Is science irrational?

[Chriliman]

When I have questions, I want them to have answers that are most likely to be true and that is how I roll.

The more controls I have in place, to assure I am relying on objective evidence and facts to realize those answers are most likely to be true, the better I feel about the process.

You see, I want to believe in as many true things as possible and not believe in as many false things as possible. Personal perceptions, based on personal needs, absent these objective facts and evidence, tend to be highly flawed in my opinion.

I'm glad that you don't desire to be deceived. That's good.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm glad that you don't desire to be deceived. That's good.

If find this trait quite handy, for peace of mind.

 

[Chriliman]

You're not really getting this at all...

Sure I do. You can't prove that there was ever nothing, nor can you prove that there has always been something. Where does that leave us? It leaves us believing one or the other or choosing to lack belief in either.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure I do. You can't prove that there was ever nothing, nor can you prove that there has always been something. Where does that leave us? It leaves us believing one or the other or choosing to lack belief in either.

It means the intellectually honest answer is we don't know.

If one needs to assume an answer, highly likely they are doing so to fill a personal need.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sure I do. You can't prove that there was ever nothing, nor can you prove that there has always been something. Where does that leave us? It leaves us believing one or the other or choosing to lack belief in either.

A. I don't know that "nothing" is an intelligible concept. It doesn't seem to be.
B. In light of "A", I'm more likely to believe that something has always existed.
C. Your point is?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Again, those are not the terms I set out. I classified mutations as a type of aberration which is either neutral or positive. I then classified defects as a type of aberration which is inherently negative. The biologists I personally know agree with those definitions in general. So can you?

Here's what you're not getting about what he's saying.

They are all mutations. You can classify a harmful mutation as a "defect" sure but that is on your own human subjective terms for your own means. But the fact remains it is, at base, still a mutation.

So I think you two can be on the same wavelength now.

 

[Chriliman]

A. I don't know that "nothing" is an intelligible concept. It doesn't seem to be.
B. In light of "A", I'm more likely to believe that something has always existed.
C. Your point is?

Either that something will make itself known to you as the truth or when you die you will vanish into nothingness.

 

[bhsmte]

Either that something will make itself known to you as the truth or when you die you will vanish into nothingness.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Does this mean; either accept God as the truth, or die and vanish into nothingness?

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree. My point is from an atheistic perspective, science is irrational, but from a theistic perspective science is very rational.

Heh.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Either that something will make itself known to you as the truth or when you die you will vanish into nothingness.

False dichotomy.

 

[Gottservant]

The question proposed is: "is" science "irrational" (?)

Actually, I think in the context of irrational as unspecified - any question truncated that much is lightly asked.

(?_) -_ (?)

_

I doubt there is a remainder of prophecy, as its foundation.

 

[bhsmte]

Heh.

Makes perfect sense doesn't it?

he denies well evidence science, but at the same time, claims science is only rational, to theists.

What could possibly be next?

 

[HitchSlap]

Well, I've never met an atheist who actually claimed to know the truth of why we all exist in this reality we call the universe. If I ever do meet such an atheists, I would think he would have quite a god complex.

You've never met one because most atheists are intellectually honest. That is to say, we don't make things up, like you.

 

[Winken]

Is the purpose of science to continue questioning everything indefinitely?

OR

Is the purpose of science to continue questioning everything until an undeniable truth is found?

If the purpose is the former, then how can any individual ever know if they are correct in their beliefs about reality?

If the purpose is the latter, then wouldn't each individual be expected to accept the undeniable truth?

IMO, the purpose of science is to question everything, not necessarily find the truth. I find this to be an irrational way to figure out reality.

The most rational way to view reality is to question it with the intent of finding the truth.

Thoughts?

Making it all up..........

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/making-it-all_1042807.html?nopager=1

 

[Chriliman]

Correct me if I am wrong.

Does this mean; either accept God as the truth, or die and vanish into nothingness?

Wrong. If God exists you will not vanish into nonetheless.

 

[bhsmte]

Wrong. If God exists you will not vanish into nonetheless.

Even if one does not believe in a God?

 

[HitchSlap]

Wrong. If God exists you will not vanish into nonetheless.

If god/s exist, where will I vanish to?

 

[durangodawood]

Experiences of what I perceive to be reality.

Most people would never get to Christianity that way. You are discounting faith.

 

[Chriliman]

Even if one does not believe in a God?

What you believe before you die is yet to be determined.

 

[Chriliman]

Most people would never get to Christianity that way. You are discounting faith.

You know this because you were once a true Christian?