Is "Why" a useless question?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Don't all "why" questions just lead to infinite regress?

I think "how" is a more useful question. Asking "how" does not lead to infinite regress. You can't keep asking how something works after you've figured out how it works.

But asking why something is the way it is seems futile because whatever answer you get, you can ask a further why question. Even when you get to "the Ultimate" reason (God or something) you can still turn around and ask, "Why does God exist?"

At some, you have to give up the infinite regress and say, "It just is"

So it seems logical to conclude that if someone asks "why", rather than starting down the infinite regress, you should just reply with, "It just is" because that's where you'll end up eventually anyway.

I think asking "how" is a much more useful question.

 

[Gadarene]

Why?

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't agree that 'why' leads to an infinite regress. All questions stop at the reason for why reality is the way it is. For example, it might stop at; why did the Big Bang happen how it did; or, why is the mutliverse as it is.

Or perhaps you'll get to some brute fact you just have to accept. eg: All actually possible things exist.

Either way, I don't see how you would end up in infinite regress.

If you want to be needlessly awkward, if someone asks you 'how', you could just reply saying 'By the laws of reality'. I'd say we should just answer 'why' and 'how', and not give vague unhelpful answers.

 

[quatona]

Don't all "why" questions just lead to infinite regress?

Not necessarily.
What makes "why"-questions so unique (and often causes problems) is the fact that you don´t know what sort of answer the person is looking for. Do they ask e.g. for an intention, for a causality, for a rationale? You never know whether the answer you´ll give will be a satisfactory answer to the problem the person asking is struggling with - actually not even if it will address the problem at all. Heck, you don´t even know whether there is a problem at all, nor whether the question is meaningful.

I think "how" is a more useful question. Asking "how" does not lead to infinite regress. You can't keep asking how something works after you've figured out how it works.

Actually, you can. And not all "how"-questions are asking for how something works, anyway.

But asking why something is the way it is seems futile because whatever answer you get, you can ask a further why question. Even when you get to "the Ultimate" reason (God or something) you can still turn around and ask, "Why does God exist?"

I wouldn´t even know what this question means. Neither would I know what the question "How does God exist?" means.

So it seems logical to conclude that if someone asks "why", rather than starting down the infinite regress, you should just reply with, "It just is" because that's where you'll end up eventually anyway.

Just like with your "How (does it work)?" question, you seem to be thinking of particular sorts of "Why?" questions (which indeed may be useless/pointless/meaningless). That´s, however, not inherent to the term "Why?". It is well possible to ask "Why?" within a predefined frame of reference or system and get to a satisfactory answer. Likewise, it´s possible to use "How?" in a way that transcends the frame of reference or system that the person answering felt is was asked in reference to, and thus will lead to infinite regress.

"Why do you think we should buy the tickets first and the popcorn later?" can have a perfectly satisfactory answer, that doesn´t lead to infinite regress (given that both persons involved are agreeing what the frame of reference for the question is).
On the other hand, "How did the universe came to be?" can easily lead to infinite regress (seeing how no frame of reference is defined):

"God created it."
"How did God create it?"
"He spoke it into existence."
"How did he do that?"
etc. etc.

doesn´t seem so much better than:

"Why does the universe exist?"
"Because God created it."
"Why did he create it?"
"Because he wanted to."
"Why did he want to?"
etc. etc.

The problem is not the interrogatory pronoun. The problem is the fact that when it comes to existential questions there is no agreed upon frame of reference.

 

[granpa]

Rationalism - Religion-wiki

In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is any view appealing to reason (Logos)
as the source of the justification required to be able to rightly say that a fact is "known" to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Simply observing the sun rise again and again is not sufficient to know beyond a reasonable doubt that it will rise the next day.
One much have an understanding of the 'reasons' why it rises).

At issue is the fundamental source of human knowledge, and the proper techniques for verifying what we think we know (see Epistemology).
Rationalism should not be confused with rationalization.