lives is what we make it, nothing more nothing less. We certainly are not here to serve a non-existent entity.

Other Comments by Corky

48. Comment #83052 by octopus on October 28, 2007 at 5:56 pm

If you know answer to "how", you can narrow down "why" and eliminate nonsense.
Religion does not answer anything, it only makes wild assumptions and forces everyone into those assumptions. You can happily dream without religion.

Other Comments by octopus

49. Comment #83125 by scooternyc on October 29, 2007 at 2:35 am

"Why questions deflect the ability to engage in reality and seek distraction to attempt manipulation. How questions seek understanding."

Other Comments by scooternyc

50. Comment #83148 by Corblimeyguv on October 29, 2007 at 4:28 am

I think my comment got lost. This comment has always got to me, even as a kid. Me to sunday school teacher, who also happened to be my cousin, and is a real fundy Xtian: "Why did got make to world"? Ans: "He was lonely and wanted company" (honest!). Me: "But why?". Ans: "We'll know when we get beyond the veil". In other words, he didn't have a clue. Science may not have all the answers (yet), but religion doesn't have any. Not one. Even the imaginary answers were very unsatisfying to me even as a kid. Here's a good one. If god is eternal and created the world in x number of days, x number of years ago, what was he doing the rest of the time? Tee hee.

Other Comments by Corblimeyguv