3 ms·

Science can't answer 'why', only 'how'. I think a science-only-based culture (i.e. post-Enlightenment) respects only how some questions can be answered, those

Science can't answer 'why', only 'how'. I think a science-only-based culture (i.e. post-Enlightenment) respects only how some questions can be answered, those answers that can be known. But science disrespects the importance of questions that can't be answered, that which can't be known. Religion (a formal model for belief in and worship of what can't be known) can't fill this void, nor can science. But forms of spirituality that adopt less formal organizing principles might -- such as respecting the constructive power of myths and memes that seek to further humane principles, like justice or kindness, to shape a better world. Deism of the kinds that Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson (or Spinoza?) adopted venture into this space somewhat, in presuming a creator god who serves as a guide for humans to make a better world. But because such models of 'worship' are seldom systematic nor do they specify the regulations people crave to assure compliance (and their final reward), they tend not to attract acolytes, and so are hard to sustain as a ongoing social movement. But such models of belief (and respect) may be needed nonetheless.

layer8 4y ago
I believe the real “why” can be fully explained by the needs and constraints of human psychology, which in turn is informed by its biological and socio-cultural evolution. Science is the correct tool to arrive at the real answers here. Whether most people can deal with those answers is a different matter. One aspect of those answers being that meaning and meaningfulness only exist as inner constructions of the mind. The general difficulties that humans have with understanding and accepting the inner workings of their minds are hard to resolve. Arguably it’s of evolutionary benefit to have a counterfactual model of one’s own mind and of the metaphysical and spiritual nature of reality. BTW I’m not disagreeing on the fact that some things are necessarily unknowable, but mostly in the sense of the incompleteness theorems and other inherent limitations of information processing and the physical laws of nature.
namero999 4y ago
Science can't even answer "what". I'm not sure "why" is a smart question to ask nature. Agreed on "how".

layer8 4y ago

I believe the real “why” can be fully explained by the needs and constraints of human psychology, which in turn is informed by its biological and socio-cultural evolution. Science is the correct tool to arrive at the real answers here. Whether most people can deal with those answers is a different matter. One aspect of those answers being that meaning and meaningfulness only exist as inner constructions of the mind. The general difficulties that humans have with understanding and accepting the inner workings of their minds are hard to resolve. Arguably it’s of evolutionary benefit to have a counterfactual model of one’s own mind and of the metaphysical and spiritual nature of reality. BTW I’m not disagreeing on the fact that some things are necessarily unknowable, but mostly in the sense of the incompleteness theorems and other inherent limitations of information processing and the physical laws of nature.

namero999 4y ago

Science can't even answer "what". I'm not sure "why" is a smart question to ask nature. Agreed on "how".