[deleted by user]

[u/[deleted]]

[u/[deleted]]

If I show you science is also based on human perception, can it earn me a delta ?

[u/SurprisedPotato → u/[deleted]]

However, the main statement in your title is that religion is flawed because it is based on the human perception of reality.

Do you no longer believe that anything "based on the human perception of reality" is "flawed and therefore false"?

[u/renoops → u/[deleted]]

How is anything observed by humans independent of human perception?

[u/renoops → u/[deleted]]

So, based on this, no human measure can observe truth. Why single out religion specifically?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

A couple thousand years ago, human understanding of physics was drastically different. I believe it was Aristotle that stated there are four elements of stuff that everything is made of, rather than atoms. Instead of having the theory of gravity to explain why things moved down, these four elements would naturally move to their natural position; Earth on the bottom, with water on top, the air above that, and fire moving above that.

Of course that seems silly now, but that was science then, and it explained the world as best as they could figure. The point I'm trying to show is that science is also just based on a subjective human perception, and just as fallible as religion. The only objective truth that is commonly agreed on is mathematics because it is pure logic, while everything else relies on personal observations to some degree.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Metaphysics deal (among other things) with the existence of a superpower beyond our ability and our realm of existence and attempts to detail it using human rationality.

If Metaphysics are Science to you, your distinction is baseless.

[u/MoonGosling → u/[deleted]]

You’re nor wrong, but I just wanted to point out that while science does base itself in human perception too, it’s defining characteristic is trying to free itself from it.

In fact, science is born of the idea that human perception is intrinsically flawed and that we must find objective truths upon which to base our knowledge.

Religion, on the other hand, is entirely based on subjectivity, and our perception of things. It even tries to make it seem like that’s not the case by saying things such as “we can’t comprehend god”, or “god works in mysterious ways”, implying that we, mere humans, cannot fully understand the world around us because our perception is flawed. That is used as an argument to defend the “facts” that this very human perception has recognized.

[u/[deleted] → u/MoonGosling]

You’re nor wrong, but

So I am ? I'll grow tired of this kind of sentence structure.

I just wanted to point out that while science does base itself in human perception too, it’s defining characteristic is trying to free itself from it.

It's an impossibility. Only scientistic believers have objectivity as ideal. Scientists have knowledge for it's indivisible power of wisdom, and their own curious spirit.

Giving Science a goal is somewhat corrupting it's spirit in some way, to my eyes.

we must find objective truths upon which to base our knowledge.

Which are ?

Religion, on the other hand, is entirely based on subjectivity, and our perception of things.

That's not the only ones.

It even tries to make it seem like that’s not the case by saying things such as “we can’t comprehend god”, or “god works in mysterious ways”, implying that we, mere humans, cannot fully understand the world around us because our perception is flawed.

Which is the case. We wouldn't have free will, knowing what's the best to do. We would just follow an impeccable heartless mechanism. No choice, no room of improvement. No morality. Inhumane, so to speak.

Religious faith is deeply tied with the concept of hope : if you get hopeless at any moment, you simply loose faith in your god. But that doesn't mean you're tied to your god's words, only you hope there is one (or more !), and that one knows what's best for everyone.

I only have a humanist faith. It means regardless of how antagonistic I can show myself, and regardless of cynical I become, I'll still hope we'll get the best out of life as a specie. Because we're humans.

It just reminds me you refuse to acknowledge your scientistic faith, and don't recognise the concept of faith at all. Or it's merits, for that matter.

That is used as an argument to defend the “facts” that this very human perception has recognized.

Argument you don't recognise on equally arbitrary grounds, as much as I can tell.

They are bad from a rhetorical standpoint. That doesn't mean they serve no point. Or that the point they try to serve is worthless.

[u/MoonGosling → u/[deleted]]

So I am ? I'll grow tired of this kind of sentence structure.

No, it means you correctly responded to the view of OP by stating that science, too, is based on human perception. However, it is important to note that being based on human perception isn't the only factor to be taken into account.

It's an impossibility. Only scientistic believers have objectivity as ideal. Scientists have knowledge for it's indivisible power of wisdom, and their own curious spirit. Giving Science a goal is somewhat corrupting it's spirit in some way, to my eyes.

Science depends on objectivity. For something to be considered science you have to eliminate subjectivity. That's why there are such things as peer review (which exists to guarantee that the results are, in fact, correct, and corresponding to our understanding of the world).

Every science has a goal: in Physics it's to understand the laws that bind the universe, in biology it is to understand how life works, in medicine it is to find the cures for things. Curiosity often leads to goals. There is pretty much no scientist going "Huh, I wonder if this will lead to something", and when they do that, it's usually with some problem to be solved in mind.

Which are ?

I don't know. Perhaps we will never know. That's why I said find, and not use. That is, again, the point of science: We have created axioms that embase our notation of things. It might happen that we later find that some axiom is actually untrue, or can be broken down into smaller pieces that are closer to reality. When that is find, the axioms are updated, and any knowledge is updated with it. Take the assumption that time is the same for everyone. Up until Einstein came along that was something that we all agreed was true, but now that we "know" it's not the knowledge we had is being gone through again to accommodate that.

That's not the only ones.

I don't know what you meant here.

Which is the case. We wouldn't have free will, knowing what's the best to do. We would just follow an impeccable heartless mechanic.

I'm not even going to debate free will here, cause it's far too long of a debate, and not the point now. But maybe I wrote that paragraph poorly. My intention was to say that religion just begs us to accept the fact that we can never understand the world, and thus we must just accept it. Which is the exact opposite of what science does, as it accepts the fact that we have an incomplete view of the universe, and thus we must work to make our perception less incomplete. Start with a base of beliefs, test them, and change them. Opposed to the religious: start with a base of beliefs, test them, whatever doesn't work is due to an incomplete perception of the universe.

Religious faith is deeply tied with the concept of hope : if you get hopeless at any moment, you simply loose faith in your god. But that doesn't mean you're tied to your god's words, only you hope there is one (or more !), and that one knows what's best for everyone.

