Is it ever reasonable to be against a scientific theory in favour of a life sustaining belief?

[ReapReason]

Is it ever reasonable to be against a scientific theory in favour of a life sustaining belief; religious or otherwise?

By life sustaining I mean a comforting belief that keeps you from killing yourself or living a miserable life.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

What do you mean by a life sustaining belief? Creationism?

 

[ReapReason]

What do you mean by a life sustaining belief? Creationism?

Any comforting faith or belief that contradicts scientific evidence.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

I don’t think it’s ever reasonable to doubt or “be against” a scientific theory that has been properly proved by empirical evidence.

Reason tells us what is empirically true is true so it would be unreasonable to “be against” it.

 

[ASimon]

I would say it’s never reasonable. Such beliefs might make certain people happier for believing them, but that doesn’t make it reasonable to believe them.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I would say it’s never reasonable. Such beliefs might make certain people happier for believing them, but that doesn’t make it reasonable to believe them.

I agree. We have to accept reality, and not just what makes us feel comfortable.

 

[LilyM]

Any comforting faith or belief that contradicts scientific evidence.

Well, what do you mean by ‘contradicts’? Is it a situation where there is evidence both pro and con, or at least the evidence can be interpreted in pro or con ways, or a situation where there is absolutely no evidence con, and a plethora of evidence pro, but one still believes con?

And is the ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ in a scientific principle and therefore directly referable to the scientific evidence - ie geocentrism v heliocentrism?

Or something more tangential, say, a belief in evolution or big bang theory, which can be blended quite comfortably with the additonal comforting belief in a divine creator or guide providing the impetus for evolutionary change in plants and animals or initiating the first sparks of that big bang?

 

[Drinkgasoline]

Well, what do you mean by ‘contradicts’? Is it a situation where there is evidence both pro and con, or at least the evidence can be interpreted in pro or con ways, or a situation where there is absolutely no evidence con, and a plethora of evidence pro, but one still believes con?

And is the ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ in a scientific principle and therefore directly referable to the scientific evidence - ie geocentrism v heliocentrism?

Or something more tangential, say, a belief in evolution or big bang theory, which can be blended quite comfortably with the additonal comforting belief in a divine creator or guide providing the impetus for evolutionary change in plants and animals or initiating the first sparks of that big bang?

I think he means doubting something that’s been proved by empirical evidence, in the name of a religious belief, rather than doubting a theory that hasn’t been proved yet…

 

[LilyM]

I think he means doubting something that’s been proved by empirical evidence, in the name of a religious belief, rather than doubting a theory that hasn’t been proved yet…

Well, most scientists would have considered flat earth theory to be ‘proved by empirical evidence’ (just use your eyes, does the place LOOK round from where you’re standing? How much more evidence do you need!) before people circumnavigated it and showed them up.

And geocentrism to be likewise, again on the ‘just use your eyes, dummy’ principle, before Copernicus and Galileo came along.

Same goes for many another now-debunked ‘proven’ scientific theory.

As there’s never yet been any empirical evidence disproving the existence of God, or disproving the existence of Christ or His divinity, or the divine inspiration of Scripture and the Church, and even scientists seem to think there never can be, my religious beliefs seem to be able to sit quite comfortably with everything science has thrown at them thus far thankyou. And I don’t anticipate that position changing.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Is it ever reasonable to be against a scientific theory in favour of a life sustaining belief; religious or otherwise?

By life sustaining I mean a comforting belief that keeps you from killing yourself or living a miserable life.

God loves you. He came here and became a man and suffered horribly just for you. So you could live in joy forever. Those are the facts that sustain us: we live by the outrageous mercy of God.

Everything else is pretty much ashes, anyway.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

Well, most scientists would have considered flat earth theory to be ‘proved by empirical evidence’ (just use your eyes, does the place LOOK round from where you’re standing? How much more evidence do you need!) before people circumnavigated it and showed them up.

And geocentrism to be likewise, again on the ‘just use your eyes, dummy’ principle, before Copernicus and Galileo came along.

Same goes for many another now-debunked ‘proven’ scientific theory.

As there’s never yet been any empirical evidence disproving the existence of God, or disproving the existence of Christ or His divinity, or the divine inspiration of Scripture and the Church, and even scientists seem to think there never can be, my religious beliefs seem to be able to sit quite comfortably with everything science has thrown at them thus far thankyou. And I don’t anticipate that position changing.

