Is science irrational?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It just seems to be a variation on the Argument from Faith, which is circular ("my faith in God is justified by my faith in God"); in this case, the initial 'faith' is replaced by 'belief', and it becomes: "I believe God exists - I acknowledge it's possible I could be wrong, but I have a God-given faith in my belief..."

It seems to have slipped Chriliman's notice that, regardless of any distinction between 'faith' and 'belief', it's not a logical or rational argument to use an entity that you acknowledge may not exist in support of a belief that it does exist.

 

[Chriliman]

If you know God as well as I know my own body/self, like you said, why do you need any faith? I need no faith in my self as a thing that exists.

Are you sure you don't need faith in yourself in order to function normally? I'd imagine if we all lost faith in ourselves we'd become very depressed and possibly suicidal.

I know God exists, but I have to have faith that He is leading me in order to keep a close relationship with Him. If I let that faith weaken then it becomes very easy to just forget he's there and begin living for myself again, in sin. You all know that a loving relationship takes effort from both sides right?

I know my wife exists, but if I begin ignoring her and living selfishly, then she begins to feel like she doesn't exist in my eyes. I hope you can understand.

 

[durangodawood]

.....If I let that faith weaken then it becomes very easy to just forget he's there and begin living for myself again, ...

Then faith is certainly not the right word to use for how i feel about my 'self'. In fact, my 'self' is all too present and insistent. I would prefer to forget its there more often.

 

[Neochristian]

The purpose of science is to make accurate predictions. Or at least that's the purpose of a theory.

 

[Neochristian]

The purpose of science is to acquire knowledge, make predictions, and solve problems.

Questioning everything is the purpose of philosophy.

 

[Dre Khipov]

The purpose of science is really to provide reliable methods for testing and evaluating claims. It's really what separates it from something like philosophy, which tends to jump out these and explore possibilities without any viable methodology which we can collectively use to corroborate any given claims.

Hence, the science is not about "truth out there", but the provisional truth in scope of our experience of reality.

Generally methods and interpretations derived from methodical observation of the evidence tends to weigh in more than the evidence itself.

 

[Marvin Knox]

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?

Many people (scientists and Christians alike) seem to forget that the reason that a man should keep an open mind is to have it available to lock onto truth when it comes his way.

Some people evidently think that there is some great virtue in breathing your last breath on earth while still possessing a mind that is open like a sieve.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Science? Take your pick...
or