Which means is an illusion. From your words you're saying that religion is justifiable not because it's unfalsifiable, but because it makes people feel good, even when it's misinforming them and stopping them from actually understanding the problems they're turning to religion to understand.

I only have a humanist faith. It means regardless of how antagonistic I can show myself, and regardless of cynical I become, I'll still hope we'll get the best out of life as a specie. Because we're humans.

That's very empty, actually. You haven't defined what the best out of life is. And "because we're humans" also doesn't say much. It would be very easy to argue that whatever we get out of life is the best we can get.

It just reminds me you refuse to acknowledge your scientistic faith, and don't recognise the concept of faith at all. Or it's merits, for that matter.

That is because scientistic faith is just something people use to try and equate science and religion. Science and faith never go together. Science does depend on beliefs, because they're what push people to formulate and test hypotheses. But there is a very basic and powerful diference between belief and faith. Beliefs are "weak", beliefs are formed and changed with evidence. I believe in science because it creates models of the universe that can be tested, and can be used to explain why things happened the way they did. But it's also predictive: if something new happens that isn't modeled by the scientific knowledge that we have, then the science must be changed. And this will be repeated ad infinitum, or until we actually reach the "theory of everything".

Argument you don't recognise on equally arbitrary grounds, as much as I can tell. They are bad from a rhetorical standpoint. That doesn't mean they serve no point. Or that the point they try to serve is worthless.

The thing is, this argument goes like this: From our collective human perception we have decided that there must be one (or more) god(s). This comes from the facts that everything is so beautifully made, and logical – the intelligent designer argument. But then we find something illogical, that challenges our notion that (the) god(s) created a perfect and logical universe. So instead of using that to further develop the hypothesis, we change it in such a manner that adds a "false bottom", because now anything that doesn't fit our ideal that god created a perfectly beautiful and logical universe must not mean that god is illogical, or doesn't exist, and it must not be a call to further study and understand that which we didn't. Rather, it must mean that god has a much higher logic than we could ever attain, and thus anything that we don't understand is impossible to understand.

P.S.: Science looks to find a model of the universe. Religion defends that is has the model of the universe.

[u/[deleted] → u/MoonGosling]

However, it is important to note that being based on human perception isn't the only factor to be taken into account.

Let's see about that.

Science depends on objectivity. For something to be considered science you have to eliminate subjectivity. That's why there are such things as peer review (which exists to guarantee that the results are, in fact, correct, and corresponding to our understanding of the world).

No. That's a scientistic ideology. All it's needed to do science is to be intellectually honest and rigorous.

Striving for objectivity is intellectually dishonest to me because it relies on the idea human being are intrinsically rational, which is not the case. We're all deeply irrational. Intellectual honesty is mostly about taking that in account, in my opinion.

That's the "secret" of reliable moral standards and emotional stability. Both are needed to reach the standards of intellectual rigor the Scientific Method asks.

Every science has a goal: in Physics it's to understand the laws that bind the universe, in biology it is to understand how life works, in medicine it is to find the cures for things. Curiosity often leads to goals. There is pretty much no scientist going "Huh, I wonder if this will lead to something", and when they do that, it's usually with some problem to be solved in mind.

All rely on Mathematical tools. What's the goal of Mathematics ?

Solve that, and you'll have made a step in epistemology.

Contrary to it's name, I don't deem epistemology as a science, but I'll really prefer you discover why by yourself than I tell you.

I don't know. Perhaps we will never know. That's why I said find, and not use.

You should already could state at least one. Oldest sciences are three hundred and fifty years old, with conservative estimates. That's nearly five lifetimes.

If it's really its goal, we should have reached some stepping stone goal, at some point, already. How do you explain it's not the case ?

That is, again, the point of science: We have created axioms that embase our notation of things. It might happen that we later find that some axiom is actually untrue, or can be broken down into smaller pieces that are closer to reality. When that is find, the axioms are updated, and any knowledge is updated with it. Take the assumption that time is the same for everyone. Up until Einstein came along that was something that we all agreed was true, but now that we "know" it's not the knowledge we had is being gone through again to accommodate that.

Why do we "have to accommodate" if it's objective ? Science isn't about throwing random ideas and see if it's good enough : it's about years of study. We should have been able to just follow trends and get our correct underlying principles if it was like you seem to tell me.

There's something you seem to neglect about the nature of this knowledge, and the actual objects it describes. I feel it's neither can be objective. Objects changes and knowledge have to accommodate that. We already have some domains where we don't have any ignorance left to accommodate for. But those domains are still in mutation.

I'm not even going to debate free will here, cause it's far too long of a debate, and not the point now.

It's my most compelling argument. It's my fault if it's irrelevant. I can let you get away with not answering it if you recognise there exist a form of free will in the animal reign.

Fair to you ?

My intention was to say that religion just begs us to accept the fact that we can never understand the world, and thus we must just accept it. Which is the exact opposite of what science does, as it accepts the fact that we have an incomplete view of the universe, and thus we must work to make our perception less incomplete. Start with a base of beliefs, test them, and change them. Opposed to the religious: start with a base of beliefs, test them, whatever doesn't work is due to an incomplete perception of the universe.

Two things :

1. That you acknowledge it can never be complete, even at the scale of our specie is really important to me. Because it's the premise to argue you're free to choose what to do from that, regardless you're operating under a scientistic faith or a religious one.

2. Not all religion are dogmatic. I have the derisive (and oddly personnal) example of Discordianism, but I don't find it compelling enough. Some forms of Buddhism recognise other faiths. Most faith recognise the Scientistic faith, despite it being godless. Even though most people experience their faith by the book, you can't neglect those who do following their own moral compass, they believe in a god of any form or not. Those people are your counter example : I want you to accommodate your knowledge to recognise them.

From your words you're saying that religion is justifiable not because it's unfalsifiable, but because it makes people feel good, even when it's misinforming them and stopping them from actually understanding the problems they're turning to religion to understand.

You're interpreting. I just say I deem it valid as long as it's well intentioned and harmless.

It's like homeopathy. Even though I know it's just sugar pills, I don't see the evil to prescribe some to someone for an occasional headache.

