Religion Learned or Believed?

Villain

First of all I did a search and couldn't see this topic discussed, if has been recently my apologies please merge the threads.

I'm not a christian despite being baptised, having my first communion and been confirmed, that was all done when I was too young to have a say.

To me in Ireland religion in general is something you learn, i.e. your parents teach you how to be a Catholic if your parents are Catholic, or to be protestant if your parents are protestant or you are thought Buddhism if your parents are Buddhist's etc.

In other words people don't choose their religion they are thought what to believe, now if that is the case doesn't it make a mockery of the whole Catholic belief i.e. that you:

believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in the one holy catholic and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

I mean isn't it fair to say people only believe what they have been "thought"???

Zombrex

irish1 wrote:

I mean isn't it fair to say people only believe what they have been "thought"???

Well everyone is "taught" their religion by others who follow it. But if you mean is it fair to say that everyone blindly believes the religion they were taught by their parents I would say the number of western converts to Islam would that it doesn't always work like that.

But it is far too complex a issue to boil down to generalisations.

wolfsbane

Hi, irish1.

I agree with Wicknight, whilst many/most religious folk do seem to have uncritically accepted the religion they were reared on, there are many others who follow a completely different faith.

I was raised a Protestant, but a non-practising one - a heathen really. Only when I was 17 did I trust in Christ. I was the only one in all my family circle, out to 2nd cousin distance, that was 'Evangelical'. Since that time - 40 years ago - my Dad, a cousin and a third cousin and his family have likewise been converted.

Several members of a Catholic family in the neighbourhood I lived in were converted some time after I left, and are members of an Evangelical Church near my home today.

Villain

Cheers for the replies, I understand what youre saying and I 100% agree that what I have said doesn't apply to everyone, there are people whom I know well that were brought up in a Catholic household but have converted to Born Again Christians.

I do think however that the majority of people in this country were thought their religion and only believe in it because of that.

Although I do believe that religious education in Irish schools now cover other religions which may help people find a religion that they truly believe in despite been thought something different.

Mrs. MacGyver

I was 'taught' 2 religiouns, protestant and Catholic and when I was old enough I chose protestantism on the basis of beleif alone, not simply on learned behaviour. went on to study theology and a few other world religions but 'felt athome' with the one I chose based on personal beleif.

robindch

> I mean isn't it fair to say people only believe what they have been "thought"???

Not really, as some of the folks above have said -- it's far more complex than a simple learned behaviour, though that's sometimes more than enough to sustain a religious belief. Amongst other inputs are the dominant local culture, the person's psychological makeup, the person's life experience and expectations, and many more. Certain medical disorders (temporal lobe epilepsy, for example), are also known to also induce very strong religious feelings.

There's an interesting (non-religious) literature out there which discusses how religious beliefs arise and how they are sustained and passed on from generation to generation. Some of the one's I'd recommend are:

The Trouble With Testosterone: And Other Essays On The Biology Of The Human Predicament, Robert Sapolsky
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, Daniel Dennett
In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, Scott Atran
...and the upcoming, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins.

...there are plenty more.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

I mean isn't it fair to say people only believe what they have been "thought"???

No, since the word is "taught"; but seriously, still no.
Some people aren't interested enough to question their faith that much or are so used to it they don't question it anymore. That would be believing what they're taught. Others go off and question it and read into it more but stick with the same faith they've been taught. Others again change religion entirely. I was brought up catholic, now I'm a buddhist. I didn't know anyone that would influence me that way, I based it on going off and reading as extensively as I could about it.

BrianCalgary

I think that there different kinds of people out there.

Those that accept blindly what they are taught and just go along with it.

Those that are taught one thing and research the topic and can give sound reasons for their belief.

Those that are taught one thing and on research follow something else, with reason either intellectual or emotional or a combination of the two.

Either way your environment would definitely influence your belief system.

TerrorFirmer

I, like all of my friends, was reared a Catholic and as such was "taught" to understand and accept religion and god.

None of my friends believe in god, and couldn't care less. I do. There is always an element of anything that is instilled through teaching but belief is a necessary addition.

