A Challenge

Religion and science have always been in conflict, and I believe they always will be. There are those who feel that religion and science can co-exist peacefully, that the two answer different questions in life and that they need not be in conflict. But religion is the very anti-thesis of science because the two go about answering life's questions in entirely different ways. Religion relies on revelation, usually to one individual, for life's answers, whereas science relies on repeatable, independant, unbiased observations for the answers to life's questions. The two are not compatable. Throughout history science, as it slowly advances knowledge, has completely crushed the accepted "truths" of religion, and continues to do so today. That millions of people reject evolution only because it threatens their religion only shows the immense power of science to free us from falsehoods of religion.

But I would go even one step further and state that science offers the answers to every question for which there is an answer. I submit that any question for which there actually is definite answer, science is capable, given enough time and resources, to discover the answer. Some questions are not answerable by science, but they are only the questions that do not have an answer at all, such as: "Is blue or green a better colour?", or "Does tea taste better than coffee?" These are purely philosophical questions that are only answerable by each individual depending on their particular preference. Science, obviously, can answer many fundamental questions about the natural world around us, such as: "How do kidneys work?" and "How did the universe begin?". But many people would dispute the ability of science to answer questions such as: "Why are we here?", and "Where does morality come from?", claiming instead that these questions are only answerable by religion. I vehemently disagree. If there is an answer to the question of where morality comes from then science, not religion, will provide the answer. The question of why we humans exist may not have a philosophical answer. We exist because of a process of evolution that resulted in our species' development and survival. That is all. There is no greater answer to that question. Many people think there should be a deeper answer to the question, but by wishing for deeper meaning they are simply dismissing the uncomfortable reality of the only answer.

My challenge is this. I challenge anyone to provide a question, for which there is a definite answer, which science cannot provide an answer.