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

[ReapReason]

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.

What has this got to do with the OP? I am not interested in statements of faith. I am interested in whether or not it is ever rational to belief something that contradicts scientific facts.

 

[Amamori]

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

Jesus dying on the cross is an observation. It is not, in itself, philosophy.

(“Fun”, also, does not directly link to “laughter”. In its broadest sense, “fun” can be used to describe anything that triggers any positive emotional response.)

Philosophy in general is at a level of abstraction where it cannot have a direct impact on the world. It will only influence the world if a conclusion is reached and acted upon.
Thus, for someone like me who is suspicious of most conclusions, philosophy is a safe (and not resource-intensive) way to pass the time.

…When I joined this forum, I never expected its users to use such a judgemental tone. However, as tone is essentially irrelevant to the truth value of the statement, I suppose this can be disregarded.

 

[Amamori]

Surely this is subjective?

Most likely, yes.
I was merely suggesting that a lot of people respect the pursuit of truth. However, this is ultimately up to the individual.

Are we discussing objective truth in this thread? It appears to be about belief, which is inherently subjective.
…Ah, I see. It seems to be about whether it is acceptable to have a subjective view of reality which contradicts objective reality.

 

[HelenRose]

Any comforting faith or belief that contradicts scientific evidence.

Truth does not contradict Truth.

Faith and Reason are not incompatible. While there is confussion with many theories and beliefs one always must search for truth even if that truth is beyond our comprehension.

We do not have all the answers.

For instance: As a devout Catholic, I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution because I know that God is the first mover and creator of the universe and life.

How this came about? Why it came about? I don’t have the answers. That is the wonder of life that our Good Lord gave to us. A burning desire to search for Him and His truth through our intellect, our hearts and our souls.

 

[Amamori]

Truth does not contradict Truth.

Faith and Reason are not incompatible. While there is confussion with many theories and beliefs one always must search for truth even if that truth is beyond our comprehension.

A fair point.

Hmm, but the question was asked specifically regarding a belief that was incompatible with science.
Thus, beliefs that can coexist with science are irrelevant to this topic.

Incidentally, why “must” one search for truth?

 

[ReapReason]

Truth does not contradict Truth.

I never said it did.

Faith and Reason are not incompatible.

I never said they were

one always must search for truth even if that truth is beyond our comprehension.

Why? Why not just have a comfortable faith regardless of whether or not it contradicts known scientific facts?

We do not have all the answers.

Certainly not. This goes without saying.

For instance: As a devout Catholic, I have no problem with the Theory of Evolution because I know that God is the first mover and creator of the universe and life.

So the only reason you accept evolution is not because you accept the authority of science, but because it does not contradict the idea of a first cause.

But what if science did find out that a theory did contradict the idea of a first cause. Would you still believe in God in so far as he is defined as a first cause? Note that I am not saying that this is possible; it is purely hypothetical.

How this came about? Why it came about? I don’t have the answers. That is the wonder of life that our Good Lord gave to us. A burning desire to search for Him and His truth through our intellect, our hearts and our souls.

This thread is not about what we can know. It is about whether it is reasonable to hold a belief in direct contradiction to a scientific fact in favour of a pragmatic agenda.

 

[HelenRose]

A fair point.

Hmm, but the question was asked specifically regarding a belief that was incompatible with science.
Thus, beliefs that can coexist with science are irrelevant to this topic.

Incidentally, why “must” one search for truth?

Well my answer to the basic question would be yes it is reasonable because scientific theories are just that. They are theories.

Science is a tool and in most cases a wonderful toy God gave to us to play with.

It is not important to accept anything science has to offer if one loves God and does what He commands.

Why do I think that one “must” search for truth. That is simple - He gave us a brain and he expects us to use it.

 

[ReapReason]

Well my answer to the basic question would be yes it is reasonable because scientific theories are just that. They are theories.

Science is a tool and in most cases a wonderful toy God gave to us to play with.

It is not important to accept anything science has to offer if one loves God and does what He commands.

Why do I think that one “must” search for truth. That is simple - He gave us a brain and he expects us to use it.

So basically your faith overrides all scientific facts, science is just a toy for humanity, and scientific truth is only relevant to you insofar as it conforms to your faith. Is that a correct summary of your position?

If so, why should anybody perceive your position as reasonable?

 

[HelenRose]

So basically your faith overrides all scientific facts, science is just a toy for humanity, and scientific truth is only relevant to you insofar as it conforms to your faith. Is that a correct summary of your position?

If so, why should anybody perceive your position as reasonable?

No that is not my position. I love scientific thought and study but I also see it’s limitations. The human mind is not capable of comprehending all that exists in the physical world much less comprehend the why. Science deals with how. Faith deals with why. These questions are related but they are not the same.

I know people who use their intellect to feed the poor, clothe the hungry, visit the sick, take care of their families, reach out their hands to their friends and neighbors, contribute to society who take no notice of science. Is it reasonable to assume that they are unreasonable?

 

[ReapReason]

No that is not my position. I love scientific thought and study but I also see it’s limitations. The human mind is not capable of comprehending all that exists in the physical world much less comprehend the why. Science deals with how. Faith deals with why. These questions are related but they are not the same.

I know people who use their intellect to feed the poor, clothe the hungry, visit the sick, take care of their families, reach out their hands to their friends and neighbors, contribute to society who take no notice of science. Is it reasonable to assume that they are unreasonable?

