Is science irrational?

[HitchSlap]

Yes, what I currently believe about God is not 100% accurate because my beliefs are fallible, which is why I rely on Him for correction not myself.

Just because my beliefs are fallible does not automatically mean God must not exist.

My faith in God makes up for my fallible beliefs.

Circular is circular.

 

[Chriliman]

How does your belief in God make up for your fallible beliefs, when your belief in God could be fallible?

That makes zero sense and is circular.

My belief in God could be fallible, but since I believe in God, it makes up for it????????????????????????????????????

Depends if you view beliefs to be the same as faith.

My beliefs are what I accept as true.

My faith is trusting in something I cannot see with my eyes.

You can't see truth with your eyes but you can trust that things are true. IMO, this is what it means to have faith in truth.

 

[bhsmte]

Depends if you view beliefs to be the same as faith.

My beliefs are what I accept as true.

My faith is trusting in something I cannot see with my eyes.

You can't see truth with your eyes but you can trust that things are true. IMO, this is what it means to have faith in truth.

Belief without objective evidence, is faith.

If one had objective evidence for their beliefs, they wouldn't need faith, to believe in it.

 

[Davian]

Because the thought of someone denying God and accepting their own desires and being punished eternally for doing so is a scary thought, I wouldn't want that for anyone. Would you?

Being punished eternally, particularly for something beyond one's control, would be a scary thought, if I thought of it as a possibility.

Of course it's easier to think this isn't a possibility and just ignore it. Or place the blame on God for allowing it, when all He asks is for us to listen to Him because He knows better than any of us because He is God.

I cannot see how one could blame something that one considers fictional.

Of course it's easier to just lack belief in God so we don't have to face these possible realities.

That is a loaded statement. You have yet to establish the possibility of these "realities" that you allude to, and belief is not a conscious choice.

 

[Chriliman]

Belief without objective evidence, is faith.

If one had objective evidence for their beliefs, they wouldn't need faith, to believe in it.

Do you have objective evidence for everything you believe?

Please try to be honest here

I can think of many things that I don't have objective evidence for, but I still believe. For instance: I have never seen objective evidence that proves I have great great great grandparents, but I still believe I do.

 

[bhsmte]

Do you have objective evidence for everything you believe?

Please try to be honest here

I can think of many things that I don't have objective evidence for, but I still believe. For instance: I have never seen objective evidence that proves I have great great great grandparents, but I still believe I do.

I place degrees of trust into what I believe, based on the available evidence.

If you didn't have great, great, great grandparents, would you be posting on this board?

 

[bhsmte]

Depends if you view beliefs to be the same as faith.

My beliefs are what I accept as true.

My faith is trusting in something I cannot see with my eyes.

You can't see truth with your eyes but you can trust that things are true. IMO, this is what it means to have faith in truth.

Didn't answer my question, so I will state it again.

How does your belief in a God, which you admit could be fallible, make up for the fact that this very same belief, could be fallible?

 

[Davian]

Yes, what I currently believe about God is not 100% accurate because my beliefs are fallible, which is why I rely on Him for correction not myself.

Which, if you are only imagining all of this, would be circular.

Just because my beliefs are fallible does not automatically mean God must not exist.

If your beliefs do not comport with observations of reality, I would consider them suspect.

My faith in God makes up for my fallible beliefs.

Circular Reasoning Works Because Circular Reasoning Works

• Davian
• Jun 25, 2015

 

[lupusFati]

Science is not irrational.

Hypothesis: This entire thread is an unnecessary witch hunt against science. It was created with the idea that the OP would need to defend themselves, religiously or otherwise.

Evidence: First few pages demonstrate this mindset, starting as early as the OP's second post, if not sooner. Subject demonstrates a lack of knowledge regarding 'subjective' vs 'objective', makes assertions while claiming assertions shouldn't be made or weren't asked for, etc.

Conclusion: Hypothesis seems plausible, if not entirely sound.

May I get this peer reviewed?

 

[expos4ever]

Science is not irrational.

Hypothesis: This entire thread is an unnecessary witch hunt against science.

I think you may be over-reaching. I find the Chriliman's position to be very difficult to even understand so I would be more generous and make this hypothesis:

H: The intent of the thread is to demonstrate that scientific "truth" (I understand that the scientific method has no concept of absolute certainty) is subsumed under, or embedded in, a deeper, more foundational matrix of truths - those embodied in Christian theology.

Having said that, the use of the loaded term "irrational" to characterize science does support your take, as does the occasional mini-statements in favour of a young earth.

 

[Chriliman]

Didn't answer my question, so I will state it again.

How does your belief in a God, which you admit could be fallible, make up for the fact that this very same belief, could be fallible?