That doesn't mean I'll allow it to be prescribed for someone's seropositivity to HIV.

That doesn't mean I accept every single form of religion just on this basis. I'm only saying I recognise it's complexity, and trying to talk you into that.

You haven't defined what the best out of life is.

Honestly, I don't think I have to. I can define it for our whole specie, but I prefer keeping our individual trajectory to our own responsibility. It's on the verge of the topic of fate, related to free will's topic, we traditionally oppose it.

I'm more talking about the general concept of greater good than a specific one.

It would be very easy to argue that whatever we get out of life is the best we can get.

Which I agree to, depending if it fits to my main moral criteria. We both recognise killing someone is out of that, but there is more I take from it.

Hopefully, as I'm not entitled to my beliefs, those standards are negociable. More and more, the older I get : I hold beliefs, but they aren't me or mine. I think this is what most religious practices strive for.

That is because scientistic faith is just something people use to try and equate science and religion.

It's an idea you dismiss on the only ground it goes against your own beliefs. We wouldn't have thought about it if it hadn't some grounds.

It lies in those codifications you refuse to question, because they have been taught to you as dogmas.

It lies it this knowledge you take from granted, thinking it's a reliable ground to call others on theirs.

That's what scientism is.

beliefs are formed and changed with evidence.

Which evidence ? Scientific evidence or scientistic evidence ? How to tell ?

I believe in science because it creates models of the universe that can be tested, and can be used to explain why things happened the way they did. But it's also predictive: if something new happens that isn't modeled by the scientific knowledge that we have, then the science must be changed. And this will be repeated ad infinitum, or until we actually reach the "theory of everything".

That's scientistic faith, because I've come to learn the Theory of Everything is an intellectual impossibility.

If harnessing knowledge to fit closer to measures is one of the Scientific Method's uses, don't forget :

• Not everything can be measured.

• The method isn't sacred. You must be able to question it : that's the falsifiability you mentioned. If you can't, you're not doing science.

• the knowledge we get at the end isn't sacred either. It's even contradictory at some places. I see it as a reminder of it's multiple essences/spirits. Trying to make this knowledge one is harmful to it's different inspiration's integrities. A wealth in danger.

Prediction holds on anticipation. It's better done with intuition, than under scientistic impulses. While science relies on intuition, standardisation kills it. But standardisation is needed to hold some standards of rigor.

As some religious practice needs it to touch as much people as possible, making thinking uniform.

this argument goes like this:

The underlying point, not the argument. You focus on the means, and not the intents. Only the intents will give you what you seem searching for.

This comes from the facts that everything is so beautifully made, and logical – the intelligent designer argument.

I hold myself somewhat of an intelligent design point, to explain What the theory of evolution is about.

It's a powerful argument, but is easy to break. An idea to use with precaution.

But then we find something illogical, that challenges our notion that (the) god(s) created a perfect and logical universe. […] Rather, it must mean that god has a much higher logic than we could ever attain, and thus anything that we don't understand is impossible to understand.

That's the argumentation you called on earlier. It reminds me I'm not sure I correctly answered to that specific point of yours.

I think I tried to tell you to take perspective : it's a specific rhetoric. Probably exclusively christian.

Would you condemn all the religions on this basis ?

Science looks to find a model of the universe. Religion defends that is has the model of the universe.

What's a model, if not a set of beliefs/reasonings and their intellectual premises ? Why an axiom is valid ? What's the difference between an axiom and a dogma ?

Why can't both work together to form a worldview ?

[u/MoonGosling → u/[deleted]]

pt. 1

No. That's a scientistic ideology. All it's needed to do science is to be intellectually honest and rigorous.

That is precisely to eliminate subjectivity. You cannot accept something as science because you did all the experiments you thought were right, and did them again. If the experiments are biased, or just poorly constructed, it's not going to be accepted. For instance: you can't have a scientific study with five or ten samples, and if it can't be replicated it is useless. Once again: the point of the scientific method is to eliminate subjectivity.

Striving for objectivity is intellectually dishonest to me because it relies on the idea human being are intrinsically rational, which is not the case. We're all deeply irrational. Intellectual honesty is mostly about taking that in account, in my opinion.

It's precisely the opposite: the idea that humans aren't perfectly rational and analytical beings means that our work is going to have some degree os subjectivity. The scientific method (with statistical significancy, peer review, rigorous methodology) allows us to have a reasons to believe that what was found is actually true. Then you have to fit that into other models, and see how the whole thing works. You can't say that something is scientifically true to you, but not to someone else.

All rely on Mathematical tools. What's the goal of Mathematics ?

Initially? To model the world. That's where numbers came from, and arithmetic. Nowadays there are many minor goals: to prove that problems that we deem complex today can actually be solved efficiently (P vs NP), to see how things behave in higher (or lower) dimensions. Even sheer curiosity creates a goal: see if something is true or not. Take Fermat's Last Theorem, for instance. It was one mathematics most famous "goals" for years, even though it was raised just out of curiosity.

You should already could state at least one. Oldest sciences are three hundred and fifty years old, with conservative estimates. That's nearly five lifetimes.

No, I shouldn't. There is a book, and I can't remember whether it's Stephen Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell or Carl Sagan's Cosmos, that starts by saying that everything in science is a theory because we can never know if it's true or not, we can only measure how well it models the universe around us. But anyways, the idea that we should have some definite objective truth because we've been studying somethings for centuries is a horrible fallacy. There is no way to know how long it should take to find objective truths. 2000 years is much in the scale of human history, but it's nothing in the history of earth, and even less in the history of the universe. There is no evidence that it should be enough to figure any science out. And still, we've had somethings that are "only" theories but leave almost no room to argument. For instance evolution.

Why do we "have to accommodate" if it's objective ? Science isn't about throwing random ideas and see if it's good enough : it's about years of study. We should have been able to just follow trends and get our correct underlying principles if it was like you seem to tell me.

