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

[Marc_Anthony]

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.

Actually, I find this a rather fascinating question that I think needs to be taken seriously.

Confession: I like the American show “House”, about a doctor who is meant to be a modern interpretation of Sherlock Holmes and also a real jerk. BUT-I haven’t seen the finale yet.

That’s not the confession, though-the confession is that I looked up a detailed plot synopsis of the episode anyway, and now know what happened in it

In the episode, House is trapped in a burning building. His best friend is dying and he will be going to jail soon. He has decided to get high on drugs in the building, which is empty besides him, when the building catches on fire.

House can leave the building easily and survive, but he starts to seriously consider staying. In his mind, there is nothing really worth living for anyway, so why leave? Death is the best he could hope for.

At this point House starts seeing a series of hallucinations of people from his life who have either died or who have stopped being a presence in his life. These people all offer different perspectives on why House should live-or die. Not all of them are in agreement.

One of the hallucinations points out Pascal’s Wager to House. House snaps back (all dialogue heavily paraphrased, BTW), “Pascal’s Wager is facile!” The hallucination replies, “So be facile then! This isn’t a time for logic or rationality or serious thought. This is a time for desperation.”

I think the hallucination’s point is interesting. Pascal’s Wager IS facile; on this I find that both theists and atheists generally agree. BUT-if a loved one was going to die, and you realized that the only way you could talk them off the ledge was by convincing them of Pascal’s Wager, would you do it?

This question is easy to answer in the abstract-no, of course it isn’t “reasonable” in the abstract to reject a scientific theory in favor of a life-sustaining belief.

BUT-if you were in a real life and death situation-if your life depended on you holding onto the thought, “But what if God DOES exist? What if killing myself makes me miss out on being a part of eternal life?”, is it rational to dismiss this thought because science has “disproved” God’s existence (I think that’s impossible, but whatever) if it means you die?

Remember, you’re on the edge; there is no time to be convinced of other reasons to live. It’s hold onto this or nothing.

What is the rational thing to do? Die because of a scientific theory? Or live because of a self-deception?

A fascinating question. I don’t know the answer.

 

[lerapt78]

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.

This doesn’t explain the contradiction to me, though. (My confusion lies with Robert Flint, not you.) I don’t see how it’s possible to be an agnostic Christian either, unless he is referring to someone who follows the example of Christ (as a historical figure) without believing He was the son of God. A Christian may be unsure of *which * Christian religion is right, but the agnostic (with perhaps Christian leanings) will wonder if Christianity is right at all. The agnostic doubts Jesus was the son of God, the Christian does not.

Conversely, to call oneself an agnostic “atheist” by its very definition would mean that one perhaps *leans *toward the belief there is no God, but does rigidly hold this belief. At which point, he is really only an agnostic until he ascertains without doubt that there is no God, period (at which point he would then become an atheist).

It might be a matter of semantics at this time, subject to interpretation, because sometimes groups will co-opt words to suit how they would like them to be used. Think of the word “feminist” - it has a definition in the dictionary, but it means so many things to different people. This made me think of a friend of mine who considers herself a “Nouveau” vegetarian, which (according to her) means she won’t eat red meat, but she will eat fish and chicken. I kept a blank expression on my face when she first used that term with me, but in my head I was thinking "No matter what you choose to call yourself, if you eat meat on a regular basis, you are NOT a vegetarian!!) I personally think she didn’t want to give up meat completely, but the term made her feel a bit superior to those who support slaughter-houses.

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

Will do, thanks. Perhaps this will clear up my confusion at his use of names.

.

 

[Bradski]

BUT-if you were in a real life and death situation-if your life depended on you holding onto the thought, “But what if God DOES exist? What if killing myself makes me miss out on being a part of eternal life?”, is it rational to dismiss this thought because science has “disproved” God’s existence (I think that’s impossible, but whatever) if it means you die?

I guess you never know until it happens to you.

I was in a coach smash a couple of years ago in Turkey. 1:00am. Our coach hits something at speed. Enormous crash, we’re fishtailing all over the road, lots of screaming, coach runs off the road and starts to roll over. All in slo-mo, just like the movies. Can’t see a thing outside, but we’d been travelling through the mountains, so I thought – this is it. Damn. Who’s going to tell the kids. Will it hurt. Felt like a waste. Looked at my wife – see ya girl…then it stopped. Just at the tipping point.

Anyway, there was no ravine, just a short drop to the side of the road and the coach had come to rest on what was left of the car we’d hit head on.

Standing at the side of the road later I realised – hey, no automatic call for Divine help. Was it right to feel inordinately pleased with myself? I thought when the chips are down I really believe what I thought I believed. Or didn’t as the case may be.

But I don’t recommend it as a way to test one’s lack of faith.

Anyway, in regard to the OP, faith is belief in the absence of evidence. I have no problem with people who have faith. It they feel it helps them, then it’s good. But I can’t understand anyone believing in something where there is undeniable proof that they are wrong (creationism?). That just seems perverse.

