The How and Why Mindset. Which one is important?

I was contemplating the relationship between religion and science, and how both seem to be at odds with each other yet appear to complement each other also.

I was wondering how two sets of people can focus on one aspect only and think the other is not important. Science (how) and Religion (Why) seem to self destruct when put in proximity to each other.

Which is more important to you...the understanding of how something happened, or why it happened? I like to consider relevant news events.

Consider 9/11. You have 2 groups there also...the people whom took up the why approach as the critical aspect. 9/11 was done by Al-Queda because they hate our freedom, tall buildings, and whatever else...we spent tons of cash then crushing these freedom hating cavemen because of the understanding of the (offical) why.

Now you got the people whom are in the How catagory. stuck on every detail and demanding new investigations be held to uncover a clearer understanding of the how. they almost see the why as unimportant until the absolute truth of the how has been completed to full satisfaction.

I am wondering if there is a certain brain wiring that allows for prominent mindsets to occur. Are you a truther whom is also an athiest evolutionist? Are you a "faither" whom has a structured religion? Are you a highly religious person whom is also a truther...

I think it would be interesting to see if there is a common trait amongst the hows and whys mindsets...


incidently, if your agnostic, then you can sit this one out (typically an agnostic will find both sides equally important...sort of the mindset)

Did my thread get you to think of this?

Wish I could contribute to your thread... but the last sentence speaks for me.

Religion is just a word to stereo type people into a group. Inside that group, lies many people who believe different things, but agree on one.

Science is just something that explains religion. Religion tells us what and why, and science tells us how.

Of course, if you look at all religions you will see that its merely people saying the same things, but due to culture and language its translated very differently. This causes the divide and conquer.

Nobody is religious, if they say they are, they have accepted that we are not all one consciousness subjectively experiencing itself. Which is what all religion tells us.

Originally posted by Phlynx
Did my thread get you to think of this?

Wish I could contribute to your thread... but the last sentence speaks for me.

Actually yes, yes it did. Made me see there are very distinct mindsets...almost different wiring.

reply to post by SaturnFX


none of those two is important, what matters is you the free conscious that for each move to realize something it might need those answers to position that thing right and never for itself positions

you must see how is god and why is nature, both are wrong because they use outside to be inside for absolute use of course because they benefit from a wonderful source, dont act like them there is no wonderful source to consider for a mortal eating bugs to survive

the why of nature get you richer like you think getting of your religion, it makes you act wherever as if it is your place expanding yourself

the how of god get you to feel superior to the sources of yourself and by that fake sense of freedom from all, it makes you act however like beyond realities of all that kill them at once

the whole evil is coming from this point, when you consider being the objective base you look with as being, instead of considering being you only you that you know being

that is the difference basically from being true and not

when you start to be by what objectively look as being while not you, then your conception of certainty would be all wrong
and that is why you would see anything from the conception of you as being outside, and cant be positive with else unless it is directly related positively to that objective you are

it is evil because certainty is really the base of truth and it is really what happened geniunly of void it is really true, very freely before any reality
while all realities were brought because of certainty facts logical evolutions to

while if you start to be by you that observer of all getting more alive there alone as simply considering it the being, instead of just using it to get things
well then, you would mean everything objectively there almost the same, and some principles of free certainty would be shown to you how the best would be everyday geniunly what is there

while you as the being could decide to move for certainty objective life you see or not it is your choice and your freedom is always sure

the point of truth is to say how all is related truly from itself free source, and not objectively

that is why everything as anything matter to talk to and be self aware, no god can relate everything unless by force and evil life compltely outside the truth

actually any relation between two things from outside of the things itselves alone, is wrong it is never a relation between those two things it is only a creation force as an invention of associations, it could be considered ok for who is doing it if that make him enjoy himself but it is never ok when those things are also alive by themselves and being ignored and forced there

and this is really true facts what i say even if it sounds to you as a fervent christian that it is coming from nowhere

things relates from within itself alone, by the principle of sameness of truth, let truth handle all dont force anything and all would be so mervellous and right

reply to post by SaturnFX


Now I won't deny your observation - it seems correct to me to say that these 2 categories represent quasi distinct mindsets and reading any thread on ATS will point this out.
There is some merit in this line of thought, no doubt about it, but in the end what you present is a false dichotomy.

