7 ms·

> While fundamentalist faiths cast science as a misguided or even malicious source of information I wonder which faiths they are talking about here. When it c

by Void_ 8y ago

> While fundamentalist faiths cast science as a misguided or even malicious source of information I wonder which faiths they are talking about here. When it comes to Christianity, well, we love science. We look at it like this - science answers "what and how" while religion answers "who and why". So there's no competition between the two. For more on the topic: https://soundcloud.com/bulldogcatholic/122518-but-why https://soundcloud.com/bulldogcatholic/122518-but-why (around 4:00 mark)

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> When it comes to Christianity, well, we love science. We look at it like this - science answers "what and how" while religion answers "who and why". So there's no competition between the two. "Why" questions are either nonsense (like, questions about some made-up "ultimate purpose") or "how" questions in disguise, "who" questions are presupposing an answer to what are actually "how" questions, in order to pretend that it's not a scientific question.
- learc83 8y ago
  >"Why" questions are either nonsense (like, questions about some made-up "ultimate purpose") In addition to religion, you're outright dismissing entire fields of study, philosophy, ethics, law etc... that are extremely relevant to all of our lives. Whether you believe the "why" questions can every be answered is one thing, but dismissing them as nonsense without even trying to support your argument is extremely arrogant.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    Do you have an example of a "why" question that is not a "how" question in disguise and that you think is not a nonsense question?
    - learc83 8y ago
      Why should I should I try to minimize the suffering of another person if it has no impact on myself and there is no chance of a reward?
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        So, do I understand you correctly that you are looking for an answer to that question that does not in any way refer to observable consequences of that choice? The queston is unfortunately ambiguous and could also be taken as a "how" question in disguise (asking for how it is that humans tend to have an innate tendency to minimize the suffering of another person without too much consideration of the economics of the particular situation, for example).
        learc83 8y ago
        That's not the question. I'm not asking why humans tend to do something. I'm asking why should one person's suffering or one person's life be intrinsically important to another---not why it often is. To get to the point another way. To decide how to act you need some kind of ethical system. Let's say you pick utilitarianism. Utilitarianism says that the suffering and happiness of each individual counts equally. The obvious question is: "Why is that so?" A possible answer is that, this is the premise that leads to the optimal outcome of maximum total happiness. Which leads to the next question: "Why is maximum total happiness the optimal outcome?" It's never ending. There is always another why question. Going deeper and deeper into that rabbit hole can be maddening and it's not always useful, but sometime it is. Ands it's almost always useful to ask a few whys. Without asking the whys, you have no justification for any of your beliefs, and thus no way of knowing which beliefs to hold on to.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > That's not the question. I'm not asking why humans tend to do something. I suspect that you are ... or you are indeed asking a nonsense question. But let's see ... > I'm asking why should one person's suffering or one person's life be intrinsically important to another---not why it often is. OK. I'm still not sure what exactly you mean by that question, though. > To get to the point another way. To decide how to act you need some kind of ethical system. Sure, that seems sensible to me. > Let's say you pick utilitarianism. OK. > Utilitarianism says that the suffering and happiness of each individual counts equally. I am not sure it necessarily does, but I guess that doesn't matter for the point that you are trying to make, so let's assume it does ... > The obvious question is: "Why is that so?" Which is a "how" question in disguise, isn't it? "How did it come that philosophers chose to define utilitarianism this way?" That certainly sounds like a very much empirical question to me!? > A possible answer is that, this is the premise that leads to the optimal outcome of maximum total happiness. That might well be a justification given by some philosopher, sure!? > Which leads to the next question: "Why is maximum total happiness the optimal outcome?" Which is another "how" question in disguise, isn't it? It's again asking for how it came to be that this was considered the optimal outcome, isn't it? > It's never ending. There is always another why question. Going deeper and deeper into that rabbit hole can be maddening and it's not always useful, but sometime it is. Ands it's almost always useful to ask a few whys. Well, if they are "how" questions in disguise, yeah, sure ... but you might as well directly ask the "how" questions in order to avoid the confusion? If you really don't mean a "how" question by those (be it exactly the ones I suggested above, or possibly slightly different ones), though, I don't really understand what your question is here either. > Without asking the whys, you have no justification for any of your beliefs, and thus no way of knowing which beliefs to hold on to. Well, yes, again, if you actually mean disguised "how" questions. I mean, just asking the question doesn't give you a justification, right? Rather, it's the first step towards potentially finding an answer, which then can serve as a justification. It's just that "why" questions that are not "how" questions in disguise don't have answers, which is why they are useless for the purpose, or if they have "answers", then that's only because the answer is assumed in the question, which obviously doesn't make for a good justification for anything. I am still curious though what exactly it is that you mean by "I'm asking why should one person's suffering or one person's life be intrinsically important to another"!
dragonwriter 8y ago
> When it comes to Christianity, well, we love science. Christian attitudes toward science vary quite strongly. The Catholic Church has an attitude generally similar to what you describe (but still gets uncomfortable with scientific inquiry on some questions clearly within the domain that is empirically explorable), other groups (particularly within, say, parts of the evangelical and fundamentalist parts of Protestantism, and the quote you respond to addressed “fundamentalist faiths” specifically) have different general attitudes (or wider or more intense areas where they are resistant to or oppose scientific examination.)

