...the rationality of theism, like any behavior, is judged by the objectives it achieves. If your highest objective is to live your life according to the implications of science, even if that should mean accepting a certain level of meaninglessness foreign to a theist, then do that. It's not irrational to do otherwise though. — Hanover

In the above, are you articulating a type of pragmatism?

The value of religion is not rooted in the scientifically arrived at truth values of its claims. — Hanover

If you are linking religious value with practical results, is it not necessary for you to embrace truth value propositions pertinent to achieving goals systematically by rational means?

In the above, are you articulating a type of pragmatism? — ucarr

I am.

If you are linking religious value with practical results, is it not necessary for you to embrace truth value propositions pertinent to achieving goals systematically by rational means? — ucarr

You'll have objectively measurable results to determine if you've met your subjective goals, which would not necessarily mean accepting truths (particularly those with weaker levels of proof) damaging to your personal well being.

For example, if evolutionary theory leaves me in a state of despair by relegating me to the level of ordinary animal and its rejection offers me greater meaning in my life, I am rational to reject it.


It would not be rational if my values require acceptance of scientific truth no matter what, but we have to accept our values are choices. If I were an evolutionary biologist, my rejection of evolution's truth becomes more complex, but if I'm satisfied maintaining dissonance, and compartmentalizing my beliefs leads to my happiness, then that is a rational decision by me.

Subordinating truth to value is a valid worldview and is no less rational than a scientific one that does the opposite.

The value of religion is not rooted in the scientifically arrived at truth values of its claims. — Hanover

You seem to be saying that the value of religion is distinct from evidence, facts, logic, experimental verification and behavioral norms.

...if evolutionary theory leaves me in a state of despair by relegating me to the level of ordinary animal and its rejection offers me greater meaning in my life, I am rational to reject it. — Hanover

Let's suppose you practice some type of faith-based science that elevates spiritual healing over vaccines. Taking vaccines in your view lowers you to an unprivileged status within the animal kingdom. Shunning vaccines protects you against catastrophic loss of self-esteem, however, rejecting the pneumococcal vaccine during an outbreak in your habitat threatens you with death. This situation is a dilemma because either choice is bad. Why do you think prioritizing belief over science in this situation is rational?

Why do you think prioritizing belief over science in this situation is rational? — ucarr

Vaccine avoidance isn't typically based upon religious objection, but upon a misunderstanding of science. That is, they think they are being scientific, but they're not.

But there are real examples of true foolishness, like those who would die instead of getting a transfusion. That is a matter of choice in the sense they're living up to their ideals, but I can't accept any moral system that allows for unnecessary death.

My view is that there are many instances where belief in God offers greater meaning than without and there will be no negative consequences as might exist at extremes.

But there is a flip side to this. Religion can be therapeutic, meaning it could save lives (particularly addicts), which would suggest truth can be an impediment to happiness.

Regarding the above, please show me where I'm mis-reading you. — ucarr

You've taken my simple point and jazzed it up and perhaps provided motivations I don't hold.

a) self-referential higher orders entertains a belief that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions; b) constraints with outcomes not strictly predictable or inevitable are to be preferred to hard determinism; c) higher orders of things should be shunned in favor of minimalism whenever logically possible; d) given an apparent lack of sufficient knowledge and expertise, overthinking should be constrained. — ucarr

I’d put it this way: I’m not concerned with discovering some final or objective truth about reality. The idea that such a truth lies hidden, waiting to be uncovered, depends on a representational view of knowledge I find unconvincing. My position isn’t based on logic or simplicity, but on the sense that our ways of thinking and speaking are practical tools for getting by, not exact reflections of the world. Speculative metaphysics adds nothing to that. I simply go on treating the world and my experiences as real, because that’s the only way any of us can make sense of it and act within it.

When I read this, I got the impression that by "Universal System" you meant the super-system and that by "the rest of the system" you meant one or more sub-systems. — ucarr

I do not understand what you mean by "sub-system" because I do not understand what you mean by "system". Please share your definition of a system, then we might have a conversation about systems and perhaps reach an agreement on what we are talking about.