I certainly hope you’re not suggesting that because some theories have been disproven you should disregard scientific conclusions. You listed bad examples, and considering science is so much more advanced now and how detailed ways of testing and re-testing theories with parameters to prevent it just being dumb luck or an incorrect conclusion (for example the t-test), most “proven” theories right now aren’t going to be debunked anytime soon.

And there’s no need to defend your faith against a question such as this since you’re absolutely right there - there isn’t any evidence at all against the existence of God, in all my time studying and applying science (as well as philosophy) I’m yet to come across anything that even begins to make my belief waver. In fact, the beautiful discoveries I make and new things I learn about the world through science only strengthen my belief.

I didn’t intend to offend you with my other post, God bless.

 

[Schizdemntia]

I seem to an avid runner.I valued my running in a lot of ways. Improved self-esteem, a sense of inner strength, ability to change attitudes. One thing bothered me My psychiatrist got of hold of my idea of running and I am a pack a day smoker. And I would like to know would contradicting common sense for myself bad? I have huge emotional upheaveals now becuase my running wasn’t meant to be.

What do you think?

 

[Qoeleth]

Well, if a belief is life-sustaining and comforting, it is TRUE, in the sense that it must contain some kernal of valid wisdom (even if it is not based on a fact). Such a belief would be like a kind of prayer, or a poem, which one says to oneself.

We can hang onto beliefs, even if they conflict with evidence, without necessarily dismissing the evidence. I would suggest a post-modernist approach. Each belief or theory is simply a verbal or conceptual artifact, with which we decorate (and, to some extent) create our world. There would be no ‘contradiction’ in decorating a room with a 19th Century painting, and some abstract modern art. Both paintings, though different, may say something true, insofar as they are beautiful. Similarly, there is no problem with apparently ‘conflicting’ beliefs. I would have no problem hanging a beautiful religious belief beside an exciting scientific theory, even if they seem to conflict.

The ultimate truth is not reducible to our words, theories, or even beliefs. Conflict, in fact, can remind us of this and thus be richness.

 

[Ophelia23]

I agree. We have to accept reality, and not just what makes us feel comfortable.

I don’t mean this as an attack at all, but I am curious how you are an Atheist if you believe this? God not existing is not a fact at all, so isn’t it just what makes you comfortable…?

 

[SaintPatrick333]

I don’t think it’s ever reasonable to doubt or “be against” a scientific theory that has been properly proved by empirical evidence.

Reason tells us what is empirically true is true so it would be unreasonable to “be against” it.

This is certainly true to an extent but there is much of science that we feel is “proven fact” that sixty to a hundred years from now might be proven slightly misunderstood if not entirely false. Nothing in science is set in stone. Though for the sake of rationality it is better not to delude oneself.

 

[Amamori]

There is no proven truth beyond cogito ergo sum.
All scientific “truth” is provisional. It is true to the best of our current knowledge, and thus has value right now. It has practical value because it works. (Please don’t act like it’s proven. Really.)

Thus, it would be unreasonable to believe, for example, that objects fall upwards when you drop them or that water does not conduct electricity - things you will need to know in your everyday life.

However, for all practical intents and purposes, it does not matter whether you believe that F=ma or that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, unless you are in a profession that requires you to use this information.
Therefore, there would actually be a greater practical value in believing something that will keep you emotionally stable if all it contradicts are the scientific truths that are completely irrelevant to your life.

That said, the pursuit of truth is seen as much more admirable and rewarding - although of course, one can argue that as long as you know enough to sustain your life, then every other piece of knowledge you learn is a complete waste of your time.

 

[lerapt78]

I don’t mean this as an attack at all, but I am curious how you are an Atheist if you believe this? God not existing is not a fact at all, so isn’t it just what makes you comfortable…?

RegularAtheist might have meant with this statement that reality is only what can be perceived through the five senses.

As to the OP’s question, I say yes because you wrote scientific theory, meaning a hypothesis that is yet unproven. If you wrote “scientific fact”, then I lean toward saying “No”, but I have to say that this question really begs a more detailed explanation of what you mean. Are there any specific examples that came to mid when you wrote this?

The accuracy of the word “reasonable” as a positive connotation in itself can change depending on the circumstances. For example, scientific theory says that aliens do not live inside of our stomachs. If a man strongly believes that there is a carnivorous mutant martian residing in his chest cavity that will explode out of him (think “Aliens”) if he does not wear a protective aluminum foil cap to block control commands sent from Mars, then it would be quite “reasonable” for him to wear it so that he does not die during the gastronomical explosion. Wearing a foil hat to protect himself would be “reasonable” in his mind if doing so helps manage his anxiety, fear, blood pressure, etc. Obviously, this would not be reasonable to the rest of us.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I don’t mean this as an attack at all, but I am curious how you are an Atheist if you believe this? God not existing is not a fact at all, so isn’t it just what makes you comfortable…?

