Summations Only

I'm not at all sure that I could recognize the difference but the fact that I could get fooled by a counterfeit does not mean it is still not a counterfeit.

True, but that just means, all else being equal, you are just as likely to be fooled by the real as the counterfeit. If our universe is such that all there is is mechanists cause and effect, you'd still believe in something higher.So everything you've said and felt are entirely consistent with a universe that is purely mechanistic. In that case, why would you believe in an additional preposition? Occam's Razor would seem to indicate we go with the mechanistic universe, at least until we find evidence of something else.

Because I do not believe that is all there is and so far science has been singularly useless at explaining to me those whys such as love, beauty, honor, god,

But why do you not believe that is all there is? I would postulate that science has done as good a job as it can, and will do a better job in the future as technology allows, but that you just reject the answers being offfered.I would even argue that the fact that love, beauty, honor, even god are all subjective experiences would seem to imply there is no grand "form" of love etc that exists independent of us.The love I feel for my wife and family and friends is not the same love felt by others, indeed the love I feel for my wife is different from the love I feel for my family, and different still from the love I feel for my friends. It seems much more likely that a subset of actions and feelings that indidcate familiarity, dependence, desire, and etc get lumped together and labelled love. In fact, quite often the feelings that are labelled love in popular culture I would call infatuation, obsession and many other less flattering names.

Science does a great job and I accept the answers but so far they simply explain the mechanisms, the hows.That was why I said way back up thread that science is but one path, a good path but limited to the mechanics only.Theology and Philosophy are tools to ask questions such as purpose or ideals; to help develop ideas of what questions to ask and what paths to follow.

My contention is that Theology and Philosophy invent purpose and ideals. They are not real. No evidence has been put forward that they are real. It is one of the strengths of science that it is able to ignore things that are not real.

Okay, you are free to hold that opinion.

And if that's all there is...as you've admitted, you couldn't tell the difference if there were or not...then what science has answered is all there is to answer. My degree is in Philosophy, so I'd be the last to say that Philosophy (or theology) are useless, but they rarely provide answers. What they do is give options or hopes or desires...science is the only thing that gives an answer. At least one that isn't just a shot in the dark.

If that's all there is, then as I said, the world is a lesser place.And I agree, but theology and philosophy are good tools to use in determining questions to ask and goals to set.

I wouldn't say it's "lesser" it just "is." It may have less than you want or desire, but sadly, the world rarely cares what we want. I want enough money to not have to worry about it, I'd like to have a consciousness that continues, and I'd even like the idea of some sort of paradise after death, but until I see the money in my bank account, or actually experience this eternal consciousness or paradise, I'm stuck without any reason to believe any of them are true.

Okay. I support you feeling that way.

It's not an opinion. It is a fact that you can not support the existence of these ideals, souls, etc. with evidence. They are irrelevant to reality. If you want to discuss why you have certain fantasies we could perhaps start a new discussion about that if you wish.

And you too are free to hold that belief.Also I have said repeatedly that my belief cannot be supported or explained with evidence and so is not an appropriate subject for science.However my beliefs still exist and are real beliefs.

Science can answer why questions unless:a) You have a silly notion of reality (dualism) or
b) You have a silly definition of why (purpose only)Have I missed anything?Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

And Plato would counterargue that the fact that you can identify love, beauty, honour or god are because you are remembering the ideal forms from a prebirth state of existence. And different people recall things differently, so disagree on some of those things, but they are all referring to the same ideal form.