Thread:User talk:Tmtoulouse/Bump: You know that obnoxious thing people do on the internet when they've said something and they feel they haven't been paid enough attention? I'm doing that./reply (35)

You say you will pick a new word, but I think you miss the point. Rational is a loaded term, it is a value judgement. It comes with the near universal value baggage Rational=Good, Irrational=Bad. Suppose instead of rational/irrational, you substitute Armondikovian/non-Armondikovian. Then you've lost the value baggage, which is a big deal, so it isn't the same thing. "Should I want to be rational?" "Obviously yes". "Should I want to be Armondikovian?" "Why???"

Some faiths can be damaged by science. Others can't be. Suppose I believe by faith the claim "The mind, by its nature, can never cease to exist". Science can't possibly damage that claim. Despite all lack of scientific evidence for the continued existence of the mind after death, it can't disprove the claim "The minds of the dead have gone to another universe". Nor does it appear it ever could be. (Even if we could somehow prove the existence of parallel universes, and somehow access to them to prove the minds of the dead aren't there, how could science prove there aren't yet further universe unaccessible to us in which the minds of the dead are present.)

Certain unproven claims can potentially be refuted by science. Others can't be. This follows from the nature of science. The findings of science will change; its fundamental nature won't. If you put your faith in what science can disprove, science may one day conquer your faith. If you put your faith in what is beyond the inherent abilities of science, science will never conquer it.