Not all atheists are “strong atheist” and don’t necessarily evaluate “God doesn’t exist” as a fact (ex: see “agnostic atheism”). This may be a poor analogy, but if I told you that there is 1.42 USD on my coffee table right now do you believe that this is true or false? Does embracing reality help you in knowing the answer?

 

[lerapt78]

Not all atheists are “strong atheist” and don’t necessarily evaluate “God doesn’t exist” as a fact (ex: see “agnostic atheism”). This may be a poor analogy, but if I told you that there is 1.42 USD on my coffee table right now do you believe that this is true or false? Does embracing reality help you in knowing the answer?

“Agnostic atheism” seems to be a contradiction in terms. I believe somewhere along the way an atheist probably coined the term “agnostic atheist” when his own argument (“Prove to me that what you believe is the truth!”) was used against him, as atheism is not defensible by concrete or scientific evidence. By Merriam-Webster’s definition, atheism is:

1 archaic: ungodliness, wickedness
2
a: a disbelief in the existence of deity
b: **the doctrine that there is no deity **

An agnostic, on the other hand, is one who does not commit either way to the belief/unbelief in God/gods. Agnostics leave a window open to the truth by simply admitting that they do not know if there is a God or not.

With regards to your analogy, it seems that you are asserting something can exist and be true despite what one believes or not, is that correct? In other words, reality does not depend upon one’s belief in it.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

“Agnostic atheism” seems to be a contradiction in terms.

It’s more of a union.

I believe somewhere along the way an atheist probably coined the term “agnostic atheist” when his own argument…

The earliest known reference to the phrase was from Robert Flint (prof of moral philosophy and political economy) in 1887. From looking at his other writings I don’t get the feeling that he was an atheist. I could be wrong though. He also references agnostic Christianity.
"Robert Flint:

It follows, even from what has just been said, that
agnosticism is not atheism. Agnosticism is sometimes
spoken of as only another name for atheism, or as a
kind of atheism. This should never be done. Agnos-
ticism may be combined with atheism as it may with
Christianity, but it is no more atheism, or a kind
of atheism, than it is Christianity, or a kind of
Christianity.

I don’t want to rehash the entire paper. It’s pretty interesting though. If you are curious check it out.

By Merriam-Webster’s definition, atheism is:

I’ve sampled a number of dictionaries and have found that they all have slightly different definitions that don’t agree with each other The definition used in “agnostic atheism” is from the meaning of the smaller words brought together in the phrase. the “a-” prefix on both words from the greek for “without” (like in asexual or atypical). “Gnostic” means knowledge (usually referring to spiritual knowledge) and “theistic” from “belief in god” (theo=god).

An agnostic, on the other hand, is one who does not commit either way to the belief/unbelief in God/gods.

…or, as shown in Merriam-Webster’s, one that finds the propositions of god unknowable (definition 1)

Agnostics leave a window open to the truth by simply admitting that they do not know if there is a God or not.

True.

With regards to your analogy, it seems that you are asserting something can exist and be true despite what one believes or not, is that correct? In other words, reality does not depend upon one’s belief in it.

Actually, I was getting at us having limited knowledge. No matter how open some one is to “Accepting reality” that doesn’t automatically grant him or her with complete knowledge. Referencing the original message to which I responded:

Regular Atheist;9534213:

I agree. We have to accept reality, and not just what makes us feel comfortable.

…] I am curious how you are an Atheist if you believe this? God not existing is not a fact at all, so isn’t it just what makes you comfortable…?

I get the feeling that Regular Atheist’s response might look like cognitive dissonance to some. Since I don’t have access to his/her mind I can’t say that it really is or really isn’t without him/her sharing more information on his/her stance (I’m getting tired of writing the pronouns for both genders. I’m just going to write feminine form until I know otherwise). If her stance happens to be that which is associated with the label “agnostic atheist” then there’s not inconsistency in her stance and what she said. If we agreed that there is a god (Yahweh to be specific) that doesn’t automatically mean that those that when presented with the concept of Yahweh and are open to considering him will be given the conviction that he is real and has all of the attributes presented in the description.