It may be the case that on ATS the HOW's and the WHY's fall into two distinct categories. But from studiying Philosophy I have a different take. The how and the why are basically complementary. They represent different modes of thinking that are nascent in all of our brains/minds - the how being the analytical approach that deals with mechanical causation and it's affects within a system, the why being the synthetic approach that leads us to ultimate causes (God, the unmoved first mover etc.)

But saying they are complimentary doesn't mean that science doesn't know this dichotomy too. In philosophical Idealism, such as Vitalism, the idea prevails that once you've got the WHY, you'll figure out all of the how's eventually. While a certain school of Positivists, sometimes called Fideists by their oppononents, pretty mich promise that we will have better and better answers to the WHY as soon as we get the HOW right.

But in the end, just like Hegel the old idealist says, you can all wrap it up in a synthesis somehow and end up with something that has a stronger foundations that any one-sided approach could have. In the end, that's how we'll get to our ToE - the point where the how implies the why and the other way around.

It's sunday, and I could go on and on as this eerily touches the stuff I was asking myself while studying philosophy. But this shall suffice for now, as I probably have bored the heck out of most of the people already.




[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

[edit on 7-3-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


i liked very much your thoughts here, it made me see a point also i had in mind and i didnt translate in words

my first living realisation in my early twenty, that stayed the most living one my whole existence, is that the how is for the living and not for the why, but in the sense then that there is no why when you are

what matters is certainty and certainty life is automatically a certainty too so even the how is geniunly realize of certainty itself intelligence ways

reply to post by imans


I think that was perhaps the most insane grouping of words I ever read on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter.
I felt by reading it, I was reading some base code of mental programming, I had to read several parts twice just to make sure it truely was making no sense.

Thanks...I might actually notepad it just so I can read over and over and get a glimmer into madness...

just stunned actually, not even sure if I like or hate the post as it was so outlandishly bizarre and unfollowable...and I used to go around the world and try to discuss topics with people whom barely spoke english...

reply to post by NichirasuKenshin


I do believe both are important, I simply find that the how will almost certainly lead to the why...Without the knowledge of the how, then the why cannot be determined, but with knowledge of the how, the why quickly becomes only a single path to truth.

Hense why I believe religion is a falty mindset in general as it tries to explain the why, and then as a aftereffect, tosses in a few very dodgy how's that make little to no sense....whereas science, as it progresses, will lead to the why should a why even exist.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
I think it would be interesting to see if there is a common trait amongst the hows and whys mindsets...

...my official answer is - without "why", there can be no "how"...

...about 911 truthers - they would have never searched for "how" if they had not first asked "why"... why did the buildings fall straight down like that?... why did they fall so fast?... why did it look like a controlled demolition?...

reply to post by SaturnFX


I guess we share the same view then. Like I said, I suspect that we all are Positivists up to a degree.

Certainly many of the gadgets that makes us happy today are derived from the how.mindset and not from the why-mindset.

reply to post by SaturnFX


saying with clear argumentation that the why is you is the most sane statement that a lot of sciences realized in our time

while saying that the how is what lead to the why this is the most unsane statement of religious that dare impose unsanity as a fact of being

just because your religions dont make you realize anything and that science you want it to reach to confirm religions dont make the how prior to the why

and that hypocrisy choice towards my words for what they dont suit your beliefs then you attack immediately the person expressions, say how you see the how as the way for what you want

anyway thanks for reading and making your reactions to others clear

Originally posted by imans

and that hypocrisy choice towards my words for what they dont suit your beliefs then you attack immediately

Actually, I didnt say they did nor did not suit my beliefs...I said I simply could not understand them whatsoever...I read it a few times and it literally made no sense whatsoever...however your posting after did sort of clear it up...along with the fact that english isn't your first language and your probably using a translator which tends to screw up syntax

reply to post by SaturnFX


that is the point of hypocrisy, you do what suits your wills, and obviously as a chritian you are saying that the why is the person itself dont suit your beliefs at all

english cannot justify your personnal attack to another expression in english words, you are not english language life to be give yourself so much rights by meaning to kill another living behind his words

and obviously i cant be using a translator when i use so much easy words that all translators dont have and never use them in a sentence as stupid words they are, which proove again your profession in hypocrisy field when my personnal construction of syntax is obviously the only fact that make all my points clear and perfectly real

besides you are full of illusions about yourself expressions, you should know how your points were too obvious for anyone that they way i summarize it was the perfect one in one sentence
come back talking about understanding my syntax when you reach to make an abstraction in your mind that could give any life to a concept source

so long christan enjoy your hows follow up about sciences prooving your beliefs being true lol

reducing the why to a ticket for heaven representing eternal life winner, is the most absurd success of hypocrisy energy pursuits

you cannot assert a why being a condition, it is completely unsane
when there is a why as a source of such living realities facts universe, it means the answer is more than certainty itself, and not a futur to fancy upon

why dont you stop waiting for hows to justify you, just go to your dreams and and justify anything you want of now
isnt it what you all do with your sense of a such absurd god

reply to post by imans


Again, your losing me.
I am agnostic. Christianity, in my mind, is a joke.

