Summations Only

If you mean that we can feel those emotions without knowing anything about the process, I would have thought that that's stating the obvious.I'm wondering how we arrived at this point. The causes, mechanics and functions of emotions are certainly things that science asks why and how questions about, which is all that's really relevant to this thread. And it's not even that important to it as science asks plenty of why questions that have nothing to do with humans at all.I suppose that the rarest kind of question that science finds itself asking are the "who" questions. Forensic science in a "whodunit" situation is one example.

Could you give me an example of an "ideal why" question?And could you give me an example of an "ideal why" question to which theology has been known to give a demonstrably correct answer?And do you agree that the intent of question (3) in the O.P. might be better expressed in the way that you have done it in the sentence I've quoted?It's not a question of whether it's right or wrong, but that I think your effort says what you want to say, whereas the O.P. version probably has a similar intent, but dismally fails to express it, and is misleading.

That doesn't answer my question, but never mind.So, science asks the questions about the mechanics of the brain that cause those five things. Then, the theologians ask "ideal" questions about those five things, then scientists investigate the mechanics of the brain that cause theologians to ask their "ideal" questions.So, it looks as though it's the scientists who are asking the "ultimate" questions. They are investigating the causes of God.

What does?

As I pointed out on the other thread, you're assuming your incorrectly restricted definition of why in order to come to your conclusions, although I don't think you're doing this intentionally. "Why", in those questions can be technical. It doesn't have to mean "for what objective purpose", or "for what ultimate reason".Take the birds singing. A why question might initially be answered by an immediate reason, like "because they are communicating". Then "why do they communicate" could be answered by giving specific functions, like marking territory, mating, warning, etc. Then, if a questioner asks why they do those things, you could give a reasonable general answer like "it's advantageous for them to do so, and aids their survival."If someone wanted to phrase a question in the way that you have "why did it happen that birds sing", the answer "because it was advantageous to their ancestors, and aided their survival" is a reasonable one. Or "because there was positive selection for traits that contributed to efficient communication". That could then lead naturally to a good how question about the processes of evolution.Once you realise that why isn't restricted to intentional purpose, you'll be able to understand the various ways you hear it being used all the time around you, outside science and in.You could try to support statement (2) in the O.P. if you want to, as it was you who made it on the thread that led to this one, but I wouldn't recommend trying, as it's demonstrably wrong. As for statement one, another old favourite of yours, forget it!

On its own, it's meaningless, and it wouldn't give context to the other two statements even if it appeared with them. No. RAZD argued for the point made baldly in statement (2). That appears to be what he believes, and it's the source of his confusion. Which doesn't refer to any specific type. So statement 2 presented on its own would be wrong. And we don't have any context in statement 3 anyway. He was making some correct points to Dawn. But he was also making some incorrect points which confused the issue, and it was those that I pointed to. It isn't correct, for example, to say that scientific theories do not answer "why" questions. All his "sky is blue" stuff that he was giving to Dawn was wrong. "Why is the sky blue" asks for immediate reasons, not the purposeful intent of the sky gods!RAZD brought in statement (2) in order to try to define why so that he would be right in his assertion that science doesn't answer why questions. By which he meant all of them. Even that wouldn't work, because questions concerning purpose are asked in some fields, as I'd already pointed out.It could be summed up like this. Dawn wants to bring his god into science to answer why questions. RAZD makes a philosophical argument against this, but shows his agreement with Dawn that naturalistic science does not address why questions of any kind. Dawn wants why in, thinking it means purposeful creation; RAZD says science doesn't deal with why, apparently thinking the same. Bluegenes thinks that science does address the why questions anyway and that there's no evidence of any purpose being involved in evolution and the origin of life, so that questions like "why is there life on earth" are technical and scientific anyway.

No. I speak English, and I understand the uses of the word "why".I take it that you are attempting to support questions (1) and (2).1)Science doesn't ask/answer why questions2)The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purposeOnce again, you're imposing your own incorrect restrictions on the the word "why" in order to waffle on about it. While you keep doing that, your posts are meaningless.You are assuming (2) in order to make the case for (1). Stop fantasizing about me struggling and wailing. It doesn't make your case.Here are two complete, non-tentative facts.1) Science doesn't ask/answer why questions is a false claim.2) The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose is linguistic nonsense and a false claim.Now do you agree with those two facts?

No. The claim in statement (2) in this O.P. was being made. That's the incorrect one that the proper usage of "why" is for questions of purpose.

