[Retra]

There are not two different problems.

And more importantly, religion has never actually answered a "why" question in a reasonable manner. So it is objectively useless. It is not how you answer "why" questions.

Assuming your distinction is actually meaningful, here's a question for you: "How do you properly answer 'why' questions?"

[Rexxar]

"How do you properly answer 'why' questions?"

Maybe the answer is that there is no scientific answer to a "why" question ? The question has no scientific answer. In maths, some equations have no solution, some proposition are not provable with common axioms. The "why questions" are just question without scientific answer.

[Retra]

Every question you ask is going to be manifest in relationships between subsets of observable states of reality. Even if you ask a nonsensical question, it is possible to determine that the question is nonsense by observing the context of the question. There is nothing here that prevents science from working to answer the question.

If you have a question with no possible scientific answer, then it has no answer at all. You do not get better results by refusing to use the best tools.

[dang]

> [Religion] is objectively useless.

Religious flamewars aren't ok on HN. Please don't.