tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post114540061121873876..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Why vs How - a false conflictRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-85796008295062012262013-02-15T17:30:37.700-08:002013-02-15T17:30:37.700-08:00To Nonzero - excellent point. I am an atheist beca...To Nonzero - excellent point. I am an atheist because theology insist on indoctrination using ideas that can not be reconciled with reality. Theology has no mechanism for self correction when new information becomes available. It continues to ask "why" even after the question has been answered. It claims to know the "how" in the face of all reason. It corrupts the mind by Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-75812290492789689672007-10-04T13:41:00.000-07:002007-10-04T13:41:00.000-07:00There is no conflict between the 'how' vs. the 'wh...There is no conflict between the 'how' vs. the 'why'. You are right that they ask different questions and are answered in different ways, but that still is not where the conflict arises. Even if the NOMA actually overlap, that doesn't automatically result in conflict.<BR/><BR/>The conflict arises when the 'how' and the 'why' become incompatible. We pretty much know 'how' humans evolved based nonzerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05525282772791590837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-23221648904936626192007-09-09T17:11:00.000-07:002007-09-09T17:11:00.000-07:00I don't really understand what Dawkins is talking ...I don't really understand what Dawkins is talking about, in that there is no why in science. <BR/><BR/>For instance evolution provides athiets with a very good why for a lot of the phenomena you see in biology: why does phenomenon X exist? Because it helped the organism survive. To me that is a why. <BR/><BR/>The how would be the history or mechanism through which that survival was accomplishedUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15829971315441195368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1147890986271629372006-05-17T11:36:00.000-07:002006-05-17T11:36:00.000-07:00It is also worthwhile to reflect upon how "Why" ca...It is also worthwhile to reflect upon how "Why" can mean "Due to what cause / mechanism" or "For what reason / purpose", two very different things.<BR/><BR/>"Why is the sky blue" and "Why are our eyes sensitive to this particular area of the spectrum" are the first kind - a scientific "Why" that is really a "How" in disguise. "Why does the universe exist" implies deliberate purpose. Some Bernardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14960088129824343480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1146197085335819802006-04-27T21:04:00.000-07:002006-04-27T21:04:00.000-07:00I was thinking about the types of "why" questions ...I was thinking about the types of "why" questions that Christianity seeks to answer, because it isn't actually obvious. First, I just want to say that I don't think the Bible addresses much in the way of justifying scientific phenomena. Secondly, there are more interesting "why" questions that people ask, like "why is there evil in the world". While many theologians could talk on this topic for aasdfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04300268293562759791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1146093885666237672006-04-26T16:24:00.000-07:002006-04-26T16:24:00.000-07:00Christianity is all about asking *how* one might b...<I>Christianity is all about asking *how* one might become righteous before God.</I><BR/><BR/>"Why" vs. "How" is an oversimplification. Science asks "how" in the sense of "by what mechanism" do natural phenomena come about. Religion asks "why" in the sense of "for what purpose" do these phenomena and mechanisms exist?<BR/><BR/>Religion, as you point out, also asks "how" do we accomplish certainRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14719368822663798864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1145867076440190902006-04-24T01:24:00.000-07:002006-04-24T01:24:00.000-07:00Sorry, I didn't actually read your post. That was ...Sorry, I didn't actually read your post. That was my comment about enjoying talking about things without having time... I really struggle with these issues, but I feel it's important to talk to people anyway.<BR/><BR/>I have never met a "proof" for God that does not require some kind of "leap of faith" first. Part of the problem is that historical truths are elusive. But for exactly the same asdfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04300268293562759791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1145673831259976892006-04-21T19:43:00.000-07:002006-04-21T19:43:00.000-07:00Hi quantamos. It's great to meet another Christian...Hi quantamos. It's great to meet another Christian who enjoys this kind of conversation.<BR/><BR/>I think you miss the point of what I try to say in my blog, though. These kinds of debates miss the point, and when you say that someone would do better in a debate if they knew more about the Bible and apologetics, you miss the point too: A leap of faith is always required to embrace theism. Even ifBernardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14960088129824343480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1145424657550981452006-04-18T22:30:00.000-07:002006-04-18T22:30:00.000-07:00oh, and i wanted to add something. it's actually e...oh, and i wanted to add something. it's actually extremely disappointing how few christians there are who actually know more about the bible, theology, and christian living than what they might have been told in sunday school.<BR/><BR/>part of why i (as a christian) think this is disappointing is because how can you enjoy something if you have never earnestly worked at enjoying it? it's not easy,asdfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04300268293562759791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1145422820103960602006-04-18T22:00:00.000-07:002006-04-18T22:00:00.000-07:00i wish i had more time to read and write about all...i wish i had more time to read and write about all this stuff.<BR/><BR/>as i think you could tell from the time we met -- i really enjoy thinking and talking about this stuff. not only the differences between atheism, islam, hindu, et al and christanity, but within the different christian denominations. if you find the right kinds of people to talk to, who actually seem fairly rare, the asdfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04300268293562759791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-1145421701413207102006-04-18T21:41:00.000-07:002006-04-18T21:41:00.000-07:00Wow, thanks for your review! I'm happy - and not s...Wow, thanks for your review! I'm happy - and not surprised - that you mostly agree.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, you put it very well and concisely: The best methods used to ask Why are not very good at answering How, or vice versa, and people get into trouble when they try. Well said. That's basically the idea behind the "non-overlapping magisteria" principle I talk about at http://atheistspy.blogspot.com/Bernardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14960088129824343480noreply@blogger.com