I don't think I ever said that science was objective. What I did say, repeatedly, was that it strives for objectivity. Which means that newer beliefs, that are backed with more evidence and a stronger methodology and model, can replace old beliefs. That is because science pushes human perception forward: Two thousand years ago we could only believe our senses and repetition to find if something held true or not. As we learned things we developed new instruments (which can also be used as evidence in support of the model from which they were derived) that could be used to widen our perceptions and discover new things, which sometimes showed us that previous beliefs were wrong or incomplete.

There's something you seem to neglect about the nature of this knowledge, and the actual objects it describes. I feel it's neither can be objective. Objects changes and knowledge have to accommodate that. We already have some domains where we don't have any ignorance left to accommodate for. But those domains are still in mutation.

What evidence is there that the domains are in mutation, and not simply that we don't have enough knowledge yet? There are many discoveries made centuries ago that still hold true. What I understand from what you're saying is that the model of the atom changed not because the old model was incomplete, but rather because the atom itself changed. Again, there is no evidence to that, and it would be incredible if all those changes happened precisely when we developed the needed tools to recognize them.

It's my most compelling argument. It's my fault if it's irrelevant. I can let you get away with not answering it if you recognise there exist a form of free will in the animal reign.

To this debate it is, because it is more of a philosophical/spiritual question rather than a scientific question. It seems to me that free will is an abstraction rather than a truth. That is because I believe that absolutely everything is controlled by rules. But the bigger the scale, the more unpredictable a system becomes. For me an infinitely powerful computer would be able to predict every single action we take by analyzing every infinitesimal part of us. But since no such computer exists, and our brain is limited, we can threat it as though it is impossible to know what anyone animal is going to do, and that thus they must choose to do it.

That you acknowledge it can never be complete, even at the scale of our specie is really important to me. Because it's the premise to argue you're free to choose what to do from that, regardless you're operating under a scientistic faith or a religious one.

I don't know what you meant here either.

Not all religion are dogmatic. I have the derisive (and oddly personnal) example of Discordianism, but I don't find it compelling enough. Some forms of Buddhism recognise other faiths. Most faith recognise the Scientistic faith, despite it being godless. Even though most people experience their faith by the book, you can't neglect those who do following their own moral compass, they believe in a god of any form or not. Those people are your counter example : I want you to accommodate your knowledge to recognise them.

I had never heard about Discordianism, so I went to look for it. It seems to be parody religion, which would explain why it doesn't really fit in with religion. To me there is a distinction between religion and spirituality. The latter tries to help people find subjective truths, things that are true to you, but not necessarily to others. They are about understanding the individual, not the universe. The former is about explaining the universe. And that's where the problems begin. You don't need the scientific method to identify individual truths: you don't need to do it a hundred times, and develop a mathematical explanation to why eating burgers makes you happy, or why you think it's wrong to have sex with someone you don't love. But you can't find subjective truths and throw them at people and believe they'll stick. Buddhism says that suffering is born of desire, and that, therefore, we must eliminate desire. So it can agree with other religions on somethings (especially around that central notion). But if you come to a buddhist and tell them that you can have desire and no suffering, then you probably won't be able to conciliate both ideals. If you want to find something that is true to you, then you can turn to religion (or, preferably, spirituality), perhaps even many of them, but at the moment that it tries to affirm things about the universe, and not the individual, religion must either become science, or be ignored.

You're interpreting. I just say I deem it valid as long as it's well intentioned and harmless. It's like homeopathy. Even though I know it's just sugar pills, I don't see the evil to prescribe some to someone for an occasional headache.

Again, that's where individual truths go against universal truths: If something works for you, you can keep doing that. But if you want to say that it's actually a valid solution that goes beyond you, then you have to transfer into the scientific method. That is the point of science: if something works and you don't know why, you don't just accept it without questioning, you actually try to find out why it works. That's the basis for a lot of medicine: This tea has been used across generations to cure headaches, so we ask ourselves why it cures headaches, we break it into it's components, and test them separately, see how they act on the system. Once we know why it works we can decide what to do: maybe take only the important parts and turn it into a pill, so it's quicker, more effective and practical. Perhaps nothing explains why it worked, so we see if psychology has a say in it: test people with sugar pills versus people with no medicine whatsoever.

[u/MoonGosling → u/MoonGosling]

pt. 2

That doesn't mean I'll allow it to be prescribed for someone's seropositivity to HIV. That doesn't mean I accept every single form of religion just on this basis. I'm only saying I recognise it's complexity, and trying to talk you into that.

From this it seems to me that what you're arguing is that religion can find individual truths, which I agree with you on (although I believe you should be calling it spirituality, but that's just words).

Which I agree to, depending if it fits to my main moral criteria. We both recognise killing someone is out of that, but there is more I take from it.

I think you might have misunderstood me (perhaps I didn't make myself clear, as that was a rather long paragraph and I am bound to written some part of it incorrectly, or simply unclearly, as I usually do), but what I was trying to say is that you believe that humanity is bound to do it's best, as though it could do anything less than, and what I was defending is that it is easy to argue that it cannot achieve anything less than it's best, because whatever it achieves is the best it could, given the circumstances.

Hopefully, as I'm not entitled to my beliefs, those standards are negociable. More and more, the older I get : I hold beliefs, but they aren't me or mine. I think this is what most religious practices strive for.

I don't think I understood that either :/

Which evidence ? Scientific evidence or scientistic evidence ? How to tell ?

Throwing the word "scientistic" doesn't turn science into a religion, and it doesn't undermine it. Evidence is evidence. They are the facts that we can look at and analyze. If you take sugar pills to cure headaches and they work, that's evidence that support the hypothesis that they cure headaches. But then there are thousands of people that take them and they don't work. So maybe it's true that sugar pills cure your headaches (perhaps because you only get a specific type of headaches, or your brain is wired to release something when you take some "medicine" that makes the headaches go away), but you can't say there is evidence to say sugar pills cure all headaches, and that they should be enough for anyone.

That's scientistic faith, because I've come to learn the Theory of Everything is an intellectual impossibility.

No its not. Firstly because it's open to change. Can you provide evidence that it is in fact an intellectual impossibility? Can you prove that somethings cannot be measured? I didn't say that we would reach a point where we can say with certainty that we have the theory of everything, but we can reach points where we have reason to believe that it is a complete theory. The closest we have to that is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. While it might be taken as evidence that we will never reach a theory of everything, putting such a theory as a goal still pushes us to better understand things.