Does helping people in an intelligent way conflict with science? No

But I can see how it could be possible that somebodies belief would conflict with science. Surely you wouldn’t think it reasonable for somebody to believe that a God throws lighting bolts from the clouds or causes volcanoes to explode, do you?

I don’t think that belief is rational in light of scientific fact, yet some people would be very upset to hear somebody claiming that such was not the case, and may even choose to deny the power of science in terms of knowledge. Like you.

 

[HelenRose]

Does helping people in an intelligent way conflict with science? No

But I can see how it could be possible that somebodies belief would conflict with science. Surely you wouldn’t think it reasonable for somebody to believe that a God throws lighting bolts from the clouds or causes volcanoes to explode, do you?

I don’t think that belief is rational in light of scientific fact, yet some people would be very upset to hear somebody claiming that such was not the case, and may even choose to deny the power of science in terms of knowledge. Like you.

Please do not twist my thoughts around to your definitions.
Science is not a god unto itself. There is nothing sacrasant about science. It is a tool - no more than that. Science is a construct of the human mind and as such is fallible. The interpretation of scientific data is an art form and subject to human prejudices and fears.

 

[ReapReason]

Science is not a god unto itself. There is nothing sacrasant about science. It is a tool - no more than that.

So according to you science does not provide true knowledge.

 

[HelenRose]

So according to you science does not provide true knowledge.

If there were such a thing as pure science that would be an entirely different matter.

Science can be and often is corrupted by big business, big government, colleges and universities bidding for the highest grants, stupid scientists, lazy scientists, scientists with an agenda and unfortunately there are scientist who use science as a means to control population with false data. There are has many theories about any given scientific question as there are protestant churches.

There is no such thing as pure science because there is no such thing as a pure scientist. They are the same as the rest of humanity, subject to their own preconceived notions, prejudices and fears.

Science like any tool is only as useful as the person who uses it. In the hands of the corrupt it is corrupt and should be understood as such.

 

[shoe]

So according to you science does not provide true knowledge.

Science cannot provide true knowledge to anyone as though science were a person. Scientists, not science, may provide knowledge after they have drawn their conclusions based upon observed evidence. But since science is a conceptual tool that mankind uses to discover data, science in and of itself cannot provide anything, say anything, or take positions on anything.

Science is basically mankind’s pursuit (and discovery) of the knowledge of God’s attributes that He has made known to the world. Romans 1:20 says, “For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.”

 

[HelenRose]

 

[lerapt78]

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.

Since this thread is not about evolution, to illustrate my beliefs would get us very off-topic since there would be many rebuttals and counter-rebuttals. Suffice it to say that I do not reject evolution if it is understood to mean biological change. On which *types *of evolution (homo sapiens originating from other species, etc.) I have differing opinions. PM me if you would like to start a thread about and I’ll be happy to contribute some thoughts.

I offered the above-referenced (name removed by moderator)ut because a previous poster was commenting on the tendency of humans to question and wonder about things. I used this as a point of reference to my theological faith; that perhaps we seek so many answers as a way of bringing us closer to God. Something along the lines of our souls attempting to know God.

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.

See my above reply. The question “Do you reject evolution?” cannot be answered in a few sentences as the question would require further elaboration before I could definitively answer it.

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.”

My error. I used “theory” and “hypothetical” in layman’s terms, understood to mean unproven speculation, instead of using the words with scientific understanding (as was the subject of the thread). Thank you for calling my attention to it.

 

[ReapReason]

If there were such a thing as pure science that would be an entirely different matter.

Science can be and often is corrupted by big business, big government, colleges and universities bidding for the highest grants, stupid scientists, lazy scientists, scientists with an agenda and unfortunately there are scientist who use science as a means to control population with false data. There are has many theories about any given scientific question as there are protestant churches.

There is no such thing as pure science because there is no such thing as a pure scientist. They are the same as the rest of humanity, subject to their own preconceived notions, prejudices and fears.

Science like any tool is only as useful as the person who uses it. In the hands of the corrupt it is corrupt and should be understood as such.

So according to you Science cannot be trusted as a method of obtaining objective knowledge, because corrupt people use it.

 

[ReapReason]

Science cannot provide true knowledge to anyone as though science were a person.

I never said science was a person. Can you please quote where I say that science is a person

Scientists may provide knowledge after they have drawn their conclusions based upon observed evidence. But since science is a conceptual tool that mankind uses to discover data, science in and of itself cannot provide anything, say anything, or take positions on anything.

So according to you the scientific method cannot be trusted to provide true knowledge about physical reality.

Science is basically mankind’s pursuit (and discovery) of the knowledge of God’s attributes that He has made known to the world

The scientific method is used in-order to obtain knowledge about physical objects, by empirically describing and measuring physical events. The question of whether or not God exists is irrelevant to the subject matter. And so it should be.

 

[HelenRose]

So according to you Science cannot be trusted as a method of obtaining objective knowledge, because corrupt people use it.

Define scientific method. Then name a pure scientist that follows that scientific method.
I sense that we are talking past each other and we need to define our terms.

 

[HelenRose]

So according to you Science cannot be trusted as a method of obtaining objective knowledge, because corrupt people use it.

The scientific method is not a thing to trust or distrust. It is a tool.

It is a tool, a very valuable tool, but a tool nontheless.

You know it has occured to me that you and I are very different.

I will admit that my belief in God is built on faith.

I realize that you will never admit your worship of “science” is also built on faith.

Science is a servant of mankind it is not an object to worship. It is not the ending and the beginning of human existence.

I have enjoyed talking with you but I have come to an end.

You are free to worship your god - holding your faith dear to your heart.