- One One Seven
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Some might argue that "why" is in some cases a redundant question; it has no bearing on what actually happens, and there might not be an answer to give. For instance "Why were we created" essentially demands a purpose for our existence
Science makes NO stand regarding theology. It is not capable of doing so within its own parameters. Science is only capable of explaining the measurable, the definable where as theology attempts to define the undefinable, that which defies measurement or quantification.
Science cannot disprove the beliefs of something that has been defined as disprovable (which nicely shields these views from attack). If I were to postulate the existence of a flying pink unicorn that is invisible and changes any scientific measurements aimed at detecting it to measurements which would indicate it is not there, there is no way to prove it's existence.
However, you can argue against the reason for why it is supposed to be invisible and undetectable, and in a lot of cases the belief will be arbitrary, or the reason for believing it possesses those particular characteristics is on extremely shaky grounds. Why was my object invisible? Because I chose it to be arbitrarily. Or I had a vision of such an object. Or it might have been misconstrued by someone I was telling a story to, or otherwise mistranslated. Or someone told me it was invisible, etc.
However, the point to make is that there is no evidence whatsoever for these beliefs, or the evidence is extremely poor. They cannot be disproved, but they cannot be proved either. Also, by applying Occam's Razor, which all things being equal states that the simplest theory is the best, you can see that not having to explain a complex entity which defies all measurements is a lot simpler than there not being one in the first place. All other things being equal (which is certainly not true in this case incidentally), the theory of there being no flying unicorn is a better one.
There is no reason to believe in the existence of Homer's gods over say, Allah, and these various beliefs all stem from somewhat arbitrary human beliefs. Why is Allah all powerful? Because people believe he is.
Science sucks at the "why", but it excels at the "how" - describing the mechanisms of the natural world. Now, the difference between the two is that one is philosophical, and one is based in observation. You can gather evidence against the observations, but not against a philosophy.
Science cannot provide a scientific answer to some philosophical or moral ideas. There's no scientific proof that it is "wrong" to steal, for instance; that comes for most people from our upbringing and an inbuilt sense of morality (which probably stems from our generally altruistic behaviour. As for where that comes from, some would argue it evolved ... and it effectively made us into the most powerful species on this planet ... I can quickly see this post is getting rather deep ...).
However, for various other things the "why" falls out by it's own right, until you reach the laws upon which nature is based (.e.g the laws of physics and the various constants that define them).
I think that's deep enough for today. At any rate, what other people believe is not really my concern :-)