Summations Only

Which aspect of the hammer do you think is not able to be scientifically studied and explained?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I'm suggesting that the causes are not the preference.

I'm saying that no matter how much you study the hammer it is still not the hammer itself.

Perhaps you could clearly identify which aspect of the object (that we will call 'hammer') is unable to be investigated by science?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Too funny.You can investigate all you want but it will still not be the preference itself.You can investigate the hammer all you want but it will still never be the hammer itself.You can investigate love all you want but it will never be the experience itself....

You mean that you're enlightening us with the wisdom that an investigation itself is not the object or phenomenon being investigated?Thanks.BTW, was anyone implying anything else?

Science can investigate all (which by definition includes your preference) but it can't investigate your preference... Science can investigate the hammer, but it can't investigate the hammer... Science can investigate love (which by definition includes the experience of love) but it can't investigate the experience of love...Each explanation you have provided contradicts each itself.
Perhaps you could clearly identify which aspect of any of your examples is unable to be investigated by science?

OK. But why does that preclude science from investigating why it is you hold that preference? OK. But are you suggesting that this personal preference is causeless? Or are you suggesting that there is a reason or cause for this personal preference that cannot be investigated scientifically?

I agree. Was someone else suggesting that causes are their effects?

It can be stated accurately. I think the point is to exemplify the differences in the kinds of answers that science and religion can provide you.Science can investigate damn-near everything, but this doesn't include a certain kind of why-questions (I'd call how a subset of why). With science, you need to be able to control an experiment. Some things can't be nailed down enough for scientific controls. Other things are too broad to be defined well enough for a proper scientific investigation.-why did Grandma X choose that tea?
-why are we here?You don't have multiple Grandma X's to set-up a controlled experinment with.
"Being here" doesn't necessarily imply some purpose with which to answer the question "why".Whether or not they're proper questions, and whether or not the answers that religions provides can measured for any accuracy, are irrelevant to the fact that religion does provide answers to some of these questions. Science's only honest answer to the questions would be "I don't know", because it doesn't have the necessary components to provide the kind of answers that science does. They're not the kinds of questions that science asks.How does a person choose a particular tea?
How did humans emerge on this planet?Those are more along the lines of scientific questions.

But you're not going to get a scientific answer to why that particular Grandma made her decision. There's empirical evidence for why, but an anecdote from her isn't scientific. You can generalize why people make those decisions, but that doesn't address this specific individual. Right, there you go. I think that's a great way to phrase it.Now, this fact doesn't stop religion from handing you an answer

In Message 126, Dr. Adequste wrote:

quote:

---

If you ask a man: "What's your name?" and he says "John", then he has answered the question. He may not have shown you his birth certificate to prove it, but he has answered the question.

---

Religion does "provide an answer".Answering the question "what is 2 + 2?" with "5", is still answering the question I think that part of what the statement is saying is that religion answers the questions that science doesn't try to; that there's some questions out there that aren't necessarily answerable in the sense that you're talking (i.e. real answers).

I think it is an important difference that should be noted.

Yes, I am saying that the personal preference can be studied by science until the cows come home and still be unable to tell me any reason why I hold that preference.

I don't think the statement in question is necessarily talking about some limit to empirical investigation, or establishing that there is something outside of that.Science, though, is limited by its methodology and some questions of purpose aren't defined well enough, nor do they allow for the scientific controls for an adequate experiment, for science to properly answer them.There might not even be correct answers to some of the questions of purpose, but still, even some of those have answers that religions provide, regardless of whether or not they can be determined to have any accuracy.