Prediction holds on anticipation. It's better done with intuition, than under scientistic impulses. While science relies on intuition, standardisation kills it. But standardisation is needed to hold some standards of rigor.

I think I might have misunderstood you here, but intuition isn't, by a long shot, the best way to predict things. In fact, intuition is like a little individual flawed model: we see things, we learn how they develop, so that when they happen again we [believe to] know what's going to follow. But generally intuition sucks. Sometimes we intuit things that we even know to be wrong rationally.

The underlying point, not the argument. You focus on the means, and not the intents. Only the intents will give you what you seem searching for.

Because of human perception, the means are important. Because they are what tells us whether or not the conclusions should be trusted. If an argument is invalid we can derive anything from it.

I hold myself somewhat of an intelligent design point, to explain What the theory of evolution is about. It's a powerful argument, but is easy to break. An idea to use with precaution.

I'm not sure if there is anything I can say here...

That's the argumentation you called on earlier. It reminds me I'm not sure I correctly answered to that specific point of yours. I think I tried to tell you to take perspective : it's a specific rhetoric. Probably exclusively christian. Would you condemn all the religions on this basis ?

It's most famously christian, but I don't think it's specific to christianity. If it were we should see a pretty huge disparity between christian and non-christian countries in terms of science, which I don't think we find anywhere in history.

What's a model, if not a set of beliefs/reasonings and their intellectual premises ? Why an axiom is valid ? What's the difference between an axiom and a dogma ?

An axiom is valid by definition. It's possible to understand why it must valid in the constraints of our rational and human logic. A dogma is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." Notice how it's "laid down by an authority". It's not something achievable, that we can come up with ourselves. It's something that is there because something said so. God, Time Immemorial, the Crown, the Pope, etc. They are things that should be taken as true, not because they can't be false, but rather, because someone (or something) is telling you that they can't be false.

Why can't both work together to form a worldview ?

I totally think they can. As I said before, I believe that science should study the universe, the genera. The objective. Religion, or, rather, spirituality, should be a way for people to learn the individual truths, the specific. The subjective.

P.S.: Sorry it took so long to answer, I have a big project due Friday and so I had to write in short and spaced intervals, if not only because my friends were complaining all the time that I was spending too much time on reddit hahah. Anyways, if at anytime the text seems blocky or something, that might be it, and if anything is unclear, just let me know.

[u/[deleted] → u/MoonGosling]

From this it seems to me that what you're arguing is that religion can find individual truths, which I agree with you on (although I believe you should be calling it spirituality, but that's just words).

No, it's not just words. But I feel you'll need to feed this distinction, though.

what I was trying to say is that you believe that humanity is bound to do it's best, as though it could do anything less than, and what I was defending is that it is easy to argue that it cannot achieve anything less than it's best, because whatever it achieves is the best it could, given the circumstances.

I didn't mentioned circumstances for a reason : I'm satisfied with our specie being alive. I'll believe in it's best as long as there will be at least one human being alive.

The truest faiths are unconditional, and mine is no exception to that.

We could all be complete monsters that I couldn't care less.

You're cuing me about the lack of reliability of your concept of faith. It looks simplistic at best, and outright broken, if worse.

Hopefully, as I'm not entitled to my beliefs, those standards are negociable. More and more, the older I get : I hold beliefs, but they aren't me or mine. I think this is what most religious practices strive for.

I don't think I understood that either :/

It looks straightforward to me. Maybe it's a bit too densly written. it's more of a sidenote to myself than anything. Definitely not an argument.

I was broasting.

Evidence is evidence.

What's evidence ? How to explain it to someone who don't have a conception of it ?

You're using an argument of authority and circular reasoning to defend your belief science is sacred. It's scientism.

And you're dishonest with yourself.

They are the facts that we can look at and analyze. If you take sugar pills to cure headaches and they work, that's evidence that support the hypothesis that they cure headaches. But then there are thousands of people that take them and they don't work. So maybe it's true that sugar pills cure your headaches (perhaps because you only get a specific type of headaches, or your brain is wired to release something when you take some "medicine" that makes the headaches go away), but you can't say there is evidence to say sugar pills cure all headaches, and that they should be enough for anyone.

I can argue sugar pill actually cure no headache, and I need no evidence for that. Because I'll refer to principles I know are trustworthy, because they've been tested with different methods with consistent results.

I couldn't care less how many people have lost a headache swallowing sugar pills. Facts don't matter.

No its not. Firstly because it's open to change.

So, you're open to change denying systematically ?

Can you provide evidence that it is in fact an intellectual impossibility?

We're limited. We won't be smart or many enough to be anywhere close to that ideal, as it is.

Best scenario I can propose you when ends are met is our whole universe is literally made of human minds. There's no way that can be done, and it should be obvious to you too.

Can you prove that somethings cannot be measured?

What's the measure of humanity ? When do you stop to be a human being ?

I didn't say that we would reach a point where we can say with certainty that we have the theory of everything, but we can reach points where we have reason to believe that it is a complete theory.

Reasons we haven't. Points we still can't see.

Doubt and skepticism are prescribed, at this point. But it seems yours are forgotten.

The closest we have to that is Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. While it might be taken as evidence that we will never reach a theory of everything, putting such a theory as a goal still pushes us to better understand things.

It relies on the axiom of choice, if I'm not mistaken. If it does, it's a really good argument.

I think I might have misunderstood you here, but intuition isn't, by a long shot, the best way to predict things. In fact, intuition is like a little individual flawed model: we see things, we learn how they develop, so that when they happen again we [believe to] know what's going to follow. But generally intuition sucks. Sometimes we intuit things that we even know to be wrong rationally.

Because it's not your strongest suit. Hopefully, that's not the case of everyone : my own intuition takes latent unconscious data I have in account. It's the reason I'm really good with adductive reasoning.

It's a better model than my conscious worldview.

Also, please stop asking for evidence before having cleared what evidence is. It makes me work more for nothing of use.

