Bored.com, mostly.
Sure, but he did use the typical “You guys are making me a martyr-y” as soon as his second post. That’s got to be worth some ponits back at the seminary.
-Joe
Why does there have to be a ‘why.’ We are here. End of story. Why does gravity work? It just does.
Notice I don’t say ‘how.’ ‘How’ is science’s turf. ‘Why’ is wankery.
Before you say or ask anything about “why”, you’d have to tell me what you mean by “why” with relation to the natural world (that is, how the question of “why” applies to anything that doesn’t involve an intent/intelligence), and therefore why you’d expect there to be an answer to the question of “why” at all.
Yes, sexual reproduction is well understood.
Why are you here? Alcohol mixed with ovulating, I’m guessing.
To be fair, I think most of us are here because mom wouldn’t do anal.
-Joe
:dubious: So it isn’t within the realm of science to inquire why large objects attract other objects. Einstein and Hawking wasted a lot of damn time then.
That would be the how.
If you were the only survivor of a plane crash you wouldn’t be able to help wondering why you, even if there isn’t an answer.
This board seems to be teeming with those willing to dance of the grave of religion but science has no moral compass of it’s own, and although possibilities are endlessly intriguing science itself can never guide us in what we should or should not pursue. Someone will come along now and tell me religions tenets are only adhered to according to social custom and there is no concrete divinely mandated truth. But I’d say that if there is value at all to tradition it is to temper progress which can be dangerous as well.
Maybe, but they didn’t answer that question anyway.
Speak for yourself, please.
And if there’s any value at all to progress it’s that it reduces tradition, which can also be dangerous. We can both play this game and we won’t get anywhere.
Science, in itself, doesn’t give us the basis for our morals - we’ll pretty much have to do with our innate senses of justice and empathy as the basis - but science certainly can inform us of the consequences of our choices, which is quite a lot more than can be said about tradition or religion.
Newton described what happened with gravity. Einstein explained it. I’m not aware that Einstein considered why masses attract each other, except in that it is because of the way spacetime works.
Sure. And as humans we make up answers. But we should have the humility to know that random events don’t imply some specialness on our part.
Philosophy fills this need quite well, without special appeals to deities who see it our way. As years go by, the development of better ethics has helped us to mature as a species. Religion, not so much, except when influenced by secular ethical advances. If morals really come from a god, why would they change with time?
Stop saying religious folk, when you mean the lunatic fringes!
Science and religion can and do coexist in the majority of people in the western world today. America seems to be full of lunatic religious folk who believe in creation, in most sane countries we don’t see it that way. Maybe separating the state and religion causes more people to have loony ideas?
Science is valid in explaining the physical world, beyond that not so good.
It’s also the why:
Why are we here? Because our parents had sex and conceived. It’s certainly not due to a large stork network.
“Why” doesn’t have to point to something mystical or some deep meaning. There is, after all, cause and effect.
Why do I work? To make money to pay my bills. There’s nothing deep about that.
Why is overloaded. If your teenager screams to you “Why was I born?!” saying to her “well one day, mommy and daddy went to bed and …” is not going to help.
Sorry dude, the question is “Why does the universe exist?”
Well there was this big bang thing and then…
Why did the big bang happen?
doh…
He had a headache.
This is a very old and completely ridiculous argument. Is there something other than the physical world? Do you have any evidence of it? Cuz all of the non-physical things that have been suggested so far throughout history, like souls, heaven, magic, etc, don’t seem to have any really solid evidence behind them, just a lot of conjecture and wishful thinking.
But suppose for a minute that we did have actual observational evidence of, let’s say, the soul. Guess what? It instantly becomes part of ‘the physical world’. In order for something to have any effect on this universe it has to interact with it, making that thing in some way part of this universe. As soon as we can observe it, it belongs to science. From what I’ve able to gather based on the way it is used, the phrase ‘beyond the physical world’ means ‘if this idea is critically examined in any way, it will fall apart like the house of cards it is, so I will simply declare that it can’t be examined, so there’.
This is called ‘begging the question’. It’s like asking ‘So if there is no god, who created the universe?’ It assumes the answer as part of the question. Why does the universe have to have a purpose in existing? Nothing says there has to be a why. It can simply be. It isn’t a question science needs to answer. The big bang is not the answer to why the universe is here, it’s another how. Why implies purpose, meaning, intent. Until you have a reason to assume that the universe is here for some reason, there’s no reason to assume that the universe is here for some reason.
I think you misunderstand me. Trying to figure out ‘how’ it happens that large objects attract other objects was not a waste of Einstein and Hawking’s time to try to figure out. What are the mechanics behind it … what is the explanation for how it works the way it works? But there isn’t an end reason for gravity’s existence. There isn’t a purpose for gravity working. It just works and we deal with it. Physical laws just are … there isn’t a goal to them. That’s the ‘why’ I’m referring to.
MK Ultra was science without morals, Zyklon B testing was education without morals. Bullshit, science can only tell us what we can do. And to worship its goals is folly.
Which part of the text you quoted are you disagreeing with? Hell Zyklon B (testing, what testing? We knew it was an effective killing agent) quite certainly informed us of the consequences of our choices. You use it, people die. MK Ultra taught us that drugs are bad, mmkay?
Religion has been in the Why business for thousands of years and still hasn’t answered the question, unless you consider “Because God said so” an answer. Even on its own declared turf, religion can’t seem to deliver. And telling people to be decent to each other or else a powerful giant will punish them isn’t morality. This is how you teach a two year old while you’re waiting for their brain to develop so you can give them a better answer.
Improved standards of living due to industrialization are bringing stability to the world where thousands of years of religion couldn’t.
Indeed, the answers aren’t answers at all. You can still ask “Why is there an afterlife?” “What is the purpose of this thing you call a soul?”, “What will we do all day in this Heaven of yours?” and religion will not have any answers either.