I don't think anyone, when you truly analyse it, believes in god solely because they were taught to do so. For everyone, there are different and individual reasons for why they hold such beliefs in religion and God.

neuro-praxis

I met a friend in college from Madagascar. She was doing a PhD in philosophy and I was a computer science student but we both loved theology. We were talking with a skeptic after a debate one night and he said to her, "You only believe in Christianity because you grew up in Madagascar. If you were born in Tibet you would be a Buddhist."

She replied, "You're only an agnostic relativist because you grew up in Dublin. You wouldn't be if you grew up in Antananarivo."

I think she brought clarity to the question the poster asks.

Villain

TBH I think most people who post here will have a real interest in their beliefs, I agree some people don't just go along with what they are a taught but the large majority of people do imo.

I mean I would bet my house that at least 80% of people who attend Mass in my local Catholic church each Sunday would be Buddist if they were bought up by Buddists. Having said that quite a lot of people who go to mass also engage in sex before marriage use contraception and do god knows what else that goes against their church, just a shower of hypocrites really.

Sangre

There is a reason most countries once indoctriniated into a religion stay that way for a long, long time.
I think certain people are predetermined into being 'believers', there upbringing normally lets them fall into this category and they continue with their parents' beliefs. I think these people will normally follow whatever religion they're born into.

ScumLord

I think if you secluded a group of people and never told them anything about religion they'd probably come up with their own version of God eventually. Every civilisation so far has. It just seems like a natural progression but that could be just because people need to have some explanation for the world around them. If you brought them up only knowing sceince they'd probably accept it totaly.

Excelsior

"Knowing only science" is impossible. To sound like Robin for a moment, humans are meaning-machines. Science won't ever answer why and it is the question we all want to ask.

robindch

> Science won't ever answer why

That's an uncharacteristically wobbly branch for you to climb to. Why do you believe that humans will never be able to understand themselves?

neuro-praxis

Science answers how, not why.

robindch

> Science answers how, not why.

When a problem is understood well enough that the "how" is clear, the "why" often becomes obvious too.

Religions have little interest in the "how" (cf, creationism) because they find that they can invent a "why", declare it "The Truth" and the Quivering Brethren nod their heads wisely, the same as always

neuro-praxis

Tsk, robindch, throwing a little lighter fluid on the fire there with that old patronising tone. As often discussed, many of us Christians actually have no issues with such things as evolution, gravity and the greatest discovery of the 21st century, flubber.

However, if you could present an example of how science has inferred a why on any such discoveries I would genuinely consider your case.

Also, if you imagine the Brethren as quivering, think again. They're tough as old boots, them lot. And it is also clear that you have never been part of a church community (not to be confused with attending a church). If you had, you'd know we barely agree on a thing and spend most of our time arguing the finer points of conflict with such ideas as the hypostatic union. Plus, our ministers get quite flustered with all the mutiny on deck. You've got rather a skewed view of life in a church. Want to come to mine on Sunday?

Nevyn

robindch wrote:

> Science answers how, not why.

When a problem is understood well enough that the "how" is clear, the "why" often becomes obvious too.

Religions have little interest in the "how" (cf, creationism) because they find that they can invent a "why", declare it "The Truth" and the Quivering Brethren nod their heads wisely, the same as always

Well can it explain the how and the why colorplasts work ?
Cos really it had not done that yet and there would be no life on the planet with out them.

robindch

> Tsk, robindch, throwing a little lighter fluid on the fire there with that old patronising tone.

Yep. Nothing like an lousy 18-hour day, bleary eyes, a sore arm and a comment like "Science answers how, not why" to light my touch-paper!

> the greatest discovery of the 21st century, flubber.

I disagree. Without doubt, it's HD telly and youtube.

> However, if you could present an example of how science has inferred
> a why on any such discoveries I would genuinely consider your case.

The question related to humans understanding the motivation to religion, and the question "why does religion exist, why does it motivate people, etc etc". Science -- I hate that word, because of its negative connotations outside of the world of science itself -- has made considerable progress over the last thirty years or so in answering these questions. Don't have time to deconstruct religion in this post, but if you can spare a few moments, do google "christianity meme" (ignore Alistair McGrath), "memetics", "cultural evolution", temporal lobe epilepsy, evolution of religion. Should give you some of the "why" answers you're looking for.