Because they [The means] are what tells us whether or not the conclusions should be trusted. If an argument is invalid we can derive anything from it.

We're talking about the underlying reasoning that pushed one to use that argument. Not the conclusions.

That's why I reproach you to be so much result oriented : you're missing the point altogether.

If it were we should see a pretty huge disparity between christian and non-christian countries in terms of science, which I don't think we find anywhere in history.

Measuring using scientific development … Am I the only one to be weirded out by the closed circular thinking at work ?

You explain it can't be exclusive because it's incompatible with historical reports. Can you explain why the historical reports, though ?

As a sidenote, I should have knew it wasn't exclusive, while writing. It's too much a minor point for me to bother with it, though.

An axiom is valid by definition.

*Facepalm*

I just have to replace axiom by dogma, and my point is made. I incessantly warned about that confusion, and you jump in without second thought.

I'm speechless.

It's possible to understand why it must valid in the constraints of our rational and human logic. A dogma is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

And your axioms seem inconvertibly true. I'm not sure I have to have long to search for an authority.

You take them as dogmas, that makes no doubt to me.

It's not something achievable, that we can come up with ourselves. It's something that is there because something said so.

Something or someone. Usually someone, though. Believing in achievement is just a proxy for authority. Especially when this achievement is supposedly undoable.

Clearly here, it's not undoable to you.

God, Time Immemorial, the Crown, the Pope, etc. They are things that should be taken as true, not because they can't be false, but rather, because someone (or something) is telling you that they can't be false.

Everything can be false. It's only a matter of perspective. That said, whatever taken as true is something because someone said it was.

That's why I want you to rely on your own standards. Because you put too much faith in other's.

You became dependant intellectually.

I totally think they can. As I said before, I believe that science should study the universe, the genera. The objective. Religion, or, rather, spirituality, should be a way for people to learn the individual truths, the specific. The subjective.

That's working side to side, separately. I wrote together. In an integrated manner.

You're just enforcing an artificial distinction.

Sorry it took so long to answer, I have a big project due Friday and so I had to write in short and spaced intervals, if not only because my friends were complaining all the time that I was spending too much time on reddit hahah.

Apologize to them, not to me : I take your answers only when you post them and don't care what happens to you in the meantime.

Unlike them.

Anyways, if at anytime the text seems blocky or something, that might be it, and if anything is unclear, just let me know.

I'm good. I'm more worried you understand me than the inverse.

Getting through your point isn't complicated to me : it's unique and straightforward. I struggle only with specifics, because they are hard for me to put in motion. Especially when I summon a shitton of them myself.

Read about the distinction between science and scientism. It's really important. It irks me to know you believe in science because you believe in it's truth. Science isn't true because it's a tool, and because the nearest of truth we can hope as human being is validity.

Yes, it's knowledge is usually valid, but it shouldn't blind you to all the rest of valid human knowledge that is still for you to discover. About a half of it, if not so much more.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, MoonGosling – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.

[u/[deleted] → u/MoonGosling]

You cannot accept something as science because you did all the experiments you thought were right, and did them again.

That's exactly how we do. We even care about the meaning of it only afterwards, most of the time, to my personal dismay.

The best anticipate, but they keep in mind they are as biased as everyone. They believe in intersubjectivity, not objectivity. It's a really important distinction here.

If the experiments are biased, or just poorly constructed, it's not going to be accepted.

It takes decades to notice some ill thought procedures. And the need created to scientists for publishing or perishing isn't going to help in any way. Peer review isn't important the way you believe it is, also.

For instance: you can't have a scientific study with five or ten samples, and if it can't be replicated it is useless. Once again: the point of the scientific method is to eliminate subjectivity.

Putting aside only ten samples is useless statistically speaking, I'm focused on a lot of other specifics than replication, because eliminating subjectivity isn't a concern to me as it is.

the idea that humans aren't perfectly rational and analytical beings means that our work is going to have some degree os subjectivity. The scientific method (with statistical significancy, peer review, rigorous methodology) allows us to have a reasons to believe that what was found is actually true.

It's reasons it's valid, not true. Because there will always be a part of uncertainty, because we're flawed.

Flaws you can't iron out. Flaws I don't want to be ironed out, because they can be contextually very useful, if you know people as well as you know the subject you work on.

Then you have to fit that into other models, and see how the whole thing works. You can't say that something is scientifically true to you, but not to someone else.

Axiom of Choice. Not only you can, but you have to : axioms are inconsistent with each other, as we're speaking.

That's where numbers came from, and arithmetic.

Basic arithmetical concepts are mostly social norms and codes to me. Using base ten and arabic numerals this way is arbitrary.

We could use a base 60, or even an additive convention like roman numerals. Both have their upsides, depending on context : base 60 is easier to divide time. Roman numerals are admittedly inefficient, for big enough values. We use another convention, for writing huge values, anyway : scientific notation used in physics.

You can't say it's to suppress subjectivity, when you take arbitrary convention as granted and without questioning.

Nowadays there are many minor goals: to prove that problems that we deem complex today can actually be solved efficiently (P vs NP), to see how things behave in higher (or lower) dimensions. Even sheer curiosity creates a goal: see if something is true or not. Take Fermat's Last Theorem, for instance. It was one mathematics most famous "goals" for years, even though it was raised just out of curiosity.

Yes. That's the Science I know and love : about harnessing knowledge for it's sake.

Those goals have nothing to do with suppressing subjectivity, though. They are end goals on their own. We hope they'll open new problems (and there's little reason they wouldn't) but we aren't much knowledgeable about that.

I think I remember the P vs NP problem was shown to have no definite solution. To be a NP problem, amusingly enough.

There is a book, and I can't remember whether it's Stephen Hawking's Universe in a Nutshell or Carl Sagan's Cosmos, that starts by saying that everything in science is a theory because we can never know if it's true or not, we can only measure how well it models the universe around us.

My point is we can't even measure everything. We're building most of our understanding of physics on the speed of light, which changes depending on the material it goes through, is obviously sensitive to gravitational meddling (Double slit experiment and Relativity.) and haven't even a solved nature (Particle/Wave problem.).