 

[Amamori]

Anyway, in regard to the OP, faith is belief in the absence of evidence. I have no problem with people who have faith. It they feel it helps them, then it’s good. But I can’t understand anyone believing in something where there is undeniable proof that they are wrong (creationism?). That just seems perverse.

Ah, interesting anecdote. I’d like to find out my own response to such a situation, but obviously not on purpose.

Anyway, we might be operating on slightly different definitions here, but I’m inclined to think that:

• Faith is belief in the absence of proof. (Yes, that means that pretty much anything requires some degree of faith. Do you have faith in your senses? Do you have faith in the existence of anything beyond yourself? Etc.)
• There is no undeniable proof that anything is wrong. (Any disagreement? I could always drop solipsism on you - it’s a philosophical weapon of mass destruction.)

…This would mean that pretty much anything has a chance of being true.
We also have no means (at least none known to be infallibly accurate) of gauging the chances of something being true.

Thus, it would be reasonable (in terms of truth value) to believe anything.

This is why I proposed using practicality as a measure of reasonableness, instead of truth.

 

[Bradski]

I could always drop solipsism on you - it’s a philosophical weapon of mass destruction.

A showstopper to be sure. It’s just another way of saying: there’s actually no point in discussing this any further. The theological equivalent would of course be: Goddidit.

At which point you may as well pack up your bed roll, throw the rest of the coffee into the dying embers and ride off into the sunset.

Where ya going Shane?’

 

[Amamori]

A showstopper to be sure. It’s just another way of saying: there’s actually no point in discussing this any further. The theological equivalent would of course be: Goddidit.

At which point you may as well pack up your bed roll, throw the rest of the coffee into the dying embers and ride off into the sunset.

Where ya going Shane?’

Indeed.

I discuss philosophy for fun and never expect to reach a conclusion.
In the unlikely event that I do reach a conclusion, I tend to question it until it breaks down again.

What is the “point” of discussing this, in the first place? What are we trying to find out, and why?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Are we looking at short term or long term outcomes?

 

[Amamori]

Are we looking at short term or long term outcomes?

I assume it’s both. In other words, the overall merits and demerits.

 

[lerapt78]

Solopsism has already been discussed on the forum, if anyone is interested in hearing more about this viewpoint.

The whole idea that humans even question, ponder, or try to reason is simply one of the reasons I don’t believe we evolved from amoebas.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

This doesn’t explain the contradiction to me, though. (My confusion lies with Robert Flint, not you.) I don’t see how it’s possible to be an agnostic Christian either, unless he is referring to someone who follows the example of Christ (as a historical figure) without believing He was the son of God.

It can also refer to some one that doesn’t have confidence of whether or not the teachings of Christianity are true but goes with them any way because of cultural conformance, Pascal’s Wager, some one just trying it out in the hopes that something will happen, or some other motivation. While the term is useful for quickly referring to a more confined range of dispositions it isn’t a phrase that people that fall into this category would use to identify themselves and from what I’ve seen is almost exclusively used by some one on the outside looking in. Much like how one group may give a name to a people’s culture even those that people don’t call themselves that (ex: we say “Japanese” while they say 日本語).

A few years ago for personal reasons I went to various local churches to interview some people on their beliefs and found that some of them could be described as agnostic atheists. Some of those interviewed said that they had never directly communicated with God or had been convinced of his existence but went along with Christianity since they felt that they had to make a decision one way or the other.

A Christian may be unsure of which Christian religion is right, but the agnostic (with perhaps Christian leanings) will wonder if Christianity is right at all. The agnostic doubts Jesus was the son of God, the Christian does not.

Not necessarily. Those of us living in the West live in an environment with a Christian bias. But agnosticism isn’t necessarily about one’s position on Christianity. One could be an agnostic Muslim (though depending on the sub-classification may not be at liberty to voice this without penalty)., agnostically Hindu, and so on.

Conversely, to call oneself an agnostic “atheist” by its very definition would mean that one perhaps leans toward the belief there is no God, but does rigidly hold this belief.

Should that have read “does not rigidly hold this belief”? (Is an “I don’t know” stance really a belief?).

At which point, he is really only an agnostic until he ascertains without doubt that there is no God, period (at which point he would then become an atheist).

I think you may be trying to place people into either the strong atheist category of [mono]theist category. The strong atheists is a person that asserts with confidence that there are no gods. But the range of positions is fairly broad. agnostic, ignostic, atheistic, non-theistic, deistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, monotheistic, polytheistic, apatheism, irreligious, misotheistic, dystheism, so on. There’s some overlap in the meaning/usage of some of those dispositions. But they all have their on nuances and subcategories.

It might be a matter of semantics at this time, subject to interpretation, because sometimes groups will co-opt words to suit how they would like them to be used.

