Are there questions science can never answer?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are there questions science can never answer?". Your opponent's style: Maya Angelou

P1) CCW includes liturgical elements which tend to elicit pleasures that terminate in the sensible experience of the elements (premise) P2) Pleasure tends to produce a desire for that which elicits pleasure (premise) P3) So, CCW includes liturgical elements which tend to produce a desire for pleasure that terminates in the sensible experience of the elements (from P1 and P2) P4) The virtue of worship is proportionate to the degree to which it is ordered towards its proper final cause (premise) P5) The final cause of worship is the fulfillment of justice owed to God (premise) P6) Any liturgical element which tends to produce a desire for a final cause other than that of worship threatens the proper final cause of worship (premise) P7) Pleasure that terminates in the sensible experience of some element is a final cause other than that of worship (premise) P8) Liturgical elements which tend to elicit pleasures that terminate in the sensible experience of said elements are not necessary for worship (premise) C) Therefore, CCW includes elements which unnecessarily threaten the virtue of worship (from P3-P8) CCW is contemproary christian worship (bethel, elevation, mega church situations)

You've smuggled in a false binary at P7. Sensible pleasure and worship's proper final cause aren't mutually exclusive, they're complementary. God designed bodies with sensory capacity precisely so we'd encounter Him through material reality. Your argument treats embodied joy as a *competing* final cause when it's actually *part of* rightly ordered worship. A beautiful hymn moves the body and soul simultaneously toward God, not away from Him. You've confused distraction with pleasure itself. The real question isn't whether pleasure exists in worship, but whether it *replaces* devotion to God. CCW's problem, if any, is *excess* distraction, not that pleasure appears at all. Can pleasure in liturgy ever serve worship's proper end, or does your framework make that logically impossible?

Technically speaking some final cause X is not final cause ~X, and Y qualifies as ~X, so the premise is formally valid, unless you want to claim that the two final causes listed are identical, or, you're going to deny that worship has an exclusive final cause. Perhaps you're making the wrong distinction. I could grant that there can be concomitant effects, but those are not ends to be sought in worship. So, even though I understand your concern, I think you need to accept P7 on pain of contradiction.

You're right that sensory pleasure and justice-toward-God are formally distinct final causes. But P8 collapses under scrutiny: you claim liturgical elements producing sensory pleasure are "not necessary" for worship, then use that to condemn them as threats. That's circular. Necessity and threat are different categories. A stained glass window isn't necessary for worship but doesn't threaten it either. Your argument requires showing sensory pleasure actively *competes* with justice-toward-God in actual practice, not just that they're logically distinct. You've proven they're different ends. You haven't proven one undermines the other. What evidence shows CCW's sensory elements actually corrupt worshippers' devotion to God rather than merely existing alongside it?

No, I'm making a double claim: these liturgical elements are both threatening and not necessary. If I don't not, you could justify the former by appealing to necessity. Sensory pleasure competes with God when it is an end sought after as opposed to fulfilling justice owed to God. You could imagine other situations. If I seek A and B at the same time, then I can not wholly devote myself to either A or B.

You're conflating attention with devotion. I can seek justice toward God *and* experience sensory pleasure simultaneously without dividing my worship. The divided-attention argument only works if pleasure *distracts* from God-focus, not if it enhances it. You've defined the problem away: "sensory pleasure competes when sought as an end." But that's question-begging. CCW worshippers report experiencing God *through* sensory elements, not instead of God. You need empirical evidence that these elements actually distract congregants from devotion, not just that distraction is theoretically possible. Without that, you're condemning a practice based on abstract logical possibility, not demonstrated harm.

You're confusing formal object and final cause. My argument is not that the attention of the worship is corrupted, but the intention. That is, the may worship or engage in worship for the purposes of pleasure or something similar. This would be disordered. I don't care about anecdotal evidence per se. Nonetheless, your argument is based on a misunderstanding of mine: intention and attention or different categories. And please address a specific premise of mine, rather than making general claims.

You're right that intention differs from attention. But P6 is still underdefended: it claims liturgical elements that *tend to produce* desire for pleasure *threaten* worship's proper end. "Tend to produce" isn't the same as producing disordered intention. A beautiful hymn tends to produce pleasure, yes, but that tendency doesn't force worshippers toward pleasure as their end. You need to show these elements actively *corrupt intention* in practice, not merely that they could. P6 conflates what an element tends to cause with what it necessitates in the worshipper's will. Why should we accept that tendency toward pleasure automatically threatens ordered intention toward God?

You're misrepresenting my argument. I didn't say pleasure in general but desire that terminates in the sensible experience of the elements. So, your argument is baseless.

Fair correction. But P6 still requires evidence that CCW elements tend to produce *desire terminating in sensible experience itself*, not merely pleasure accompanying worship. You've defined a specific pathology, but shown nothing about CCW actually induces it. A worshipper moved by music toward God hasn't developed desire terminating in the sound, they've experienced the sound as a vehicle to God. You need to demonstrate CCW systematically trains desire to terminate in sensations rather than in God. Until then, P6 remains unsupported. What evidence shows CCW congregants actually seek sensible experience as their end, rather than experiencing sensation while seeking God?