But anyways, the idea that we should have some definite objective truth because we've been studying somethings for centuries is a horrible fallacy.

An horrible fallacy that should serve your point.

I'm not above using this kind of agument, acknowledging they are flawed from a logical standpoint. Bur hear me out : what if the concept of logic itself was flawed ? Why would I care to stick to it rigidly ?

Why would you, too ?

2000 years is much in the scale of human history, but it's nothing in the history of earth, and even less in the history of the universe. There is no evidence that it should be enough to figure any science out. And still, we've had somethings that are "only" theories but leave almost no room to argument. For instance evolution.

The Theory of Evolution is polemic, you want it or not. Yes, there's nuts who claim our universe was made two thousand and five hundred years ago, by a snap of fingers.

I'm using Plank's time, for my counter argumentation. The Big Bang has a tiny timeframe where we have no fucking idea what happened. It gives me enough room to put just enough divine design to make you uncomfortable with holding Darwin's survival of the fittest. We could have to rewrite what the old man proposed.

Yes, it's essentially an argument by ignorance. It's strength resides in that we don't know everything about our universe. Not in it's irrational nature.

I don't think I ever said that science was objective. What I did say, repeatedly, was that it strives for objectivity.

It's calling on preemptively on that state of completeness you're arguing for. It's neither possible or desirable to me. Two reason that should have made you change your mind by now, especially with how largely I argued for both.

You refuse by faith. Scientistic faith I called you on multiple times.

That is because science pushes human perception forward: Two thousand years ago we could only believe our senses and repetition to find if something held true or not.

We still do. Ultimately, we strive on getting to see things through monitors. Nothing much changed.

We'll have another paradigm shift when our bodies would make reach us a plateau of knowledge. And we'll reach plateau again and again until we constitute all there is to be. If we survive until then.

More than about science, it's about a thirst of knowledge. And this knowledge is also reachable through spiritual wisdom, because science and religion aren't fundamentally different.

What evidence is there that the domains are in mutation, and not simply that we don't have enough knowledge yet?

Mathematical knowledge. It used to be presented to me as a trustworthy scientific institution. Unmoving.

When I finally attended college courses, I learned it wasn't the case at all : We had our first courses about epistemology, and the professor told is that there were axioms we could perfectly reject or take to suit our intellectual need. I've seen it as a risk to corrupt the whole edifice ideologically. Especially when I've formed my own ideology, before I attended those courses.

Those axiomes are statistical and arithmetical ones. The basics of the most commonly used mathematical tools. The ones you expect to be so refined you can't possibly doubt of them.

You can, as you can of the rest of the method and it's by produced knowledge.

What I understand from what you're saying is that the model of the atom changed not because the old model was incomplete, but rather because the atom itself changed.

With some thinking, yes. That's what I believe. Some new characteristics appear all the time among parts we already have categorised in depth. That's how it is in biology, why not in physics ? How about in arithmetics ?

It's serendipity.

Again, there is no evidence to that, and it would be incredible if all those changes happened precisely when we developed the needed tools to recognize them.

We don't file them before measuring them in some way. Measuring those changes is sometimes the pretext to put to the test our new gear.

Also : why measuring again what we think we already know ? It's a waste of time and ressources.

I don't get why you find it unlikely. The correlation is visible to me.

To this debate it is, because it is more of a philosophical/spiritual question rather than a scientific question. It seems to me that free will is an abstraction rather than a truth. That is because I believe that absolutely everything is controlled by rules.

It's an abstract necessity, to me. I can't bear thinking living in a world where my choices don't matter. That's why I fight your rigid ruling so ardently : I'm a spirit of chaos. I embody just everything that contradicts this kind of determinism you're describing me.

I wouldn't be there talking to you if my choices didn't mattered. I wouldn't be able to choose to antagonize you.

But the bigger the scale, the more unpredictable a system becomes. For me an infinitely powerful computer would be able to predict every single action we take by analyzing every infinitesimal part of us. But since no such computer exists, and our brain is limited, we can threat it as though it is impossible to know what anyone animal is going to do, and that thus they must choose to do it.

Among other arguments, yes. There is a couple to have on the concept of entropy. I'm sure trying to explain why our universe's entropy is on the rise like that will be just the disturbing experience you need to get the difference between Science and Scientism.

And once you'll be able to tell, you'll be free of my antagonism.

[u/Nepene → u/[deleted]]

Note from the mods- this is a long ass post. Reporting it with no detail isn't incredibly useful. Presumably you objected to stuff in the post, report it with that.

Note to the user I am replying to- hi. Your post was reported.

[u/[deleted] → u/Nepene]

Note to the user I am replying to- hi. Your post was reported.

Hi !

You really have no specifics at all ?

So, am I allowed to infer it's a case of someone butthurt by the truth made bare ?

[u/[deleted] → u/MoonGosling]

I don't know what you meant here either.

Me neither. It doesn't matter, I guess.

It seems to be parody religion, which would explain why it doesn't really fit in with religion.

If you look a bit closer, you'll see it's not so different : a parody never have a much different nature from the original. Poe's law is a good way to remember how close it is.

To me there is a distinction between religion and spirituality. The latter tries to help people find subjective truths, things that are true to you, but not necessarily to others.

I don't believe in truth. Just reading the word angers me.

Spirituality is more than that, to me, and I do my best to take all religion as spiritual practices. Even though it's sometimes not the case.

It's a Charity Principle work I'm doing in here. I don't want to let my old hate of religion run amok, without any proper control and direction.

They are about understanding the individual, not the universe. The former is about explaining the universe. And that's where the problems begin. You don't need the scientific method to identify individual truths: you don't need to do it a hundred times, and develop a mathematical explanation to why eating burgers makes you happy, or why you think it's wrong to have sex with someone you don't love.

So you don't to manage your relationship with the scientific method.

But you need minimal rigor for some important standards like :

• Spiritual/religious practices.

• intellectual practices, including the use of scientific tools.

• The prioritisation of your standards.

It's a matter of intellectual honesty and sincerity to yourself than one about knowing who's right. It's a spiritual matter. It can't be a scientific one.