As far as you becoming angry and bitter because I did not understand how you were phrasing things, well, thats not really my problem now, is it. Feel free to be angry at being misunderstood, I always give props to people whom have taken the time to learn a different language. Its not easy to speak a language not native and never judge someones intellect by their broken speech.

Anyhow, not sure how I ticked you off beyond saying your words were not understood...not conceptually, but literally..I literally could not understand your pattern of speech in your first post at me. Was not meant to be offensive mind you, just was hopeing you would restate verses become angry.

Meh...lost in translation I guess. Wars start for less.

reply to post by SaturnFX


on the contrary i am making jokes out of your words, but your hypocrisy is astonishing as it can be the only living drive of a person, you didnt insult me by talking about my english, as i said clearly you insulted me as a person calling me being a retarded using different subjective terms with a slim pretense of justifying it by the language being poor

it is not a problem to me my language nor what you say, but my answers mean simply to put light on argumentations ways on a public forum place which concern everyone since rights are for all livings expectations of one objective reality intelligence source

and stop replying days after i post, just to show your hypocrit strategies being all your intentions in posting anything to anyone intention

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by imans

 

I think that was the most insane grouping of words I ever read on the internet, or anywhere, I had to read several parts twice just to make sure it truely was making no sense a glimmer into madness...just stunned outlandishly unfollowable...and I used to go around the world and try to discuss topics with people whom barely spoke english...

when you can use such words to mean a reply on a general topic made by another person, it says that you should be out of any awareness free expressions place reality

if you cant respect the source of words written you cant be considered as knowing what words are, and you should not be allowed to use words for your own expression in a public place lols

Why, in my humble opinion, is the greater of the two.

Why is the answer, how is all the details concerning the why.

In order to find a how you must be wondering why first.

Why is harder to answer if you do not know how.

How is able to produce knowledge.

Why is able to produce wisdom.

Well in all honesty, we need them both. Sadly, society has condemned the why and put forth a very narrow range of how. I know the left-brain right-brain thing has been over talked about, but I think there's something to how our brain is anatomically structured that gives us our strengths in each domain. How seems to be much more left-brain, logically oriented. The right-brain seems to be more holistically and Why oriented. In any situation, it's best to deal with both. There's a reason we've got two brains anyways..

People who are full of blind faith seem to be more right-brain oriented. Less logical, more intuitive, and usually into the arts. People who are strict atheists and hardcore scientists seem to be more left-brained. People who are agnostic, or who are able to equally enjoy arts and sciences tend to be whole brained. I'm not entirely sure on the exact definitions of certain types of agnosticism and atheism, but I basically reject the notion of a deity, and think we're all one in essence.

Originally posted by imans
you didnt insult me by talking about my english, as i said clearly you insulted me as a person calling me being a retarded using different subjective terms with a slim pretense of justifying it by the language being poor

Ahh, ok...I see the issue, I have trouble reading your posts due to the way you phrase things.

You on the other hand read things clearly not there...please either point out where I called you retarded, or for that matter insulted you as a person verses said the structure of the sentences seemed insane.

you wont be able to of course, because its not there.

Now then, you speak of me being a hypocrite, of which I am still not sure how I am a hypicrite, but meh...you can be judgemental if you want. seems I touched a nerve.,..so let me clarify exactly what I said in my first response to you:

I didn't understand, clarify please.

Thats it...granted, I used alot of colorful words, and indeed as I read it it did start effecting my logic filter because of how it was structured...

you know what, believe what you want if it makes you comfortable...personally I dont care, but if a person is going to get so incredibly bent out of shape for something that simply isn't there, then I really dont value what your opinion would be to begin with about how to "think" considering you dont follow what your preaching...because *that* is the defination of hypocricy

Hypocricy: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

if the shoe fits...