Summations Only

So "how" is simply a level of explanation that requires less coarse-graining than a "why" explanation? 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.Until evidence is forthcoming, God, "purpose", and teleology are merely hypotheses, and I refer you to the comments made by our mutual predecessor, Laplace.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Hi Kirk, thanks for the reply. It is assuming that there is something (purpose?) that makes "why" a different question to "how", in order to take "why" outside the realm of science - and it is assuming that "purpose" is something more than emergent behaviour of certain complex systems. 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 know you don't - but then you are slighlty more... nuanced, than many of our other theistic friends here Questions to be discussed by theology and philosophy, sure. But never answered. If an answer is required, only personal faith will provide that, with all its inherent subjectivity. So to claim that science can answer the "how" but it takes religion/theology/philosophy to *answer* the "why" is disingenous at best.