So are all the interrogative words. That's why they're used in phrases with other words that give them some context. Why aren't you objecting to the word "how", which is the interrogative adverb often described as having several different common usages? "How" is singled out here:http://www.edufind.com/english/grammar/ADVERBS9.cfm

quote:

---

Notice that how can be used in four different ways:

​

1. meaning 'in what way?':
How did you make this sauce?
How do you start the car?

​

2. with adjectives:
How tall are you?
How old is your house?

​

3. with much and many:
How much are these tomatoes?
How many people are coming to the party?

​

4. with other adverbs:
How quickly can you read this?
How often do you go to London?

---

No. If that were the case, they'd never use any interrogatives. Also, check out the history and evolution in usage of words like "science" and "atom", and the difficulties inherent in defining words like "life" and "species". One of the reasons I started this thread is that your brother (Zen Deist)* makes the mistake of excluding reason and cause from the usage of "why" in questions like "why is the sky blue?" It means "for what reason is the sky blue?". It is not a question that automatically implies objective meaning or intentional purpose. Look at three ways we might phrase this accompanied by possible creationist answers:Why is the sky blue? Because God made/wanted it that way.For what reason is the sky blue? Because God made/wanted it that way.How is it that the sky is blue? Because that's how God made it/wanted it to be.Because "why", "what", and "how" can be used in connection with intentional purpose and meaning certainly does not mean that they always are.Scientists today use "why" in pretty much the same way that Darwin used it in On the Origin... They use it in ways that are linguistically very well established, and therefore "proper".The statement: A proper use of "why" is for questions of purpose is absolutely true.The statement: The proper use of "why" is for questions of purpose is absolutely false.The above applies both to our everyday usage and to science.More examples of why and how in religion:Why did God make us? Because He's the perfect Good. Or maybe: Out of love." Or maybe: Because he so desired.How did God make us? He made the first man from dust, and the first woman from one of the man's ribs." * I know you know who your own brother is, but others may not.

Why are you still assuming non-existent restrictions on "why", and therefore your bizzare conclusions? Why do birds sing?The question investigates the immediate reasons and causes behind bird singing. The abstract in this paper discusses an hypothesis about the reason for the existence of the dawn chorus.

Please, leave my name out of your interpretations. If by "vantage point" you meant "position", my view is that we have no way of knowing whether or not all why questions about reality can eventually be "explained" by science. As for questions like "why does god wear polka dot pants", I'm highly confident that they won't ever be correctly answered by science or anything else.Other "disciplines" could make up answers to such questions.

Isn't one use of this board to correct creationists' misconceptions, rather than fit in with them? It's hardly my responsibility to change my language for the sake of those who don't understand it.And it's certainly not true that creationists use "why" only in relation to intent.Look at day to day usage, even that which concerns the actions of people.Person A enters the house, and is greeted by person B, who imparts some information, saying: "I broke the blue vase."Person A: "Why did you break the blue vase?"Possible answers from B: "Because I wanted to use the pieces in a collage I'm making." (intent involved).Because I didn't like it, and I couldn't stand the sight of the bloody thing any more." (intent also)."Because I tripped over the dog, and fell on it." (no intent)."Because I bumped into the table, and it fell." (no intent).The questioner, A, doesn't even know whether or not his question is about purpose. But his question is certainly about the immediate reason/cause behind the breaking of the vase.That's normal "why" usage for everyone, except Zen Deist, who believes that the proper use of why is only for purpose.

Funnily enough, the source of the kind of statements that I commented on in the O.P. is usually not the classical sort of creationist who springs to mind when the word creationist is used here (YECs, for example).If you visualise a spectrum with the YECs at one end and non-theistic naturalists at the other, there's a middle ground which is mainly covered by people who are often referred to as "theistic evolutionists". It is from this kind of area that the slogan "science answers the how questions and religion the why questions" usually seems to come, along with its attendant misconceptions like "science doesn't answer why questions".

Spot on. That's the kind of area, yes, although Gould himself wouldn't have made the "why" mistake.The current popular name for those identified with this sort of line is "accommodationists".

I wonder why it wasn't phrased: "Science answers the why questions, and religion answers the how questions."Or: "Science answers the how questions, and religion answers the what questions."Then, the type of people that I've noticed on the internet coming up with the ridiculous "science doesn't answer why questions" could instead make the equally silly mistakes of saying "science doesn't answer how questions" or "science doesn't answer what questions."I say this because what, how and why can all be used to ask questions about the meaning and purpose of the world, and about the purposes and actions of God, Satan and the angels.So, choosing how and why in the particular order they are chosen in statement three is actually pretty random.A better statement would be: There are certain questions that science doesn't address, but which religion does, like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" and "how charitable should Christians be to non-believers" and "what was God's purpose in making the world".As I say in the O.P., why pick on why?