> Also, if you imagine the Brethren as quivering, think again. They're
> tough as old boots, them lot.

The reference to Quivering Brethren -- note the caps in my post -- was to Stella Gibbons "Cold Comfort Farm". Look it up too.

> And it is also clear that you have never been part of a church community
> (not to be confused with attending a church).

Spent six years in a monastery school and had regular contact for years afterwards. I know exactly what it's like

> If you had, you'd know we barely agree on a thing and spend most of
> our time arguing the finer points of conflict with such ideas as the
> hypostatic union.

There are several good reasons which explain why you do that too. See research suggestions above.

> You've got rather a skewed view of life in a church.

Not really. I think I've got a pretty good idea of what goes on. And "why" it goes on, of course.

> Want to come to mine on Sunday?

Would love to, but I'll be in bed. I'll be thinking of you. Though "why", I've no idea

neuro-praxis

robindch wrote:

The question related to humans understanding the motivation to religion, and the question "why does religion exist, why does it motivate people, etc etc". Science -- I hate that word, because of its negative connotations outside of the world of science itself -- has made considerable progress over the last thirty years or so in answering these questions. Don't have time to deconstruct religion in this post, but if you can spare a few moments, do google "christianity meme" (ignore Alistair McGrath), "memetics", "cultural evolution", temporal lobe epilepsy, evolution of religion. Should give you some of the "why" answers you're looking for.

Two things: you don't understand what I mean, we've got our wires crossed. I was expressing that science cannot explain *why* we are here, or *why* it is that when you put a conker in the right environment it will respond and grow into a tree. Science explains how these things take place, not why. I am not discussing why people might be religious - that's another debate.

Secondly: I'm familiar with your references, in fact mimesis was one of the philosophical anthropology modules that I was forced to do in NUIM (oh, thems were the days ) but while your references deal with why people may be attracted to religion or have religious experiences, they do not address why we are here or how meaning has meaning, or any of those other similarly as yet unanswered-by-science notions.

The reference to Quivering Brethren -- note the caps in my post -- was to Stella Gibbons "Cold Comfort Farm". Look it up too.

I know, I was using a play on words. Tiresome book, by the way.

Spent six years in a monastery school and had regular contact for years afterwards. I know exactly what it's like

Well, it would seem that we've got different ideas about Christian communities. I attended convent schools for 14 years but it was certainly no Christian community. We were more interested in boys and make-up and the leaving cert. I only discovered Christian community as an adult.

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote:

I was expressing that science cannot explain *why* we are here, or *why* it is that when you put a conker in the right environment it will respond and grow into a tree.

Actually science has and does provide answers for these questions. But these answers are often not what people want, and as such they are rejected.

The problem is that a lot of theists are expecting an answer within the framework of a pro-active supernatural intelligence (ie God), and don't accept the answer unless it forms itself within this framework.

The answer to the question "Why did life develop on Earth?" could be as simple as "A random set of events position Earth in such a way that it triggered a chemical reaction in the seas of Earth some 4 billion years ago, causing the formation of simple self-replicating molecules that started evolving until, 4 billion years later, they produced us"

But that answer, despite most likely being totally correct, won't satisfy people who cannot view things of significance (like us) happening without viewing them with in the framework of a pro-active intelligence causing it to happen.

The answer given above will give no peace of mind to these people, because they need a certain type of answer, otherwise they cannot accept it.

Its like the episode of CSI that was on a few weeks ago on Living TV. The team were investigating the death of a collge girl. She was badly bashed found dead in a dump. After an episode of trying to find out who killed her and why, the team found out that in fact a series of unforunate random events had lead to her accidental death. It was just a bit of carelessness and bad luck that resulted in her death.

But this answer did not satisfy the parents. They wanted to know why their daughter had died. What as the reason? Who could they blame.

The answer that there was no reason, no one to blame, no "why" other than bad luck, was rejected by the parents. They ignored the findings of the CSI team and said they would hire P.Is to find out who killed their daughter and why it happened.

Grissom (the main CSI guy) in the last scene poundered why the truth had not been enough for them. "We told them what happened?" he states. The other CSI said that the truth is not always what someone needs.

I find you get the same thing with humans over the big questions.

Some humans (only some mind) need to see meaning in the answers to questions like "why are humans here?"