My point is that my fallible beliefs have no affect on God existing or not existing. To imply my fallible beliefs in God mean God must not exist is some kind of logical fallacy that I can't think of right now.

Also to imply my fallible beliefs in God mean God must exist is also a logical fallacy, but this is why people have faith in God and don't rely on their fallible beliefs to discern truth.

 

[bhsmte]

My point is that my fallible beliefs have no affect on God existing or not existing. To imply my fallible beliefs in God mean God must not exist is some kind of logical fallacy that I can't think of right now.

Also to imply my fallible beliefs in God mean God must exist is also a logical fallacy, but this is why people have faith in God and don't rely on their fallible beliefs to discern truth.

Nothing related to my question and more gibberish.

How does believing in God, make up for that fact, that your belief in God, may be fallible?

If you don't want to answer the question directly, just be honest and say so, but please refrain from responding with something that has zero to do with the question.

 

[lupusFati]

I think you may be over-reaching. I find the Chriliman's position to be very difficult to even understand so I would be more generous and make this hypothesis:

H: The intent of the thread is to demonstrate that scientific "truth" (I understand that the scientific method has no concept of absolute certainty) is subsumed under, or embedded in, a deeper, more foundational matrix of truths - those embodied in Christian theology.

Having said that, the use of the loaded term "irrational" to characterize science does support your take, as does the occasional mini-statements in favour of a young earth.

Aha, I knew there was a better way to say it. Thank you. I don't really have a firm grasp of the scientific method but I've been attempting to learn it more and more, recently.

That and I was kind of being a bit sassy; that said it was still a genuine attempt.

I did find the thread title to be a loaded question, so perhaps I should have brought that up as well. It was a fun exercise, at least.

 

[bhsmte]

Aha, I knew there was a better way to say it. Thank you. I don't really have a firm grasp of the scientific method but I've been attempting to learn it more and more, recently.

That and I was kind of being a bit sassy; that said it was still a genuine attempt.

I did find the thread title to be a loaded question, so perhaps I should have brought that up as well. It was a fun exercise, at least.

Yes loaded and especially so, when the OP admitted, that science was rational.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

My point is that my fallible beliefs have no affect on God existing or not existing. To imply my fallible beliefs in God mean God must not exist is some kind of logical fallacy that I can't think of right now.

No one has ever, EVER said this.

What I say is that your faulty logic makes your position look bad and can be used to show people that Christians have no idea what they're talking about. In fact, I've seen people deconvert based on these types of threads. So at best you're having no effect on any of the atheists here, and at worst you could be contributing to someone else's loss of faith.

How on earth is this a desirable scenario?

 

[Chriliman]

Nothing related to my question and more gibberish.

How does believing in God, make up for that fact, that your belief in God, may be fallible?

If you don't want to answer the question directly, just be honest and say so, but please refrain from responding with something that has zero to do with the question.

You could take all my beliefs away and God would still exist. Or from your perspective, you could take all my beliefs away and God would still not exist.

My point is, the truth of God existing or not existing does not rely on my beliefs. So your question of "How does believing in God, make up for that fact, that your belief in God, may be fallible?" is illogical because the existence of God does not rely on my beliefs. Logically, the existence of God, relies on God.

Does that make sense?

 

[Davian]

You could take all my beliefs away and God would still exist. Or from your perspective, you could take all my beliefs away and God would still not exist.

My point is, the truth of God existing or not existing does not rely on my beliefs. So your question of "How does believing in God, make up for that fact, that your belief in God, may be fallible?" is illogical because the existence of God does not rely on my beliefs. Logically, the existence of God, relies on God.

Does that make sense?

No.

 

[bhsmte]

You could take all my beliefs away and God would still exist. Or from your perspective, you could take all my beliefs away and God would still not exist.

My point is, the truth of God existing or not existing does not rely on my beliefs. So your question of "How does believing in God, make up for that fact, that your belief in God, may be fallible?" is illogical because the existence of God does not rely on my beliefs. Logically, the existence of God, relies on God.

Does that make sense?

What this means then, is your statement; believing in God makes up for my belief in God being fallible, is not logical, because it doesn't rely on your beliefs, as you just stated.

 

[Chriliman]

What this means then, is your statement; believing in God makes up for my belief in God being fallible, is not logical, because it doesn't rely on your beliefs, as you just stated.

Do you want to understand what I'm saying? If not, then you never will.

Do you want my beliefs to be false?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you want to understand what I'm saying? If not, then you never will.

Do you want my beliefs to be false?

It would be best, if you first understood what you are saying.

In one post you state, your belief in God makes up for your belief in God being fallible. In another post you state, your belief doesn't factor into it.

You do tend to contradict yourself quite a bit, as you scramble to justify your statements, so I am not surprised.