Summations Only

Why do monkeys like bananas?Maybe because God caused it to be that way...Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Why do paedophiles like touching children?Maybe because God caused it to be that way...

Whhatever floats your boat man. Wierd...i'm not sure how you get that from bananas but ok...Feel free tho, to answer why monkeys like bananas.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Was your explanation not good enough?
I thought you were advocating god as the reason - but if you want to retract that, then fine.

I don't follow?

No, not often.{abe}
So, to clarify your first statement:
Which of these is correct...
1) God causes only monkeys to like bananas.
2) God causes all things to like bananas.
3) God causes only monkeys to like the things they prefer.
4) God causes all things to like all the things they prefer.Which one of those do you agree with?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

So this is how you think science goes about answering the "why" questions?By proceeding to ask a series of multiple choice questions?

Given that your current beliefs pertaining to this matter cannot be reconciled with the existing evidence I see little reason to think that any future evidence will have much effect.

As thoroughly enlightening as I am sure message 70 is it still fails to provide any objective means of identifying which 'why' questions are beyond the scope of science. So let me suggest the following:Science can and does ask and answer all sorts of 'why' questions. Science can and does answer 'why' questions which pertain to purpose where there is evidence of the existence of a purposeful agent. E.g. humans with brains.What science cannot do is answer 'why' questions pertaining to the imagined purpose of imagined entities.

No. But it is a way of clarifying your position regarding the burning issue of banana preferences in monkeys.So which of the 4 options do you think best fits your position regarding preferences and from whence they are derived?

quote:

---

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".

---

Or unique individual ones that cannot be scientifically controlled.
Or ambiguous ones that cannot be properly defined.

Just off the top of my head, scientists could test for changes in brain chemistry such as increases in dopamine levels while eating bananas. They could also test for positive reinforcement as it correlates with dopamine levels. fMRI could also be used to map specific brain functions and further correlate the ingestion of bananas with feelings of euphoria or pleasure.So how would you run similar experiments with the "God did it" explanation? You can't, can you. We can show how science can answer these why questions. However, it would appear that theology can not. All theology can do is indoctrinate people into a belief system where they think they have answers, but in reality they do not. What they have is beliefs. Beliefs and answers are two different things. Answers require knowledge. Beliefs are the antithesis of knowledge.Theology is devoid of answers. The Emporer has no clothes.

And Plato would be full of shit. As with all terms that describe senses or feelings, all we can do is assume a similar feeling based on similar actions. I have no idea whether the feeling I have termed "love of spouse" is the same as someone else's. All I can see is that it makes me act in a similar way.Now, neurologists can point to certain amounts of neurotransmitters and chemicals in certain areas of the brain, but again, people have differeing amounts but we still call it the same feeling.I still submit that what we call "love" and "honor" etc is merely a categorization of similar actions in different people.

But these apply to any question regardless of whether it is a 'why' question or not. These restrictions apply equally to 'how' questions. So, still, you have provided no way of identifying which 'why' questions it is that science should leave to religion to answer.Do you at least agree with this - "What science cannot do is answer 'why' questions pertaining to the imagined purpose of imagined entities". But neither of these are specific to 'why' questions. Your above statements apply equally to 'how' questions and are thus of little consequence to anything this thread is actually about.

Of course. Equally? Depends... most why-questions can just be rephrased as how-questions, but those aren't the ones we're talking about. This is about the why-questions that pertain to purpose. I think questions of purpose are fuzzier than the how-questions so they're gonna allow for more of the ambiguity and individualisms that I'm talking about. I don't think that science should leave questions to religions to answer. My position is that there are certan kinds of questions, like 'why are we here', that science is not in the business of answering. Too, that religions do hand you answers to some of those question. That is all. Sounds like its trying to be all-encompassing... I guess we have different understandings on what this thread is about...But as I said above, I don't think they apply equally. The why, or what-purpose, questions are less rigorous than the how, or what-mechanism, questions and are more likely to be unanswerable by science.