I've posted this as an introduction to a couple of forums so far, and I am also posting it here. This was orginially directed to someone who made a distinct seperation between "How" and "Why", and used it to come to the conclusion that theology and science are seperate. Add your input, thoughts, etc.:
Alright, hello all.
Now then, for support of what I am about to say, concerning the definition of WHY:
1. The reason, cause, or purpose for which: I know why you left.
Notice the use of the word cause. What is a cause? A cause is:
1. A basis for an action or response; a reason: The doctor's report gave no cause for alarm.
Now, as for How:
1. In what manner or way; by what means: How does this machine work?
In order to fully support a statement on why something happened, we must first collect enough knowledge on the issue to divide the why into a division of probabilities concerning the many possible causes. Take for examples, Near Death Experiences. Most people do not do research on their near death experiences before coming to the conclusion that the only probability is that their NDEs are supernatural. They assume that a why derives from it without researching the other possible hows. When one, for examples, stumbles upon the fact that airforce vets who have passed out in centrifuges experience NDEs without fail and that the brain shows activity during that period similar to lucid dreaming, the probability changes at least to some degree, and the likelihood of the cause being a supernatural at least decreases unless one can seperate their NDE from those experienced in the centrifuge. What I am saying is that one cannot say for a certainty that their experiences are exceptional or beyond the current information to others without quantifying this specific quality that puts it beyond everything else.
This post is not meant to say the supernatural is nonexistant as much as it is meant to state that until one can distinguish their "supernatural" experiences from ones that have been proven to be as far as we can see naturalistic, to expect one to consider their statement that their experiences were "special" is on the whole ridiculous. Like it or not, most things in the universe happen with a certain congruity, and until those who claim they can claim supernatural why's from their experiences explain how those experiences are incongruous with similarily explained happenstances, they certainly cannot expect their position to be widely philosophically or scientifically accepted as, at least, the dominant probability.
Most of all, under the definition I posted, How's and Why's intersect and are not merely parallell. You cannot attribute a cause to something until you understand how it happened, and because of that without first gaining knowledge on the research conercening the how you cannot attribute a why, especially if you have not looked for explanations for experiences congruous to yours.
Sorry if this is confusing or muddled. I've spent too much time reading instead of communicating my ideas to others. Just ask me to clarify if you are confused as to my intent in posting this.
[This message has been edited by Zinkovich (edited 08-02-2006).]
|
Threaded Mode
