I had to rush off the other day, to make it in time to a bowling match, but there was one more important thing I wanted to say in response to what you wrote, Steve... and that's about the issue of "Why" questions.
First, it is certainly not true that science cannot answer Why questions. Perhaps in computer science there are not as many Why questions, but I feel like most of the questions I worked on in graduate school in Physics were Why questions, not just How questions. If it were otherwise, I would not have been as interested... nor would I have chosen the path that I did, or gone to grad school in the first place.
As an example of a Why question successfully answered by science, I encourage you to read this paper, which contains the answer to what is probably the most famous Why question of all time:
Religion has never answered this question, nor has it to my knowledge, answered any why questions, ever. It has *attempted* to answer lots of questions, it just happens to get them all wrong (such as, the origins of human life).
I think there are two legitimate uses of the word "Why". One is in the above sense, where it involves the compression of a seemingly complicated, inexplicable pattern of behavior, into a nice comprehensible explanation, which makes you go "aha! I see why this is true!". This happens in math and physics all the time.
The second use is to refer to the motivation of a particular intelligent being, such as a human (although it could also be an animal, an AI, an alien, God, etc.). This is a special case of the first type of Why question, because it explains someone's strange behavior in terms of their motivations. Although it is probably the most common case of Why questions so I think it deserves special treatment.
One of the most common cognitive errors that a lot religious people (as well as some non-religious people like John Smart) make is in thinking that certain strings of words like "Why does the universe exist?" or "What is the purpose of its existence?" are meaningful questions rather strings of nonsense. Well, "why does the universe exist?" is not nonsense in the context of a multiverse theory, but if you take "universe" to mean all that exists then it is. The reason is that the point of a why question is to explain a more complicated theory (or pattern of behavior, data, etc.) in terms of a simpler theory. Once you've already got the simplest theory of everything you can get, it does not make sense to ask how it could be reduced further. Nor does it make sense to ask what the motivation of the universe is, because the universe is not a sentient being like a human. The reason why religious people make this mistake is clear--it's because they think there is actually a sentient being who watches over the universe, named God, or Allah, or whatever, and that this being has motivations just like humans do. I think the reason why non-religious people make this mistake is harder to say--although in some cases it is just as simple as they may have started out religious and were not completely successful in giving up all of the baggage associated with their religion... or they were influenced by religious thinkers from the past without realizing it. I've had this discussion with John Smart, and it's one of the main reasons I refused to review his book--there is enough in it that I strongly disagree with on philosophical grounds that my review would be too negative.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: religious darwinists
Date: 2010-10-14 03:44 am (UTC)First, it is certainly not true that science cannot answer Why questions. Perhaps in computer science there are not as many Why questions, but I feel like most of the questions I worked on in graduate school in Physics were Why questions, not just How questions. If it were otherwise, I would not have been as interested... nor would I have chosen the path that I did, or gone to grad school in the first place.
As an example of a Why question successfully answered by science, I encourage you to read this paper, which contains the answer to what is probably the most famous Why question of all time:
Why is the Sky Blue?
Religion has never answered this question, nor has it to my knowledge, answered any why questions, ever. It has *attempted* to answer lots of questions, it just happens to get them all wrong (such as, the origins of human life).
I think there are two legitimate uses of the word "Why". One is in the above sense, where it involves the compression of a seemingly complicated, inexplicable pattern of behavior, into a nice comprehensible explanation, which makes you go "aha! I see why this is true!". This happens in math and physics all the time.
The second use is to refer to the motivation of a particular intelligent being, such as a human (although it could also be an animal, an AI, an alien, God, etc.). This is a special case of the first type of Why question, because it explains someone's strange behavior in terms of their motivations. Although it is probably the most common case of Why questions so I think it deserves special treatment.
One of the most common cognitive errors that a lot religious people (as well as some non-religious people like John Smart) make is in thinking that certain strings of words like "Why does the universe exist?" or "What is the purpose of its existence?" are meaningful questions rather strings of nonsense. Well, "why does the universe exist?" is not nonsense in the context of a multiverse theory, but if you take "universe" to mean all that exists then it is. The reason is that the point of a why question is to explain a more complicated theory (or pattern of behavior, data, etc.) in terms of a simpler theory. Once you've already got the simplest theory of everything you can get, it does not make sense to ask how it could be reduced further. Nor does it make sense to ask what the motivation of the universe is, because the universe is not a sentient being like a human. The reason why religious people make this mistake is clear--it's because they think there is actually a sentient being who watches over the universe, named God, or Allah, or whatever, and that this being has motivations just like humans do. I think the reason why non-religious people make this mistake is harder to say--although in some cases it is just as simple as they may have started out religious and were not completely successful in giving up all of the baggage associated with their religion... or they were influenced by religious thinkers from the past without realizing it. I've had this discussion with John Smart, and it's one of the main reasons I refused to review his book--there is enough in it that I strongly disagree with on philosophical grounds that my review would be too negative.