The question “why” explores underlying purpose.
The question “how” explores the theoretical mechanism.
As far as we can tell it is fruitful to explore the “how”, this is not always the case for “why”.
“why does the universe exist?” is not a question that needs or deserves an answer, unless you’ve already decided that you know the answer, in which case show your working.
The same question could be asked of smaller scale phenomena - An apple falls from a tree in Lincolnshire. It hits the ground because of gravity. That’s how it hits the ground.
Why does it fall under gravity? There’s no answer, just a whole load of how? (some/most/all of which we probably don’t completely understand yet), but “why did you do that?” is more of a question for things that act as a result of motives, which apples and planets do not have.
Of course, ‘why’ and ‘how’ are used interchangeably sometimes (so you can ask ‘why’ an apple falls, but you’re really asking how) - but that’s just semantics, not a basis for theory.
Yeti, ghosts, fairies, leprechauns, and angels can all control gravity waves, making them impossible to document. Why won’t you accept that?
I’m late to this thread, but science is the way I distinguish between reality and fantasy. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Do you believe in every supernatural thing someone can imagine? If not, you must have some standard for disbelief. If is is just too outlandish for you, then you have applied a method that could be wrong. Science can be wrong, in which case science changes. Religion and spiritualism cannot, otherwise the whole faith thing falls apart, and you have no standards to distinguish between reality and fantasy. I choose science because it is the best method for me, not because it is always right, but because it can acknowledge when it is wrong without collapsing.
I was with you up to this point.
Whether something needs or deserves as answer is subjective; I certainly believe that such philosophical questions are very important and definitely worth trying to solve (which is something we can do with philosophical questions; there is a misconception some have that philosophical questions can’t be answered – the truth is they can and have been; we just stop calling them “philosophy” at that point)
I also readily admit I have no idea why anything exists or even whether there isan answer to that question. There’s no inconsistency in this.
Fair enough, I used wording that suggested a value judgement where none was intended.
Where I say “need” I merely mean that there may be no “why” that *needs *explaining (as Mangetout pointed out) and “deserve” as in “justify”(which was probably superfluous)
I agree that philosophy is a useful tool that aids our thinking and we should give attention to such questions, but we should also be open to the fact that such philosophy may well lead us to conclude that “why” is entirely the wrong thing to ask and that “we don’t know” is a perfectly defensible position.
Or Isaac Newton, for that matter, who was considered a religious nutbag even by the standards of his own time.
What’s funny about this OP is that in fact this sort of thing has happened.
One famous example; until surprisingly recently in the history of science, scientists simply could not explain how old the solar system was. It didn’t make any sense at all, because something burning, like the Sun, could not be burning for billions of years, even knowing how big it is. There was an absolute time limit on how long an object like that could burn for. This was a significant problem, because the geologists were looking at the Earth and its rock formations and they absolutely were hundreds of millions, or even billions, of years old. The two findings totally contradicted one another.
So did they give up and call it all magic? No, they disagreed and argued until a solution was found. The solution was, of course, an unaccountable force… nuclear fusion. The Sun isn’t burning at all. It’s fusing. But then they scienced it up, and now it’s accounted for.
Well, many of the scientists I know are married.
It still happens. There are observable and theoretical phenomenon such as singularities, dark matter, dark energy, wormholes, parallel or multiple universes, time travel, tachyons, and quantum mechanics that varyingly are observed to exist, but we don’t know why or how; probably exist based on our existing models of the universe, even if we can’t directly observe them; or might theoretically exist because AFAAK, there’s no scientific reason they can’t.
The point is, science does allow for strange and unusual phenomenon that can’t be explained. But any theoretical explanation has to take into account what we can observe.
Well, I for one am persuaded. Away with logic and the scientific method which have done so little to help us understand the world! Let us go back to magical thinking. I’m sure that’ll work out well.
Or, a teapot orbiting the Sun.
Let me introduce you to Tabby’s Star which is a strange and currently unaccountable phenomenon with many scientists currently trying to figure out what’s going on. It would be easy to say “god did it” and call it a day. But, scientists have decided to try to actually figure it out instead. Currently the answer is “We currently don’t know”, which is an acceptable answer in science.
The smiley face wasn’t enough to clue you in that tongue was placed in cheek?
But sure I will play it serious for the fun of it …
Seriously as an empiricist (and a secular humanist to boot, although not a “Secular Humanist” … no signing onto any articles of faith for me!) of course I judge all things through that lens.
But IF my mindset was one of revealed truths then the validity of my epistemology would be how it fit with my revealed truths … or perhaps how it allowed me to function within my social circles that shared a belief in the same revealed truths.
The point of having offered up that Arthur C. Clarke quote and of GIGObuster’s last post.
What do you call magic that has been demonstrated to actually exist? Science.
End of day science serves a function. It allows us to predict what things will do by figuring out the rules, what causes what effects, how (if not quite “why”) of the universe. That allows us to do more as humans than a position that the future is unpredictable and unalterable (other than by prayer or ritual sacrifices). Miracles cannot be counted on. The unaccountable (different than the unaccounted) can’t be counted on either … kinda in its name. The best tactic is to assume that there is only the unaccounted for and keep trying our best to account for it. There will always be The Gaps but I’d think it would be a mistake to place a God in there.
We also don’t know bicycles work (completely), nor glue.
What? Nonsense. We know that glue works because of gluons.
Or, so I’m told by a couple of insane clowns, magnets.