Summations Only

"Why" has a number of different valid meanings, as you point out. But as CS says, when the context makes a contrast between "how" and "why", it is generally distinguishing between mechanism and purpose. When someone claims that "science answers the "how" questions and religion answers the "why" questions" this is the distinction that he is trying to make. I agree with CS that this meaning should be so obvious from the context of the statement itself that it needs no further explanation.In scientific contexts we do often use the word "why", but we mean "why" in the sense of mechanism, not of purpose.Though the original claim is very concise, I think its meaning is sufficintly clear for anyone who is not being intentionally ignorant or obstinate. But if you aren't comfortable with the wording of the original claim, you can still communicate the same concept by using the word "why" in two different senses and distinguishing between them. I like the following story, which comes from C.S. Lewis:Suppose you enter your Grandmother's house, hear a teapot whistling, and ask, "Why is the teapot whistling?" Someone could answer in terms of thermodynamics, fluid flow, the physical properties of water, acoustic properties of the nozzle on the kettle, etc. The answer would be a perfectly valid mechanistic answer of "why" the teapot is boiling. But someone could also answer that the teapot is boiling because Grandma is thirsty and wants her afternoon tea. This answer is just as valid and accurate as the first. One answer addresses mechanism, and the other addresses purpose.No matter how you decide to communicate it, the point is that science can only deal well with mechanistic, cause-effect explanations. It can't address teleological questions very well, if at all. Religion and philosophy specialize in teleological questions. Religion sometimes touches on questions of mechanism as well, but this is generally not addressed in depth and is secondary to questions of purpose.Edited by kbertsche, : Add sentence.

quote:

---

And science is perfectly comfortable giving that answer too. The teapot is boiling because a human labelled Grandma has put it on the stove is an empirical claim perfectly amenable to confirmation by science. A scientist might ask Grandma, why is the teapot boiling. A scientist may observe Grandma's actions to see if they are consistent with her statements. A scientist may even go so far as to MRI that old lady to learn more about her desires for tea. A future scientist may even be able to assess whether grandma truly believes that the teapot boiling is a precursor to satisfying thirst.

​

Science can succesfully answer purpose questions, where purpose exists. It cannot answer purpose questions where there is no evidence of any purpose.

---

If you are thinking of the social sciences, you probably have a point. (I am a physicist, and I often use "science" as a shorthand for "the physical sciences").I would argue that the physical sciences do not address purpose. Even an MRI (or PET scan) only addresses mechanism, not purpose.

quote:

---

Of course science answers why questions: it's breathtakingly good at answering why questions.
"Why is the sky blue?"

​

"Why do birds fly south in winter?"

​

"Why are planets round?"

​

Answering why questions is the absolute beating heart of science.

---

And the "why" answers that (physical) science offers for all of these are mechanistic, not teleological. Modern (physical) science consciously tries to restrict itself to mechanism, and this is one of its strengths. This makes modern (physical) science much more objective and a-religious than, say, Medieval "science", which was highly teleological.

quote:

---

When we ask why a species of animals exhibits some feature, we might also give an answer based on the theory of evolution. I don't see any significant distinction in scope between that kind of "why" question and the question of why God might have done such a thing.

---

It's interesting that some of the most prominent and strident atheists insist that evolution is dysteleological, having no goal and no purpose. They seem to realize that questions of purpose will open the door to religious answers, which they want to avoid at all costs.For example: Edited by kbertsche, : Add Darwin quoteEdited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Your proposition seems a bit silly to me. Why cannot the reason for rejecting a goal/purpose for evolution be that they don't accept or believe that there is any purpose?

​

I would think that an atheist would take the religious answers to be nonsensical and/or wrong.

---

Yes, I largely agree with you. Prominent atheistic evolutionists have a theological/philosophical belief that there is no purpose behind evolution. Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, have a theological belief that there is a purpose behind evolution. Whether or not there really is a purpose cannot be answered by science alone.Denis Lamoureux is very clear about the distinction between teleological and dysteleological evolution, and the fact that this is a theological/philosophical question, not a scientific question. I recommend his videos, which can be found in YouTube and iTunesU:
Coming to Terms with Evolution
Beyond the Evolution vs. Creation DebateEdited by kbertsche, : Fixed YouTube links?

quote:

---

The known mechanisms of evolution do in fact have no goal (any unknown mechanisms are ... unknown, like those elusive fairies at the bottom of my garden) and the fact that evolution cannot think or plan ahead is in fact necessary to understand phenomena that would otherwise be puzzling.

---

But there is also opposing evidence that evolution does have a direction or goal. Simon Conway Morris (a theistic, teleological evolutionist) has shown evidence of this with examples of biological "convergence", such as the similarity between the human eye and the octopus eye.

quote:

---

Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins are actually two different people.

---

Oops; did I mis-attribute a quote?

quote:

---

And how much evidence do we have that teleological explanations are ever required?

​

Thinking that "why" is something different to "how" (other than mere depth of observation) is begging the question. Stating that science cannot ascertain "purpose" is begging the question.

---

I don't see how this is "begging the question"? Rather it is stating that questions of teleology are outside the realm of science. And if teleological questions cannot be addressed by science, then neither can science declare that there is (or is not) any teleology underlying the universe. This is a theological/philosophical question, not addressable by science.

quote:

---

Until evidence is forthcoming, God, "purpose", and teleology are merely hypotheses, and I refer you to the comments made by our mutual predecessor, Laplace.

---

I agree that teleology is scientifically untstable. My understanding of the sense of Laplace's famous statement is that he did not need to invoke theological (or teleological) language to provide a purely scientific explanation of physical phenomena. I understand that he was a theist, so he did not mean that God (or teleology) did not exist.I believe I've recommended Helen Quinn's excellent Physics Today article, What is Science? in other threads. Here is an excerpt from it: Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.Edited by kbertsche, : Fix Quinn reference

quote:

---

Again begging the question. What teleology? There is no teleology other than that dreamt up by theologians and philosophers. And the mindsets that produced these dreams of teleology are very much within the realms of science.

​

If there is no "purpose", there is only the natural world, and then all concepts are ultimately reducible to science. To claim that questions of teleology are outside the realm of science is to claim that there exists a relam outside of science... and there isn't

---

I don't mean to "beg the question" with these statements. I mean to say that if there is a realm outside of science, then (by definition) it cannot be investigated by science. If there is such a thing as "purpose" or teleology, then it lies in a realm outside of science.So is there such a thing as purpose? Is there a realm outside of science? I believe there is, you believe there isn't. Helen Quinn leaves the question open. (I wonder what she thinks about this? I'll try to remember to ask next time I see her.) All of us are scientists, but our science cannot answer these questions. These are questions for theology or philosophy.

quote:

---

I think we have established in this thread that the type of answers that science cannot provide, but which religion claims to, are answers to those questions which pertain to things which are not demonstrably real.

---

You have claimed this, but I don't think we have established it. And I don't think it is true.First, what do you mean by "demonstrably" real? Presumably you mean things which can be demonstrated through testable, scientific evidence. But if so, all you have done is to state a tautology. The only things that science can address are the things that science can address. Is there any reality outside of science, in the non-material world? Maybe or maybe not, but science can't tell us one way or the other.Second, science addresses and investigates a number of things which are not demonstrably "real", and which may never be so. Science asks and answers questions about quarks, cosmic strings, multiverses, etc. These provide good models of reality, but they are not necessarily "real" themselves.