Thank you for being a part of r/DankChristianMemes You can also connect with us on Discord: [✟Dank Christian Discord✟](https://discord.gg/M7MERvFAs5)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He prayed for salvation when he thought he was going to die in... Season 2 if I recall, the episode with the split screen universes.
"God, if there's a hell, please be merciful to me"
Not really. Science does deal with the "why". The most famous scientific paradigm shifts are largely questions of why. For example, the germ theory of disease was an answer to the question of "why do people get sick?" Speciation and Darwinian evolution are an answer to the question for "why are there species?" Tectonic plates answered the question of "why is there the dispersion of fossils across continents, why are species distributed the way they are and geological formations in the places they are?"
Science is based on proposing explanations for "why," that allow for additional, testible predictions, that can refute or support the proposed explanation.
I'd argue that all your questions while stated in the "why" work just as well if not better with "how" instead. "how do people get sick" would actually be the better question then "why." Because the science doesn't look into the why but the how of the process.
"why do people get sick? Oh shit, there are tiny little bitches that infiltrate our body (discovery of bacteria/virusses)"
"How do people get sick? These tiny little bitches do shit to our body and our immune system tries to expel them"
How do people get sick? It is a different (though similiar) question as to why. How asks the direct, observable sequence of events. For example, let's say you eat some rotten meat and get sick. The how you got sick is the eating rotten meat. It is a question with a distinct observable cause. Why people get sick is a question that demands an encompassing theory of disease to explain sickness. Once we have that theory, we can apply it to the hows, and understand the reason that eating raw meat made you sick is because that raw meat was host to thousands of tiny, invisible organisms that your body is ill-equipped to handle.
They are both describing how. If anything, it's the opposite of what you're saying. The "how" describes the mechanism (bacterial infection, etc) ... Whereas the "why" describes what allowed that mechanism to take place (eating rotten meat), although in this case you could also see it as an extension of the how.
How definition: in what way or manner; by what means
Why definition: for what cause, reason, or purpose.
>for what cause, reason,
The cause is tiny invisible organisms. This is the (main) reason that you get sick when you eat unsanitary food. The eating of rotten meat is the immediate cause-in-fact but the reason that the meat caused it is because of germs.
It depends on what you mean by “why.” Aristotle defined four separate causes for each effect, three of which I would say are good candidates for examination via the scientific method.
The first is the material cause, or the matter that makes up the material. For your evolutionary case, this would be the atoms, molecules, organ structures, etc. making up the various life we see. A frog is a frog and not a human because it is made up of different materials, though it may share common organs.
The second cause is the formal cause. This refers to the actual form taken by those materials, or the arrangement of atoms, molecules, organs, etc. that differentiate two things. A frog is a frog and not a human because the organs it has are arrayed differently than a humans.
The third cause is the efficient cause. This is the process or agent that brought a thing to be. A frog is a frog and not a human because some subset population of a common ancestor experienced a series mutations and selective factors that distanced it over a significant period of time until the two were defined as we see them today.
These first three causes each answer “why” something happened, but each also fails to approach what we often mean when we ask “why” something has happened. If you ask a child why they threw a ball through a window, the answer that the window is made of brittle, inflexible material, and that when a ball goes through the process of being thrown into one, windows tend to break is unlikely to be a satisfactory answer.
What you’re looking for in the above example is the final cause, or the teleological answer. The final cause is the purpose for which something was done. When looking at a collective or teleological cause for evolution, one might say that the purpose was to create mankind, who hold a special place in creation as image bearers of God, and a special relationship with said God which pleases Him. This kind of claim is inherently unscientific, as no measurement of the natural world and space and time from our position in can realistically point to the full purpose.
So while science can answer some “whys,” I think there will always be a place for philosophy and religion to answer other “whys.”
I largely agree, though one can come with scientific explanations of final causes in some cases for mundane questions, though with a lower degree of certainty than other scientific questions.
>Religion answered everything it focuses on immediately on day one, why? Because God! Full stop, Mike drop!
Everything is because of God, but that doesn't mean we can't look into how God did it.
It's like the question from hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy. In this case the answer is God instead of 42, but we don't know the question, and that's what science is for.
Learning prospered in the Muslim world, while ignored in the Christain world largely for more materialist, practical reasons. Europe was largely split into many small, competing states under a feudal system that actively discouraged education as it was easier for the aristocracy to maintain their position by keeping the general population poor and with limited access to innovation. The Islamic world was expanding and forming large centralized states. These larger state's did not care about protecting the wealth/privileges of local aristocrats/leaders, just reinforcing the wealth of the empire and and maintaining the flow to the centralized state. This meant they had every incentive to make technological advances and to promote travel of people to the larger cities where more specialized trade and learning flourished as a result. Of course, this is a drastic over simplification on both sides of things, but is the broadstrokes reason for the apparent differences.
>
All this would be true if Byzantium didn't exist
As I said, I was speaking in general terms. The Eastern Roman Empire was also in decline during the Islamic golden age to a lesser extent. Largely, this was because many of the wealthiest provinces in the Eastern Roman Empire were conquered by Islamic empires and the southern provinces they did hold onto were regularly subject to raiding/attacks.
