Theological responses to scientific arguments.

[FunctionalAtheist]

the scientific explains the physical processes, the theological explains the 'why'

They are completely different things. I think the problem arises when the scienctific explanation assumes precedence and superiority...ie when they claim that God is not needed for something to happen.

Are we really supposed to believe that all the processes of life and the universe just started up on their own...that nothing was needed to guide and direct them? That they serve no purpose?

Theologically, we get satisfaction out of knowing 'why' and scientifically we have our curiosity, as to 'how', satisfied.

Really? Perhaps you could share an example of this how/why dicothemy which shall not be allowed to overlap?

 

[Looncall]

the scientific explains the physical processes, the theological explains the 'why'

They are completely different things. I think the problem arises when the scienctific explanation assumes precedence and superiority...ie when they claim that God is not needed for something to happen.

Are we really supposed to believe that all the processes of life and the universe just started up on their own...that nothing was needed to guide and direct them? That they serve no purpose?

Theologically, we get satisfaction out of knowing 'why' and scientifically we have our curiosity, as to 'how', satisfied.

So, you make stuff up to feel good? And people have been doing this for thousands of years?

Interesting, I thought it was just ancient errors surviving through the millennia.

 

[ruffen]

the scientific explains the physical processes, the theological explains the 'why'

They are completely different things. I think the problem arises when the scienctific explanation assumes precedence and superiority...ie when they claim that God is not needed for something to happen.

Science and religion are not separate things when religion tries to explain anything about the nature and origin of our Universe, our Earth, life, or humans. Nor are they separate when religion tries to explain consciousness/souls, what happens when we die, if there is an actual real thing controlling events in the Universe in a fashion that would not have happened by natural law alone.

In all these cases, religion steps into the territory of science, and time and time again fails in properly explaining anything at all.

Are we really supposed to believe that all the processes of life and the universe just started up on their own...that nothing was needed to guide and direct them? That they serve no purpose?

Yes. Do you believe that the entanglement of headphone cables in a bag serves an intelligently thought-out purpose? Do you believe that every puddle of rainwater is intelligently designed to fit its ditch? Do you believe that Uranus' moon Puck, is there for a purpose?

If you answer "no" to any of these questions, then you are on the correct path - congratulations! You just need to extend that notion of "things just happen because of physics" a little bit further and you're there.

Theologically, we get satisfaction out of knowing 'why' and scientifically we have our curiosity, as to 'how', satisfied.

Scientifically, we also know that the "why" might be meaningless. "Why" is begging the question - you assume the answer even before the question is asked. You so badly want there to be a comforting answer to the "why" question, that this alone is the reason for even asking the question.

If it gives you satisfaction to feel you have an answer to a "why"-question, good for you, but the answer you might come up with does not describe anything real within nature.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

I've heard this why/how dicotomey before but I do not know where it comes from. It seems to be very poorly thought-out gut response rather than any critical thought.

How do animals breath? For mammals through a gaseous exhange system (the lungs).
Why do animals breath? Because aerobic respiration is 100 times more efficient than anaerobic respiration.

There is no dicotomey between how and why. It's a rediculous proposition with zero support and zero thought put into it.