I don’t think it’s an instance of some one co-opting a word. Their root forms predate Christianity (ἄθεος or atheos and ἄγνῶσις or agnostic). The ancient Greek meanings of these words aren’t mutually exclusive, so both can be applied to the same person in much the same way that “tall” and “dark” could be applied to the same person. It’s known that a person may mean one of a range of things by these words (atheist, agnostic). With respect to the earlier display that may have been taken for cognitive dissonance I think the realization of these range of meanings helps identify what a person may intend to communicate. Though more exchanges may be necessary to know more completely what one means.

As I’ve said before I don’t know the details of the stance of “Regular Atheist.” But there are stances that fall under the description “atheist” that don’t produce what seemed to be taken as a conflict earlier.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Solopsism has already been discussed on the forum, if anyone is interested in hearing more about this viewpoint.

The whole idea that humans even question, ponder, or try to reason is simply one of the reasons I don’t believe we evolved from amoebas.

Explain to me why you believe what you believe.
I could be misunderstanding you and your beliefs. Do you reject the theory of Evolution?
I’m not sure that the “whole idea that humans even question, ponder, or try to reason” has any meaningful imput.

 

[Bradski]

I think maybe he doesn’t believe that intelligence could have evolved. But then sentience did and isn’t intelligence a function of that?

You can’t be intelligent without being sentient and I find it difficult to image a higher form sentience without some degree of intelligence.

 

[Drinkgasoline]

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.

Hmm yes you’re mostly right but there has been huge refinement of what is considered “true” and a “fact” in science. There is rigorous testing and re-testing.

For example, do you think the evaporation of water can be disproven?
Do you think life being carbon-based can be disproven?

My reason tells me that certain facts that have been proved by science, empirical research, huge amounts of evidence, have undergone re-tests and re-tests to prove validity, are to be considered the “truth” - in the sensory world anyway. Therefore, as my reason tells me this, it must be unreasonable to believe the converse.

I agree that if OP had used “scientific fact” rather than “theory” this would have been a far easier question to answer.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Amamori;
I discuss philosophy for fun and never expect to reach a conclusion.

Are you saying that Jesus dying on the cross for me and you, is something to laugh at?

 

[Bradski]

Are you saying that Jesus dying on the cross for me and you, is something to laugh at?

You must be great fun at parties.

 

[CaptFun]

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.

Wow. I hope you feel better soon if it’s you we’re talking about. A few things.

" … ever reasonable to be against a scientific theory …" <before we get to the " …in favor of " part of this –

Sometimes, so YES! Sometimes theories are wrong. Whether one loves the theory or “is against” it. Theory = “Might be THIS.”

A “religious belief” might be more of an “article of faith” than a “theory” though it could be both.

Killing oneself or living a miserable life < two really BAD options. Good news is … almost all options are better than these and there are MANY options in life.

It’s good to remember that “science” is just man discovering things that God already has made and knows about. We learn more about little truths from others, by testing, etc. Science is not personal, doesn’t care about you - and can’t study YOU back can it?

Our Lord who is everywhere, hence with you (and I) right NOW - and loves us; offers us His Spirit if we ask him and wait. You may already have received Him in the sacrament of Confirmation. He is also close to the brokenhearted and was so Himself in the Garden and on the cross (for us).

With this Lord, we know our lives are not accidental nor ridiculous short things without meaning ending in a void. We are beloved, special, personally created by Almighty God - even if His way of doing it was to involve the intimacy of sex between our parents whom He also loved!

Sometimes great saints experience what is called a “dark night of the soul …” which though it feels terrible had been part of the greatness of those men and women - who carried ON without the sunshine and lollipops of a spiritual HIGH all the time. Heroic dedication we all can be proud of.

Sustain your life by all means! THIS life we eventually “lose” - but we “go to sleep” every night more or less, and eternity is a long time. Our lives as 5 year olds was the truth once. Now we are older. Same people … but NOT the same life now. Change is constant, on a good day it’s like a kaleidoscope, new and beautiful change.

Other times our lives are a bit like “Groundhogs Day” if you saw the movie.

A Scientific Theory oughtn’t to be made into a god. In fact YOU are more important than IT (even if its an important and later proven TRUE theory).

Take care of your child here Lord … oh, and me too.

Thanks ReapReason. This was therapeutic for me. Hope there’s some value for you here. And that you take a YOU day tomorrow (or soon). Treat yourself well. Involve another you enjoy in it … even better! The Captain is …:extrahappy:

 

[LilyM]

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.

You didn’t offend

Not disregard, no, and yes, science has become more rigorous and methodical.

I would say take at least some of it with a grain of salt. Example: the pharmaceutical industry. Their big bucks pay for most of the research into new drugs, so there’s an agenda there on the part of the scientists to not bite the hand that feeds them, to ‘prove’ that the whizbang new product works better than it actually does etc.

I mean only big pharma could so debase scienc ific truth as to redefine ‘cure’ (in terms of cancer drugs) to mean merely five years’ extra life … I mean what an act of doublethink.

 

[ReapReason]

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.

A scientific theory is not a hypothesis.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

“A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”

 

[ReapReason]

That said, the pursuit of truth is seen as much more admirable and rewarding .

Surely this is subjective?

 

[ReapReason]

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

Why?