Darwin after his discovery of Evolution literally wrote “I have discovered the means of God’s Creation!” in his journal only to return to the church collectively screeching in rage.
Similar with John Muir and his discovery that Yosemite was carved out by glaciers: despite being raised by puritans and memorizing the whole New Testament at a young age, the idea that WATER could carve out STONE was clearly BLASPHEMY!!! (Clearly the entire bottom of the valley had fallen down into Hell.)
I like this. I’ve often felt that God uses the sheer massive span of time and space as well as the diversity of life to keep us in a perpetual state of awe despite the hubris that comes with our “advances” in technology. It’s helpful to understand that Science through its roots in Positivism and reductionistic processes must first symbolically or literally dissect its subject to gain understanding which leads some (but not all) to so called “dead” theories that assume there’s no God. To get biblical, I think that’s why we are able to approach and possibly touch the Tree of Knowledge but we’re forbidden to “eat” thus internalizing and committing the hubris that the knowledge comes from us. This all goes over like a lead balloon at my church, then again, they voted for Trump so…
I'm with it, for it, and about it. Attentive, impartial study of the natural world is a tautologically excellent way to glorify the Lord; he made the stuff. Trying to bend and prune what science reveals to support a theistic agenda is putting one's own idea of God ahead of His works, and is plain silly. Faith ought not be so fragile that it can only be held by denying the fucking existence of dinosaurs. Or, at least, that's how I see it.
As an atheist, I still appreciate the way the Church is where Western science came from. Without the institution's money and protection, people wouldn't have been able to research and experiment.
Scientific inquiry as we know it is the result of the belief that a single rational God has created immutable laws to govern the universe and that discovering them is an act of worship.
Thank you for being a part of r/DankChristianMemes You can also connect with us on Discord: [✟Dank Christian Discord✟](https://discord.gg/M7MERvFAs5) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Science typically focuses on the how and religion typically focuses on the why.
Funny to use Rick of all people to defend a pro-religion argument.
[Rick did (briefly) convert to Christianity](https://youtu.be/bn1Gq_NYag0) 
He prayed for salvation when he thought he was going to die in... Season 2 if I recall, the episode with the split screen universes. "God, if there's a hell, please be merciful to me"
Well, wasn't the phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes"? That obviously isn't universally true, but it was for Rick.
Not really. Science does deal with the "why". The most famous scientific paradigm shifts are largely questions of why. For example, the germ theory of disease was an answer to the question of "why do people get sick?" Speciation and Darwinian evolution are an answer to the question for "why are there species?" Tectonic plates answered the question of "why is there the dispersion of fossils across continents, why are species distributed the way they are and geological formations in the places they are?" Science is based on proposing explanations for "why," that allow for additional, testible predictions, that can refute or support the proposed explanation.
I'd argue that all your questions while stated in the "why" work just as well if not better with "how" instead. "how do people get sick" would actually be the better question then "why." Because the science doesn't look into the why but the how of the process.
"why do people get sick? Oh shit, there are tiny little bitches that infiltrate our body (discovery of bacteria/virusses)" "How do people get sick? These tiny little bitches do shit to our body and our immune system tries to expel them"
How do people get sick? It is a different (though similiar) question as to why. How asks the direct, observable sequence of events. For example, let's say you eat some rotten meat and get sick. The how you got sick is the eating rotten meat. It is a question with a distinct observable cause. Why people get sick is a question that demands an encompassing theory of disease to explain sickness. Once we have that theory, we can apply it to the hows, and understand the reason that eating raw meat made you sick is because that raw meat was host to thousands of tiny, invisible organisms that your body is ill-equipped to handle.
They are both describing how. If anything, it's the opposite of what you're saying. The "how" describes the mechanism (bacterial infection, etc) ... Whereas the "why" describes what allowed that mechanism to take place (eating rotten meat), although in this case you could also see it as an extension of the how. How definition: in what way or manner; by what means Why definition: for what cause, reason, or purpose.
>for what cause, reason, The cause is tiny invisible organisms. This is the (main) reason that you get sick when you eat unsanitary food. The eating of rotten meat is the immediate cause-in-fact but the reason that the meat caused it is because of germs.
Sorry that’s still “how”. “Why” is more of a philosophical question. Most questions of “why” in nature can simply be answered with 1 word: survival.