The truth, if it doesn't provide what they are looking for, is often ignored or rejected by people, and they continue to search for answers that will fit what they want, just like the parents who continued to hire investigators because the answer the CSI team gave was not enough.

neuro-praxis

Wicknight wrote:

The answer to the question "Why did life develop on Earth?" could be as simple as "A random set of events position Earth in such a way that it triggered a chemical reaction in the seas of Earth some 4 billion years ago, causing the formation of simple self-replicating molecules that started evolving until, 4 billion years later, they produced us"

But that answer, despite most likely being totally correct, won't satisfy people who cannot view things of significance (like us) happening without viewing them with in the framework of a pro-active intelligence causing it to happen.to hire investigators because the answer the CSI team gave was not enough.

You don't seem to understand. You answered how life developed on earth, not why.

Science cannot answer WHY a random series of events positioned the earth in such a way that it triggered a chemical reaction. Next question: WHY did the chemicals react to one another in the way that they did? Then, once the molecules had been formed, WHY did they begin to replicate?

I hope my position is clearer. I am very happy with your definition of how life developed on earth - what neither you nor science can answer is WHY it developed.

neuro-praxis

Having re-read your post, you seem to be saying to the question "Why?" that the answer is, "Just because."

Surely everything that science teaches us says that "Just because" is not quite good enough.

Excelsior

Ignore McGrath on memes because he presents a thorough explanation in a package that doesn't help the 2D version of the Christian that Robin would like to present. It is hard to disregard Christians as fooled sheep if there are such erudite men proclaiming Christ as King (even if he is Northern Irish).

I'm unable to comment on your CSI illustration Wicknight because I don't find forensics interesting enough to watch people pretend to do it in my spare time.

Seriously though, I think there is some conflation between why and how going on here.

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote:

I hope my position is clearer. I am very happy with your definition of how life developed on earth - what neither you nor science can answer is WHY it developed.

But "why" implies that there must be a rational logic developed in some intelligence to make it happen in a certain way.

You are loading the question, and therefore rejecting any answer that does not fit into this preconcieved notion.

Just like the parents in the CSI episode, you are refusing to accept the possibility that something can happen with out a rational, considered, reason. They could not accept that their daughter could just die out of sheer bad luck and random circumstance. They refused to accept the CSI report that that is what happened, instead believing that someone must have choosen to kill their daughter, and therefore an explination of why he/she choose to do this must exist.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Surely everything that science teaches us says that "Just because" is not quite good enough.

No, its not "just because". It is because of a string of events leading all the way back to the big bang and the start of time. Cause and effect.

But your "why" seems to be looking for a rational reason of why something happens the way it does, implying purpose. Such a rational reason might not exist. It is entirely possible (and likely) that no one (as in something that could control, and therefore explain why he chose a over b) is making things happen the way they are.

I can tell you why the sky appears to be blue to our eyes (its to do with the light and atmosphere). But I can't tell you why this phenomona is blue instead of say dark red. The question implies that someone or something choose to make it that way, and therefore the why is the reason they choose blue rather than red. The question implies this person or thing (God maybe) exists in the first place, and is therefore loaded.

robindch

> Ignore McGrath on memes because he presents a thorough explanation in a
> package that doesn't help the 2D version of the Christian that Robin would
> like to present.

I suggest ignoring McGrath on memes because the man clearly doesn't have a clue what he's talking about -- listening to him trying to discredit memes is like listening to JC trying to rubbish molecular biology. The issue is that the theory of memes explains comprehensively and accurately how he and you (and all of us) propagate ideas from person to person. McGrath either doesn't understand what he's criticizing, or does understand it, and is rightly worried that he's been sold a line he can't now get rid of.

> It is hard to disregard Christians as fooled sheep if there are such erudite
> men proclaiming Christ as King (even if he is Northern Irish).

And Newton spent much time writing on Alchemy. Accuracy in one area does not imply accuracy elsewhere.

> Seriously though, I think there is some conflation between why and
> how going on here.

Agreed. At last

neuro-praxis

Wicknight wrote:

But "why" implies that there must be a rational logic developed in some intelligence to make it happen in a certain way. You are loading the question, and therefore rejecting any answer that does not fit into this preconcieved notion.