by Void_ 8y ago

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

> When it comes to Christianity, well, we love science. We look at it like this - science answers "what and how" while religion answers "who and why". So there's no competition between the two. "Why" questions are either nonsense (like, questions about some made-up "ultimate purpose") or "how" questions in disguise, "who" questions are presupposing an answer to what are actually "how" questions, in order to pretend that it's not a scientific question.

learc83 8y ago
>"Why" questions are either nonsense (like, questions about some made-up "ultimate purpose") In addition to religion, you're outright dismissing entire fields of study, philosophy, ethics, law etc... that are extremely relevant to all of our lives. Whether you believe the "why" questions can every be answered is one thing, but dismissing them as nonsense without even trying to support your argument is extremely arrogant.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  Do you have an example of a "why" question that is not a "how" question in disguise and that you think is not a nonsense question?
  - learc83 8y ago
    Why should I should I try to minimize the suffering of another person if it has no impact on myself and there is no chance of a reward?
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      So, do I understand you correctly that you are looking for an answer to that question that does not in any way refer to observable consequences of that choice? The queston is unfortunately ambiguous and could also be taken as a "how" question in disguise (asking for how it is that humans tend to have an innate tendency to minimize the suffering of another person without too much consideration of the economics of the particular situation, for example).
      - learc83 8y ago
        That's not the question. I'm not asking why humans tend to do something. I'm asking why should one person's suffering or one person's life be intrinsically important to another---not why it often is. To get to the point another way. To decide how to act you need some kind of ethical system. Let's say you pick utilitarianism. Utilitarianism says that the suffering and happiness of each individual counts equally. The obvious question is: "Why is that so?" A possible answer is that, this is the premise that leads to the optimal outcome of maximum total happiness. Which leads to the next question: "Why is maximum total happiness the optimal outcome?" It's never ending. There is always another why question. Going deeper and deeper into that rabbit hole can be maddening and it's not always useful, but sometime it is. Ands it's almost always useful to ask a few whys. Without asking the whys, you have no justification for any of your beliefs, and thus no way of knowing which beliefs to hold on to.
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
        > That's not the question. I'm not asking why humans tend to do something. I suspect that you are ... or you are indeed asking a nonsense question. But let's see ... > I'm asking why should one person's suffering or one person's life be intrinsically important to another---not why it often is. OK. I'm still not sure what exactly you mean by that question, though. > To get to the point another way. To decide how to act you need some kind of ethical system. Sure, that seems sensible to me. > Let's say you pick utilitarianism. OK. > Utilitarianism says that the suffering and happiness of each individual counts equally. I am not sure it necessarily does, but I guess that doesn't matter for the point that you are trying to make, so let's assume it does ... > The obvious question is: "Why is that so?" Which is a "how" question in disguise, isn't it? "How did it come that philosophers chose to define utilitarianism this way?" That certainly sounds like a very much empirical question to me!? > A possible answer is that, this is the premise that leads to the optimal outcome of maximum total happiness. That might well be a justification given by some philosopher, sure!? > Which leads to the next question: "Why is maximum total happiness the optimal outcome?" Which is another "how" question in disguise, isn't it? It's again asking for how it came to be that this was considered the optimal outcome, isn't it? > It's never ending. There is always another why question. Going deeper and deeper into that rabbit hole can be maddening and it's not always useful, but sometime it is. Ands it's almost always useful to ask a few whys. Well, if they are "how" questions in disguise, yeah, sure ... but you might as well directly ask the "how" questions in order to avoid the confusion? If you really don't mean a "how" question by those (be it exactly the ones I suggested above, or possibly slightly different ones), though, I don't really understand what your question is here either. > Without asking the whys, you have no justification for any of your beliefs, and thus no way of knowing which beliefs to hold on to. Well, yes, again, if you actually mean disguised "how" questions. I mean, just asking the question doesn't give you a justification, right? Rather, it's the first step towards potentially finding an answer, which then can serve as a justification. It's just that "why" questions that are not "how" questions in disguise don't have answers, which is why they are useless for the purpose, or if they have "answers", then that's only because the answer is assumed in the question, which obviously doesn't make for a good justification for anything. I am still curious though what exactly it is that you mean by "I'm asking why should one person's suffering or one person's life be intrinsically important to another"!

dragonwriter 8y ago

> When it comes to Christianity, well, we love science. Christian attitudes toward science vary quite strongly. The Catholic Church has an attitude generally similar to what you describe (but still gets uncomfortable with scientific inquiry on some questions clearly within the domain that is empirically explorable), other groups (particularly within, say, parts of the evangelical and fundamentalist parts of Protestantism, and the quote you respond to addressed “fundamentalist faiths” specifically) have different general attitudes (or wider or more intense areas where they are resistant to or oppose scientific examination.)