Is science irrational?

[Chriliman]

For clarification, please address these points directly, thanks.

Tell me which question I did not answer with my post and I will address it.

I just did this in post 237

When did I say, I am motivated to change my mind if other people's perceptions are I am strengthened by changing my mind?

You said the willingness to change one's mind based on evidence is a sign of strength. No one changes their mind without first admitting they were wrong, which is a sign of humility, not strength. The strength comes after you've been humbled.

Clearly, you didn't read what I posted. I will clarify; since I have already changed my mind once on this important question, I have demonstrated that i do not fear accepting new evidence, that will cause me to reevaluate my beliefs. How you perceive, this means I will never change my mind, is beyond me, since I have already demonstrated, that my mind can be changed.

If you're open to having your mind changed, that's great! I'm glad to hear it!

It's a scary thought that some people accept new knowledge and evidence, that leads them to believe they were wrong about something?

Not what I said.

 

[bhsmte]

I just did this in post 237



You said the willingness to change one's mind based on evidence is a sign of strength. No one changes their mind without first admitting they were wrong, which is a sign of humility, not strength. The strength comes after you've been humbled.



If you're open to having your mind changed, that's great! I'm glad to hear it!



Not what I said.

If that is not what you said, please clarify what exactly was scary to you.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. This has helped me understand how atheist view science vs how theists view science.

Shoot.

In general it seems an atheist will view science as something that can help them improve their own lives

Not necessarily.

while a theist will view science as a tool to help them find complete understanding of our reality.

I'm pretty sure anyone who likes science would encompass both the former and the latter definitions.

Again, in general atheists seem to think "What can science do for me?" While theists seem to think "What can I do to further science towards complete understanding?"

Complete understanding? Try "Further Understanding" Complete understanding means that's even possible.

In general theist believe complete understanding is achievable, but only through God.

This is a general consensus I can quote you on?

Whereas, atheists don't necessarily believe complete understand is achievable

Right because "complete" is extremely hard to define. How do we really know we know every thing there is to know about thermonuclear fission? At best we can assume that we've got it all encompassed but there's always that room for expansion. It's never 100% that's childlike.

because they think they have to rely on humans to get there and they know humans are imperfect by nature and so may never achieve complete understanding of reality.

Humans made calculators. Calculators are perfect at their job.

Relying on humans sure got us pretty far there. It's about knowledge and observation and data. That is what we can rely on.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I didn't evade. I clearly stated that in my opinion the most rational way to understand reality (and I include myself in this reality) is to ask honest questions with the intent of finding the truth.

Not to ask questions with the intent of understanding reality because that would preclude the truth that would make it all make sense to me personally.

Not that difficult to understand.

Your posts make no sense. This is gibberish.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

For some "unknown" reason, we humans are made to want things. Those that want the truth are most likely to find it and hold on to it for dear life.

That's not you though, is it? You said that you want your god to be true, not that you want to know the truth, whatever it may be (1).

 

[DogmaHunter]

Thanks to everyone for your responses. This has helped me understand how atheist view science vs how theists view science.

In general it seems an atheist will view science as something that can help them improve their own lives, while a theist will view science as a tool to help them find complete understanding of our reality.

Again, in general atheists seem to think "What can science do for me?" While theists seem to think "What can I do to further science towards complete understanding?"


In general theist believe complete understanding is achievable, but only through God. Whereas, atheists don't necessarily believe complete understand is achievable because they think they have to rely on humans to get there and they know humans are imperfect by nature and so may never achieve complete understanding of reality.

Just some observations. Take them or leave them.

How you got that from the responses you received is beyond me.

It rather seems to me that atheists here almost by consensus responded with a variation of "the purpose of science is to find out how nature works".

 

[DogmaHunter]

I didn't evade. I clearly stated that in my opinion the most rational way to understand reality (and I include myself in this reality) is to ask honest questions with the intent of finding the truth.

Merely asking questions will not answer them.

bhsmt is asking your what the best method is to find the answers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How you got that from the responses you received is beyond me.

It rather seems to me that atheists here almost by consensus responded with a variation of "the purpose of science is to find out how nature works".

Perhaps it's that selective hearing he alluded to earlier.

 

[Chriliman]

If that is not what you said, please clarify what exactly was scary to you.

What is scary to me is your misconception of what it means to change your mind about something as significant as God. When changing your mind from believing there is a God to believing there is no God, it may seem like you've overcome some kind of deception and you view overcoming this as a strength.

However, when changing your mind from believing there is no God to believing there is a God, is not a sign of strength, but rather humility, because you've realized you yourself are weak and wretched when compared to this God. All you can do is ask for mercy and forgiveness and His promise is that if you believe in His son Jesus, you will be forgiven and He will have mercy on you.

I don't think the ability to change one's mind is a sign of strength because in order to change your mind you would have to admit you were wrong, either to someone else or yourself. This is a sign of humility.

 

[Chriliman]

How you got that from the responses you received is beyond me.

It rather seems to me that atheists here almost by consensus responded with a variation of "the purpose of science is to find out how nature works".

I can figure out how an engine works, but does that tell me who designed it to work that way? Maybe it's time for science to stop asking how and begin asking who.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I can figure out how an engine works, but does that tell me who designed it to work that way? Maybe it's time for science to stop asking how and begin asking who.

Why?

 

[Chriliman]

Why?

Because it might get us to a better or even complete understanding of our reality, which would be a good thing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can figure out how an engine works, but does that tell me who designed it to work that way? Maybe it's time for science to stop asking how and begin asking who.

Why would science ask such loaded questions?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because it might get us to a better or even complete understanding of our reality, which would be a good thing.

That doesn't address the question of why "who".

What's wrong with "what"?

"who" is a loaded question.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because it might get us to a better or even complete understanding of our reality, which would be a good thing.

You would need to show that it does advance our understanding in some way, rather than merely claiming that it does.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why would science ask such loaded questions?

Because it allows the religious to sneak theological baggage into it?

 

[KCfromNC]

What is scary to me is your misconception of what it means to change your mind about something as significant as God.

Why does it scare you that other people disagree with your guesses about the nature of the god you follow? Do you lack confidence in the process you've used to come to your beliefs?

 

[Chriliman]

Why does it scare you that other people disagree with your guesses about the nature of the god you follow? Do you lack confidence in the process you've used to come to your beliefs?

Does it seem like I lack confidence in my beliefs? It is scary how warped one's view of reality can get. Thankfully, bhsmte has stated that he is open to having his mind changed based on the truth. So that's good.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Does it seem like I lack confidence in my beliefs? It is scary how warped one's view of reality can get. Thankfully, bhsmte has stated that he is open to having his mind changed based on the truth. So that's good.

Are you?

 

[durangodawood]

Science is a poor tool for studying things that are not objectively demonstrable.
If you want to study God, try poetry instead.