Loading what question? The question "Why did a random series of events positioned the earth in such a way that it triggered a chemical reaction?" is a loaded question? I honestly don't see how?

Just like the parents in the CSI episode, you are refusing to accept the possibility that something can happen with out a rational, considered, reason.

So what you're saying is that this fictional character ended up in the fictional dumpster for absolutely no reason, and in fact, her imaginary death was as a result of nothing?

They could not accept that their daughter could just die out of sheer bad luck and random circumstance. They refused to accept the CSI report that that is what happened, instead believing that someone must have choosen to kill their daughter, and therefore an explination of why he/she choose to do this must exist.

You sound like the suggestion was that she flew into the dumpster of her own accord, when in fact the REASON she died could be attributed to the phrase "Being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

Wicknight, I am going to have to call the analogy policer here, because there is actually no correlation between wondering how the functioning of the earth is sustained and being a fictional character that is wrongly convinced that a death was an intentional, personal murder and not an unfortunate occurence.

No, its not "just because". It is because of a string of events leading all the way back to the big bang and the start of time. Cause and effect.

Right. So what you are saying is that there was one causeless event - the big bang. This was the one exception. It had no cause, only effect.

What I am saying, as taught by science, is that doesn't seem to ring quite true. How can we have effects without a cause? I am not yet beginning to speculate on what that cause may have been, but logic and rationale would suggest that a causeless effect is a physical impossibility. This is based on the evidence of even these letters appearing on the screen as a result of my tapping on the keyboard.

But your "why" seems to be looking for a rational reason of why something happens the way it does, implying purpose. Such a rational reason might not exist.

Why on earth is it likely that no rational explanation exists for the appearance of the earth, and life? What is it about the earth that makes you think that there would be no answer to the question "why is it here?"

This is an astounding case of doublethink.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

Seriously though, I think there is some conflation between why and how going on here.

There seems to be.

There is a difference between a "why" implying what happened, and a why implying why did something choose this over that.

If I drop a pencil on the ground I can tell you not only how it stopped by why it stopped

But I can't give you any rational reason why the pencil choose to stop, because it didn't choose to stop.

So the answer to the question "Why did the pencil stop falling" is type one, it stopped because it hit the floor. A type two answer (it stopped because it was sick of falling and wanted to do something else) is illogical and pointless, since pencils don't choose to do anything.

People seem to be looking for type 2 answers to type 1 questions, and as such are getting lost in a sea of illogical propositions and paradoxes.

robindch

> you are refusing to accept the possibility that something can happen with
> out a rational, considered, reason.

I would rephrase to say "you are refusing to accept the possibility that something can happen without somebody or something providing a conscious motive". Motives don't always exist -- what's the conscious motive for a river flowing towards the sea?

And asking "why" begs the question that there is a satisfactory meta-answer to the question to start with, or even that it's possible to frame a reply at all. Frequently there isn't. No more than it's possible to frame a direct reply to the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

neuro-praxis

robindch wrote:

> Seriously though, I think there is some conflation between why and
> how going on here.

Agreed. At last

But robindch...you were one of the key proponents of the conflation? Do you concede you were discussing a how and not a why?

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

I would rephrase to say "you are refusing to accept the possibility that something can happen without somebody or something providing a motive".

Motive! That is the word I've been looking for. Nail on the head Robin

neuro-praxis

Wicknight wrote:

If I drop a pencil on the ground I can tell you not only how it stopped by why it stopped.But I can't give you any rational reason why the pencil choose to stop, because it didn't choose to stop.

Ok now, this is philosophically sloppy. Are you suggesting that there can only be a rational reason for something if the proponent of an action chose to commit said action?

Or are you suggesting that rational and logical are different things, and that there is a logical reason for the pencil stopping its roll (which I certainly believe there would be!) but not a rational one?

robindch

> People seem to be looking for type 2 answers to type 1 questions, and
> as such are getting lost in a sea of illogical propositions and paradoxes.

Not type-1 and type-2 questions, but questions and meta-questions. A bit like form and content, or cognition (what rules you apply in thinking) and meta-cognition (how you determine the rules you aplpy in thinking). If it's any consolation, programmers tend to be more sensitive to level-hopping than non-programmers and find it difficult to understand why the distinction is sometimes unclear. A hazard of the job, I suppose.

