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

[ReapReason]

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

What is this tool for, that we should neither trust or distrust it?

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

If we cannot trust the scientific method to give us facts, then I fail to see the value of it.

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

So?

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

So what? What has that got to do with anything?

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

Where did I say that i worship science? Can you please quote where I say this; otherwise I have no choice but to think of you as a dishonest person.

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 never said that it was an object of worship.

I have enjoyed talking with you

I doubt it.

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

What are you talking about?

 

[Julia_Mae]

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.

I’m saying it’s irrelevant. I was not making a statement of faith, but of facts that take precedence over all other facts.

A theory is not a fact, anyway. It’s an explanation of observable or predictable phenomena. As far as actual facts, there is no difference I am aware of between one and another: it is or it isn’t. By which I mean it isn’t like there are “scientific facts” and then some other class.

 

[Rhuarc]

I believe in the power of denial. If something in your life that you cannot control happens and you don’t like it, just deny it’s existence. Deny it and convince yourself that it didn’t happen and move on, plain and simple. I always try to defy the world at every chance.

One example being I deny that atheists consider themselves more rational that us religious folk. Or I deny that my burgers at a restraunt may have been mishandled. Etc.

 

[ReapReason]

I’m saying it’s irrelevant. I was not making a statement of faith, but of facts that take precedence over all other facts.

A theory is not a fact, anyway. It’s an explanation of observable or predictable phenomena. As far as actual facts, there is no difference I am aware of between one and another: it is or it isn’t. By which I mean it isn’t like there are “scientific facts” and then some other class.

What are you saying here exactly? Are you saying that scientific theories bring us no closer to objective reality than faith; and that therefore it is reasonable to believe things that contradict scientific theory?

 

[Amamori]

What is this tool for, that we should neither trust or distrust it?

If we cannot trust the scientific method to give us facts, then I fail to see the value of it.

“Trust” is hardly relevant when a method is concerned. “Trust” is emotional. Science is fundamentally unemotional.
The scientific method is a means of finding and refining our understanding of the universe and how it works based on our observations and experimentation. The only way to evaluate the scientific method is through its effectiveness - efficiency and accuracy.

The scientific method can give us facts, provided that your definition of “fact” is “true to the best of our current knowledge”. After all, the method runs on falsification and all scientific truth is regarded as provisional - they are subject to change, but they work well enough right now that we can consider them to be true enough for our purposes.
Thus, science has value because it allows us to become increasingly close to and increasingly certain of the truth.

…You seem to be a very interesting person.

 

[ReapReason]

I believe in the power of denial. If something in your life that you cannot control happens and you don’t like it, just deny it’s existence. Deny it and convince yourself that it didn’t happen and move on, plain and simple. I always try to defy the world at every chance.

One example being I deny that atheists consider themselves more rational that us religious folk. Or I deny that my burgers at a restraunt may have been mishandled. Etc.

So you would deny any scientific theory that was not beneficial to your desired way of life?

 

[Amamori]

So you would deny any scientific theory that was not beneficial to your desired way of life?

Indeed, there are people who do that.
Their self-deception ability tends to become rather too powerful for any rational approach.

I suppose that this denial has the practical function of defending the psyche against the harshness of reality.

 

[ReapReason]

“Trust” is hardly relevant when a method is concerned. “Trust” is emotional. Science is fundamentally unemotional.
The scientific method is a means of finding and refining our understanding of the universe and how it works based on our observations and experimentation. The only way to evaluate the scientific method is through its effectiveness - efficiency and accuracy.

Yes; but you trust that what you perceive with your senses really reflects how things are objectively. I am not talking about blind trust. But to think that there is no degree of trust involved is a mistake. We assume that there is a natural order. You have never “seen” quark; but we perceive effects that we explain by positing the existence of quarks assuming that their is a natural order.

 

[Amamori]

Yes; but you trust that what you perceive with your senses really reflects how things are objectively. I am not talking about blind trust. But to think that there is no degree of trust involved is a mistake.

Ah, I see. “Trust” in the sense of “considering something to be reliable”.
Yes, that would certainly apply to science, sensory perception and any other method of obtaining knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

Why should sustaining your life be an exception?

 

[Amamori]

Why should sustaining your life be an exception?

Heh, this again.
Yes, I’m assuming that survival is a constant goal. It might not be. The ultimate goal may be anything, from growing as many tomatoes as possible to, well, nothing at all.

 

[Julia_Mae]

What are you saying here exactly?

I am saying exactly what I said, not sure why you want to read more into words than what is posted. What are you saying?

 

[Amamori]

I am saying exactly what I said, not sure why you want to read more into words than what is posted. What are you saying?

Don’t worry too much. He seems to take a rather confrontational approach to these discussions.

 

[ReapReason]

Don’t worry too much. He seems to take a rather confrontational approach to these discussions.

Its because I am angry at the world.
That, and my dad is Richard Dawkins. Two reasons to be angry at the world.

 

[lerapt78]

Its because I am angry at the world.
That, and my dad is Richard Dawkins. Two reasons to be angry at the world.

:console: I’ve always found that an upbeat rendition of “Kumbaya” helps.

 

[Amamori]

Its because I am angry at the world.
That, and my dad is Richard Dawkins. Two reasons to be angry at the world.

Ah, I see. You remind me of someone I know.

…It’s fine. Anger is a powerful driving force. You should be able to accomplish something great using this as motivation.

 

[lerapt78]

Ah, I see. You remind me of someone I know.

…It’s fine. Anger is a powerful driving force. You should be able to accomplish something great using this as motivation.

I’m pretty sure ReapReason was being facetious.

By the way, good observation you posted earlier (I believe science can be used to help us understand God’s creation - it does not have to seek to replace Him), and welcome to the forums.

“Trust” is hardly relevant when a method is concerned. “Trust” is emotional. Science is fundamentally unemotional.
The scientific method is a means of finding and refining our understanding of the universe and how it works based on our observations and experimentation. The only way to evaluate the scientific method is through its effectiveness - efficiency and accuracy.

The scientific method can give us facts, provided that your definition of “fact” is “true to the best of our current knowledge”. After all, the method runs on falsification and all scientific truth is regarded as provisional - they are subject to change, but they work well enough right now that we can consider them to be true enough for our purposes.
Thus, science has value because it allows us to become increasingly close to and increasingly certain of the truth…

 

[Amamori]

I’m pretty sure ReapReason was being facetious.

By the way, good observation you posted earlier (I believe science can be used to help us understand God’s creation - it does not have to seek to replace Him), and welcome to the forums.

Thank you. Ah, I neglected to introduce myself - but I suppose it doesn’t matter.

(I was essentially responding to ReapReason’s tone. I know someone who writes in that way, challenging everything almost by default. It’s an attitude that causes conflict but also stimulates progress.)