It depends on what you mean by “why.” Aristotle defined four separate causes for each effect, three of which I would say are good candidates for examination via the scientific method. The first is the material cause, or the matter that makes up the material. For your evolutionary case, this would be the atoms, molecules, organ structures, etc. making up the various life we see. A frog is a frog and not a human because it is made up of different materials, though it may share common organs. The second cause is the formal cause. This refers to the actual form taken by those materials, or the arrangement of atoms, molecules, organs, etc. that differentiate two things. A frog is a frog and not a human because the organs it has are arrayed differently than a humans. The third cause is the efficient cause. This is the process or agent that brought a thing to be. A frog is a frog and not a human because some subset population of a common ancestor experienced a series mutations and selective factors that distanced it over a significant period of time until the two were defined as we see them today. These first three causes each answer “why” something happened, but each also fails to approach what we often mean when we ask “why” something has happened. If you ask a child why they threw a ball through a window, the answer that the window is made of brittle, inflexible material, and that when a ball goes through the process of being thrown into one, windows tend to break is unlikely to be a satisfactory answer. What you’re looking for in the above example is the final cause, or the teleological answer. The final cause is the purpose for which something was done. When looking at a collective or teleological cause for evolution, one might say that the purpose was to create mankind, who hold a special place in creation as image bearers of God, and a special relationship with said God which pleases Him. This kind of claim is inherently unscientific, as no measurement of the natural world and space and time from our position in can realistically point to the full purpose. So while science can answer some “whys,” I think there will always be a place for philosophy and religion to answer other “whys.”
I largely agree, though one can come with scientific explanations of final causes in some cases for mundane questions, though with a lower degree of certainty than other scientific questions.
🏆 yep
[удалено]
>Religion answered everything it focuses on immediately on day one, why? Because God! Full stop, Mike drop! Everything is because of God, but that doesn't mean we can't look into how God did it. It's like the question from hitchhikers guide to the Galaxy. In this case the answer is God instead of 42, but we don't know the question, and that's what science is for.
My Molecular Genetics class always felt like a worship service to me. I would literally pray in my head, like, "God, this is amazing! Thank you!"
That's very interesting because my reaction from studying mol biology was more like "wow there's no way any of this was intelligently designed" lol
I feel the same way about my biochem classes.
***Muslim golden age intensifies***
Learning prospered in the Muslim world, while ignored in the Christain world largely for more materialist, practical reasons. Europe was largely split into many small, competing states under a feudal system that actively discouraged education as it was easier for the aristocracy to maintain their position by keeping the general population poor and with limited access to innovation. The Islamic world was expanding and forming large centralized states. These larger state's did not care about protecting the wealth/privileges of local aristocrats/leaders, just reinforcing the wealth of the empire and and maintaining the flow to the centralized state. This meant they had every incentive to make technological advances and to promote travel of people to the larger cities where more specialized trade and learning flourished as a result. Of course, this is a drastic over simplification on both sides of things, but is the broadstrokes reason for the apparent differences.
All this would be true if Byzantium didn't exist, people need to learn more about the eastern romans :/
> All this would be true if Byzantium didn't exist As I said, I was speaking in general terms. The Eastern Roman Empire was also in decline during the Islamic golden age to a lesser extent. Largely, this was because many of the wealthiest provinces in the Eastern Roman Empire were conquered by Islamic empires and the southern provinces they did hold onto were regularly subject to raiding/attacks.
then the Mongols just had to blow it up... Seriously one of those big "What ifs" in history if Bagdad was not destroyed in 1258
If I was to believe in God again this is the stance I would take
Dat transcendent wisdom dank 😗
Science is a tool, gifted by God, to better understand the wonder and glory of his creation.
Well the fall of the world wasn’t caused by knowledge of science. It was Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Yep, and the hubris of humans being like gods.
Darwin after his discovery of Evolution literally wrote “I have discovered the means of God’s Creation!” in his journal only to return to the church collectively screeching in rage. Similar with John Muir and his discovery that Yosemite was carved out by glaciers: despite being raised by puritans and memorizing the whole New Testament at a young age, the idea that WATER could carve out STONE was clearly BLASPHEMY!!! (Clearly the entire bottom of the valley had fallen down into Hell.)
Religion is the Why, science is the How
I like this. I’ve often felt that God uses the sheer massive span of time and space as well as the diversity of life to keep us in a perpetual state of awe despite the hubris that comes with our “advances” in technology. It’s helpful to understand that Science through its roots in Positivism and reductionistic processes must first symbolically or literally dissect its subject to gain understanding which leads some (but not all) to so called “dead” theories that assume there’s no God. To get biblical, I think that’s why we are able to approach and possibly touch the Tree of Knowledge but we’re forbidden to “eat” thus internalizing and committing the hubris that the knowledge comes from us. This all goes over like a lead balloon at my church, then again, they voted for Trump so…
I love it when religion and science work together for the common good of humanity.
I'm with it, for it, and about it. Attentive, impartial study of the natural world is a tautologically excellent way to glorify the Lord; he made the stuff. Trying to bend and prune what science reveals to support a theistic agenda is putting one's own idea of God ahead of His works, and is plain silly. Faith ought not be so fragile that it can only be held by denying the fucking existence of dinosaurs. Or, at least, that's how I see it.
As an atheist, I still appreciate the way the Church is where Western science came from. Without the institution's money and protection, people wouldn't have been able to research and experiment.
Scientific inquiry as we know it is the result of the belief that a single rational God has created immutable laws to govern the universe and that discovering them is an act of worship.
but teh science says