Summations Only

Whether science can address a question or not is not dependent on whether it is a 'why' question, a 'how' question, a 'who' question etc.Science is simply limited to meaningful questions pertaining to things that are demonstrably real. It can no more tackle how it is that leprechauns can teleport than it can answer who made unicorns pink or why it is that fairies have wings or when it was Thor fought Zeus.But the reason it cannot ask or answer these questions has nothing to do with their semantic structure or some ambiguous notions of uncaused purpose. The reason science cannot address these questions is because none of them pertain to anything demonstrably real. Where a purposeful agent is evidenced science can and does ask why questions about purpose. Where the thing in question is not even evidenced as a possibility (e.g. gods, souls etc.) asking any such question about them is pretty meaningless. And my ongoing question to you is how you are objectively identifying these questions? When you ask 'Why are we here' and seek some sort of purpose the only meaningful answers that can be obtained are from those purposeful agents which demonstrably exist (e.g. us humans). And the causes of our purposes can be investigated.If you are asking that question and seeking the purpose of some unevidenced entity then the question has no more legitimacy than asking why it is that trolls want to eat goblins.

Science has answered 'why are we here?': We are here because we are descended from a long line of ancestors who were successful reproducers. Why successful reproducers? Because unsuccessful ones died out without leaving descendants.That answer might not be satisfying to some, who hoped there was some fantastic reason for us being here, but it has the advantage of being evidence based and apparently quite true.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

My position is that science does a fine job of explaining why we are here. Our own personal existence is explained quite well by biological reproduction. As Modulous mentions above, evolution does a great job of explaining why our species exists.I have explained in previous posts my position on religions inventing purposes and intentions as it relates to nature. Perhaps a bridge hand will better illustrate what I am talking about (bridge is similar to spades or hearts if you are familiar with those card games). After you have been dealt a hand you could ask yourself why you were given those specific cards. But why would you? You could have received any one of millions of possible 13 card hands, each of them with an equal probability. You have the hand you have because that is the hand you got. It is that simple. There is no divine purpose or evil intention in the cards you received. It is simply one outcome of millions.I think this does a good job of explaining nature, and by extension us. We are but one result out of trillions of possible results. Given the march of time, one outcome had to occur just as it was inevitable that you would have a 13 card bridge hand. Science does an excellent job of explaining why we are a possible outcome of that process, and in explaining the historical events that led to that outcome.As to my larger worldview, I see a universe that is indifferent to our existence. The universe cares about our existence to the same extent that we care about the plight of a single bacterium stuck to the underside of a rock in the middle of nowhere. The purpose that does exist in our lives is the purpose we give it. Purpose is not an external or intrinsic property of the universe. Instead, it is nothing more than our hopes and dreams of how the universe should be.

Burning issue? Sorry Straggler. Feel free to bypass this if it doesn't interest you. Really bro, feel free if it doesn't meet your expectations. Which position? The burning banana position?My position as far as the burning issue of the banana is just an example of God providing for His Creation. Like the Koala and eucalyptus leaves.Can Science answer why the Koala is drawn to this tree? And don't let Taq fool you with all his mumbo jumbo about brain chemistry and all that blah blah blah...Monkeys aren't sitting around going "you know other monkey, I actually feel better now having eaten that banana". "Yeah other monkey, MEEE TOOO".*giggles at Taq*Yep, they just like them, you know why? Because God supplied it for them.You know why koalas like eucalyptus leaves? No, not because Taq said it's gives them goosebumps, but because God...provided it for them.Why? Because God loves His creation.Leave it to Science to say the leaves and the koala met by chance.*giggles at Taq*Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Monkeys probably also aren't sitting around saying: "You know, other monkey, I like eating bananas because it fulfills God's will". "Yeah, amen to that, other monkey". Unless God does a miracle every time a monkey eats a banana, there is still a secondary causal explanation not involving God. N.B: not an actual quotation from "Science".

...Edited by Panda, : deleted my snark

So you think god is ultimately responsible for the banana preferences of monkeys and the tree preferences of koalas.Is god responsible for all the preferences of all living things or just those that you choose to assign to him? Is god responsible for the sexual preferences of paedophiles?Do you see what it is that Panda was trying to get at? How are you deciding which preferences are god given and which are not? Gosh Chuck why would anyone consider evidence based answers when we can invoke all sorts baselessly conceived purposes derived from equally baselessly conceived entities?

Another creationist who laughs at real science. Go figure.

quote:

---

Four components of addiction are analyzed. Bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization are each given operational definitions and demonstrated behaviorally with sugar bingeing as the reinforcer. These behaviors are then related to neurochemical changes in the brain that also occur with addictive drugs. Neural adaptations include changes in dopamine and opioid receptor binding, enkephalin mRNA expression and dopamine and acetylcholine release in the nucleus accumbens.
(Avena et al. 2009) emphasis mine

---

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Just like art or music, science can study and ask why certain paintings are appealing. Or why certain facial features are deemed attractive. How does the universe exist? why does the universe exist?
Are these two questions the same?

It depends what you mean. If you are asking for the purpose of the existence of the universe then you are necessitating some purposeful agent that is not part of the universe. Who is this purposeful agent?Why do you think this purposeful agent exists? Unless a purposeful agent exists how (or why) is it meaningful to ask for what purpose the universe exists?Unless a purposeful agent exists can purpose exist?

You're just equivocating. Those are answers to *how* we are here.The religious woo-inspired question of "why are we here" is a different question. And its one that science doesn't answer. That's all fine and dandy, but is beside the point.

That's what I've been saying... You're missing the point. The catch phrase is not some proclaimation on the limits of science's abilities to answer specific semantic structures. I never said the answers religions give to the why-questions are meaningful. Yeah, well science doesn't answer that question either.

That's not what the question was asking for... Yeah, that's fine. Nobody's saying the answers that religions provide are correct, or even meaningful.

From my point of view, it is. This reminds me of Lucy jerking the football away just before Charlie Brown kicks it. When someone states that science is not capable of explaining the "higher purpose" of human existence do you think that they do not believe in a higher purpose or see nothing meaningful in this higher purpose?We are told that this entire universe full of trillions of stars was made just for us, and that this creator has a purpose for us to fulfill during our lifetimes. We are told that we are extremely special, and have an immortal soul that needs saving. Should we really think that the same people who make these claims are saying that "eh, it isn't true and not that meaningful, but it's what I believe"?

Really? because it seems to me that you have been asking meaningless questions about unevidenced purposes. When you ask "Why are we here?" whose purpose are you seeking as an answer to that question? Because there is no evidence of anything (i.e, trolls in this particular instance) with this purpose. When you ask "Why are we here?" whose purpose are you seeking?If you are seeking my stated purpose or yours or the the thoughts of any other purposeful being which demonstrably exists then we can physically investigate the 'why' of that purpose by investigating physical brains and suchlike can't we?If you are seeking the purpose of some immaterial entity such as some godly being or some cosmic consciousness or an immaterial soul that exists independently of one's brain - Then you are asking questions of purpose for things which we have no reason to believe exist as purposeful agents. You might as well ask why God rested on Sunday or why Immaterial Pink Unicorns prefer cricket to rugby. Then do you accept that the questions of purpose which religion purports to answer are meaningless questions? Whose purpose are religious answers seeking to determine?