The Question of Why

[Epimethean]

Uh, no. That's not the point he made, but well missed, Amker.

[Welsh cake]

In other words, is there a statement that can withstand the question 'why?'?

Why not?

Moving on...

[amkerman]

Please explain the "point" Dawkins made ep.

[Erinome]

Hmmm... Questions that science doesn't know the answers to are "silly" questions unworthy of thought or response. How convenient. Why do the tides come in and go out? Why do things fall to the ground? If Dawkins was alive during Newton's era imagine where we would be now as a human race.

---

Simply. Stunning.

I feel like you miss logical points because you're biologically allergic, but I know it's because of fear. It's too bad we can't have a discussion in person so that I may read your nonverbal communications. It would, no doubt, be revealing.

People who want their life to have some meaning on an all-important scale are self absorbed, and just thinking wishfully. Most of the time they make up these wild delusions about a special plan that their god has just for them, and they might even really believe it, but it doesn't mean it's true.

Dawkins is not saying that questions to which science doesn't know the answer are silly. That's a convolution of what he was saying. Just because you can form a grammatically correct question in english, doesn't mean it deserves an answer.

The question, why... Why am I here? There just has to be some grand, important reason that my patriarchal sky god made me just the way I am. Why? Why did he give me this life instead of that life? Why did he make this plan for me? Why?

(Just some questions I made up by channeling a monotheist)

First, in order to answer those questions, you must prove that there is a patriarchal sky god. Then you have to prove that he had anything to do with personally forming you. Then you would have to prove that he cares at all about what happens in your pathetic little life. Then, maybe, just maybe... you could come up with a valid answer to that question, but only if you could prove that he did exist, he formed you personally, and really cares.

What if you could prove a sky god does exist, but he's not patriarchal? In other words, he's just an intelligent life form who set the ball in motion, hence, we're here. What if you got to meet him, and the answer was that he was fucking bored one day, and he doesn't even know your name? Then the answer to the question why would be that you're here because some intelligent life force got bored one day, and earth was his celestial nut stain, that he thought the maid would handle. Then what?

Science doesn't waste time on that question, because it's a stupid fucking question.

Personally, I think that it's silly to think that any of us has a special and divine purpose. Instead, I think it's better that we try to find meaning in our lives more realistically. For instance: I don't know why I am here, other than to love and raise my kids to grow up and not ask stupid fucking questions. I think that I chose that path myself, and could have chosen from an endless amount of reasons why I am here.

If you would like a better answer to the question than the one you can assign yourself, which one do you want? There are a plethora of myths and philosophies from which to choose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life

I think the question of why is not a stupid question when you're fine with accepting a personal answer. I never discourage introspection, but if you're going to look to science to answer that question definitively and for humanity as a whole, first you're going to have to come up with some proof that it's even a question.

[Epimethean]

I thought he made it very clear when he described the "why" of the mountain, differentiating between tectonic, geological reasons and a "purpose."

It is the latter kind of why, which theists so love because they get to make up the answers, which is silly.

[Erinome]

Delusions of grandeur. I don't understand why it's important for people to feel so damned important. Do you know what you are? Look how awesome and important you look to the relatively nearby location of Mars.

[The Grand Nudger]

First demonstrate that an object has a purpose, and then we can talk about the why. What a ridiculous question to blanket the cosmos with. One word that assumes itself, and an answer to itself. It isn't just the answers that are silly and made-up......it's the assumption that why applies to everything in the first place.

[Perhaps]

There is a distinct difference between reason and purpose. Reason infers causality, while purpose infers meaning.

Causality is observed through science but will ultimately fall back on to inductive assumption of cause (committing a deductive fallacy) - This was the aim of my hypothesis. The most prominent image of this occurring is 'cogito ergo sum' - essentially 'this is true, therefore this is the cause'. This simply does not work if one is trying to deductively prove a cause. One cannot observe a conclusion and induce a cause and say it is proof of the cause. As any mathematician would tell you, it only takes one counter example to negate a proof, so while science may think it knows the cause, it may change at any time as knowledge grows. For examples of this occurring refer to any of the scientific revolutions of the past - the Copernican/Galilean revolution, the Newtonian (classical) revolution, the non-Euclidean and non-Aristotelian revolutions, the ongoing Gödelian revolution, the Relativity revolution, the Quantum revolution.

You can refer back to Aleialoura's posts for an explanation of purpose and meaning.

---

In other words, is there a statement that can withstand the question 'why?'?

Why not?

That's a question, not a statement.

[Norfolk And Chance]

There is a distinct difference between reason and purpose. Reason infers causality, while purpose infers meaning.

Causality is observed through science but will ultimately fall back on to inductive assumption of cause (committing a deductive fallacy) - This was the aim of my hypothesis. The most prominent image of this occurring is 'cogito ergo sum' - essentially 'this is true, therefore this is the cause'. This simply does not work if one is trying to deductively prove a cause. One cannot observe a conclusion and induce a cause and say it is proof of the cause. As any mathematician would tell you, it only takes one counter example to negate a proof, so while science may think it knows the cause, it may change at any time as knowledge grows. For examples of this occurring refer to any of the scientific revolutions of the past - the Copernican/Galilean revolution, the Newtonian (classical) revolution, the non-Euclidean and non-Aristotelian revolutions, the ongoing Gödelian revolution, the Relativity revolution, the Quantum revolution.

I think you need to go and have a wank or something.

[Perhaps]

I think you need to go and have a wank or something.

Perhaps

But i'm off to work.