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote:

Loading what question? The question "Why did a random series of events positioned the earth in such a way that it triggered a chemical reaction?" is a loaded question? I honestly don't see how?

You are implying motive by asking why, as if some reason exists for this.

neuro-praxis wrote:

So what you're saying is that this fictional character ended up in the fictional dumpster for absolutely no reason, and in fact, her imaginary death was as a result of nothing?

No I'm saying her death had no motive. Nothing decided to kill the girl. It was an accident. But the parents could not accept that their daughter had died for no reason, that nothing had decided to kill their daughter she had just died.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Wicknight, I am going to have to call the analogy policer here, because there is actually no correlation between wondering how the functioning of the earth is sustained and being a fictional character that is wrongly convinced that a death was an intentional, personal murder and not an unfortunate occurence.

There is between asking why are humans here, what is the meaning of life, what is our purpose, what are we supposed to do with our lives etc etc

All these theist style questions, that are often followed with "Science cant answer these questions", imply that there actually is a motive, purpose or reason for our existence, beyond simply a tigger of random sequences with no purpose or reason.

neuro-praxis wrote:

Right. So what you are saying is that there was one causeless event - the big bang. This was the one exception. It had no cause, only effect.

No I'm saying that before the big bang time didn't exist, so the idea of cause and effect is largely meaningless. Again, a lot of people, especially theists, don't like this idea.

What if I told you something in the future caused something in the past to happen which in turn caused the same thing in the future. What would be the "why" then, the thing in the past or the thing in the future?

neuro-praxis wrote:

How can we have effects without a cause?

That is a very good question.

neuro-praxis wrote:

I am not yet beginning to speculate on what that cause may have been, but logic and rationale would suggest that a causeless effect is a physical impossibility.

It is within the apparent rules of our universe. But the rule before the universe, and its rules, were created? All bets are off.

neuro-praxis wrote:

What is it about the earth that makes you think that there would be no answer to the question "why is it here?"

We know why the Earth is there.

Approx 5 billion years ago a star exploded, the gas eventually formed into the solar system, and also formed the Earth.

But there is no implied motive (or at least no motive in my opinion) as to why this happened.

neuro-praxis

Anyone fancy a pint then?

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote:

Ok now, this is philosophically sloppy. Are you suggesting that there can only be a rational reason for something if the proponent of an action chose to commit said action?

No, I'm saying the pencil didn't choose to stop, so a question like

"Why did the pencil choose to stop?" (implying motive for this event)

is unanswerable, because the pencil didn't choose to stop. If I went to a die hard theist like JC and said "I can't answer that question" JC would be all over that with statements like "Ah, you see, there are some things science CANNOT answer." But the question cannot be answered not due to a failing of science, but because the question itself is invalid.

When a theist says

"Why are humans here?"

that implies a desire to understand the motives where for what put humans here on Earth. The idea that there might not be any motive doesn't enter into the question.

robindch

Oops. Got caught, mid-reply, by some work.

> But robindch...you were one of the key proponents of the conflation? Do
> you concede you were discussing a how and not a why?

From the scientific perspective, there isn't much of a difference between the "how" and the "why" -- you'll have to decide yourself what one is more or less applicable to the question you want answered.

But nature doesn't care. Things happen and, so far as science is aware, outside of the quantum world, they always happen in a direct line of material causation. That's the way the world works and you can use whatever words you like to phrase your question. It's only motive-seeking humans who have difficulty with this simple view of causation, and embed this difficulty within their language by differentiating amongst the "how", "what", "where" and "why" (etc) questions. And along the way, questions are begged, or humans ask a question which assumes only one form of answer, or can have no formal answer at all, or reject answers which don't assert some "meaning" where there may not be any, etc, etc, etc. But the world still runs like clockwork, regardless (quantum world excepted).

An extreme case of this motive-assertion is Luce Irigaray's famously cock-eyed notion that "E=MC^2 is a sexed equation" and her dafter follow-up claim that "feminine" fluid mechanics has been neglected because "masculine" science preferes to deal with "masculine" rigid things than "feminine" fluids. This may well say more about Ms Irigaray's private hobbies than anything else.