Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blobbenstein 
well as good as I think science is at answering questions about the way the Universe works, I don't think it is the only way; not for me anyway....but I accept that it is for some people.
There may be fairies and elves, and also the scientific method might be the only way to form a world view. Pick your fairy.
Your analogy doesn't work. Science is not a guess, nor is it equal to a guess.
This is a common misunderstanding.
Science is not a series of 'facts' or any mere body of information, but a methodology of reducing (and ideally eliminating) subjective bias based on preconceptions from observation of our world. It is the opposite of a guess; it is the elimination of the influence of guesses on our perception of facts.
It is founded only on logic, and the premises that:
1. There is a true reality (if there isn't, there's no point in believing anything nor any harm in it, so this is a safe assumption)
2. People believe different things, which sometimes conflict logically (thus not all beliefs are true)-- an evident conclusion of that being that humans have biases that can influence perception in a number of ways (if it is not a bias which can be controlled for, but instead the influence of some kind of 'divinity', then we have no free will and as such our actions are irrelevant anyway- making this another safe assumption)
Given those premises, in order to have the best chance at believing what is true, we use scientific methodology to control for those biases.
Scientific methodology can be applied to anything (even things considered supernatural- it can even give us insight into things like witchcraft, magic, and theology), but where it is not applied, all we are left with are assumptions- and following only those assumptions without caring what is actually true is fundamentally closed minded.
Quote:
"Upon this first, and in one sense this sole, rule of reason, that in order to learn you must desire to learn, and in so desiring not be satisfied with what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry.
Charles Sanders Peirce, "First Rule of Logic"
Where science and logic cease to give us answers, it's anybody's guess, and so you could argue that formulating a tentative world-view outside the bounds of the answers we have gained from science is not counter-productive to science and logic themselves.
This is often called the "god of the gaps", but it applies to any unevidenced assumption we fancy for lack of evidence.
This you could argue is fair, since we don't *have* anything better to base our views on in that case; as long as the assumptions are humble enough to move over if such a time comes that science does provide answers.
My statements on morality apply to a competitive situation- choosing an assumption in spite of objective evidence (not in having an assumption for lack of it).
It is immoral to choose to believe an element of a world view which is less likely to be true in place of another available more likely element and act on that belief in such a way that it could be morally catastrophic were the more likely element true instead.
Yes, I know, it's a mouth full. But I hope you understand what I'm saying.
The only alternatives to tentatively accepting conclusions of science (in the same sense of statistical certainty that they can be concluded) are:
1. Total existential skepticism (necessarily including dialetheism, because following any acceptance of logic is the prudence of scientific methodology)
Quote:
[of such a person] Why does he not just get up first thing and walk into a well or, if he finds one, over a cliff? In fact, he seems rather careful about cliffs and wells.
-Aristotle
and:
2. Blind trust in assumptions to be true in spite of evidence to the contrary (fideism- beyond being closed minded, see the second premise above, and why this is a safe assumption to not follow. Fideism usually also admits dialetheism, but may not always do so).
Perennial philosophy and some other metaphysical systems that attempt to found themselves in rationalism are almost a middle ground, wherein there is an attempt at a more objective methodology being applied to theology and the transcendent. These are an imperfect attempts, but where they would admit that and welcome more objective methodology and logical analysis, they are at least scientific in spirit (to the extent something can be scientific in motivation, even if it falls short of an ideal). Where they fail to admit that, they are fideism.
Anyway, with regards to the two alternatives mentioned (possibly excepting some forms of perennial philosophy and metaphysics, which deserve more discussion), this is not answering questions about how the universe works- it is ignoring the question, and just saying how you think it works respectively (failing to actually answer the external truth of the matter).
In either case, those responses are both closed minded (whether dialetheism or fideism) because they deny any new information (an assumption has no need for facts), and only adapt based on emotional convenience.
I would note also that some of the most intelligent of classical theologians likewise rejected the premises of dialetheism and fideism, Thomas Aquinas (and the Catechism of the Catholic Church), and Avicenna perhaps chief among them.
Modern theology takes great pains not to put itself at odds with the concepts of science, and throughout antiquity theology has overwhelmingly attempted to ally itself with logic.