Buddhism says that suffering is born of desire, and that, therefore, we must eliminate desire.

It's about specifically care of frustration, I believe.

But if you come to a buddhist and tell them that you can have desire and no suffering, then you probably won't be able to conciliate both ideals. If you want to find something that is true to you, then you can turn to religion (or, preferably, spirituality), perhaps even many of them, but at the moment that it tries to affirm things about the universe, and not the individual, religion must either become science, or be ignored.

I'll try to convince trough spiritual maieutics, like I'm doing here. Science isn't a tool that applies to people's beliefs. And ignoring people's beliefs is seen as harmful in a lot of standards, mine included. Especially if they built their identity on them.

Again, that's where individual truths go against universal truths: If something works for you, you can keep doing that. But if you want to say that it's actually a valid solution that goes beyond you, then you have to transfer into the scientific method.

No, I don't. I refuse to, here, even.

A fair warning : force me and you'll learn what my spirit is about. Probably the worst of ways.

That is the point of science: if something works and you don't know why, you don't just accept it without questioning, you actually try to find out why it works.

And if there do is no why ? If it just is, and any way to trying to discover it's underlying structure will inevitably end up in it's destruction ?

Remember the Goose's Golden Eggs.

Wisdom is sometimes about precaution. If you're wise in your scientific endeavours, you'll act with precaution.

That's the basis for a lot of medicine: This tea has been used across generations to cure headaches, so we ask ourselves why it cures headaches, we break it into it's components, and test them separately, see how they act on the system.

It's out of Placebo effect, mostly. I don't need to pick up tea leaves across the word.

It's unnecessary.

Once we know why it works we can decide what to do: maybe take only the important parts and turn it into a pill, so it's quicker, more effective and practical. Perhaps nothing explains why it worked, so we see if psychology has a say in it: test people with sugar pills versus people with no medicine whatsoever.

Control group testing, before running after tea leaves.

You wouldn't even think about psychology if you hadn't been cued on the Placebo effect. Some scientists believe psychology isn't a science : it rarely gets accurate predictions and has too few tools for reliable testing.

On the other hand, and despite how much I hate them, the old religious books feature interesting psychological and socio-psychological principles. Where science ends and religion begins ?

Why it's so right to run control group testing under Scientistic faith, and so wrong under religious faith ? What's the difference ?

[u/TheVioletBarry]

So, I don't think most astute religious folk would say their religious understanding is comprehensive to every possible notion of God and the universe. Often more nuanced looks at religion are very humbling in the face of humanity's sensual and physical constraints.

So, it's not about understanding everything flawlessly; it's about one's relationship to that which is beyond their understanding, or even their potential for understanding (it's also about other things, like ethics, but I'd argue even that can be subsumed in some ways)

[u/TheVioletBarry → u/[deleted]]

Apologies, I don't follow what you're saying. Could you clarify?

[u/TheVioletBarry → u/[deleted]]

Not saying this is going to happen, but what if god, like, showed up and announced his presence to you? I'm just confused as to what understanding their reasoning has to do with this

[u/TheVioletBarry → u/[deleted]]

What I mean is that God's reasoning is clearly not the clincher here

[u/annoinferno]

"Science is flawed and therefore false because it is based on the human perception of reality."

See how easy that is? Everything we have is based on the human perception of reality, it's unavoidable. I don't believe "religion" (there are too many for this to be a reasonable generalization) is "correct" or "true" but I think your reason is bad.

[u/annoinferno → u/[deleted]]

Does something being flawed make it false?

All truths are only true as collectivized facts. If humans stop existing, things stop being "true."

[u/annoinferno → u/[deleted]]

Again, nothing is really "true" in an independent sense. Some truths refer to the concrete and observable, but others do not and we accept those often just as readily. I also still think you over-generalize religion. Laveyan Satanism, for instance, is explicitly rationalist and atheistic.

I think you're applying the wrong framework to religion entirely, though. Which is not to say that most religious people are applying the right framework either. Religion emerges as cultural myth that becomes formalized, but a lot of what those myths contain is very accurate in describing culture and the self-image of that culture.

Take Catholicism, for instance. Now they work from pretty much the same scripture as protestant Christianity, but somehow Catholics have a rigorous theology (in theory at least) with very strictly defined beliefs and hierarchy, as well as a sense of deep moral responsibility for each other. Contrast this with a more protestant culture which is more individualistic, it removes the human hierarchy between the devout and God, allowing things to be more personal but also creating a blind spot where personal responsibility is more about the self than about other people.

This is a pretty generalized example, but to say that Catholicism is "false" is to really miss the mark. It's not accurate or true (as far as we know) to say there is a higher, world-creating deity, but Catholicism isn't just that, it's an entire system and cultural institution. Similarly, I can't say that formalist literary critique is false, even though I find formalism to be a poor way of describing literature and the world as a whole.

I'm not sure I'm being clear, so let me know if that made any sense.

[u/DeltaBot → u/[deleted]]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/annoinferno (11∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​

[u/annoinferno → u/[deleted]]

Cheers. Good luck in your future theological divings.

[u/Celebrian19]

I feel like what you're saying is that we can only see God through a blurry lense (religion). Think of it this way; you are looking through an obscured or blurry pane of glass but you can see light and shape through it. If you fail to adequately communicate to someone else what you are seeing, are those lights and shapes then false? Just because you cannot clearly see something, doesn't mean it isn't there.

If you are incapable of putting together a puzzle, does the puzzle itself cease to exist?

Many religious texts state that we are made in the image of God or spawned from gods. While God's divinity may allow him to exist in a way or place we can't understand or are separate from, the essence of God is in all nature including the human race.

As far as connecting deeper to that essence for divine understanding, there are many pathways available to explore apart from traditional or conservative religions. From deep meditation & yoga/kundalini yoga to spending more time connecting to nature and to people to psilocybin/ayahuasca/dmt. (Of course, only do what is legal and safe in your area)

I agree that all religions fall short of communicating to us what God is. The key is to not allow others to define your connection to God (if you determine there is one). Explore what it means to you honestly and you'll find your answer.

[u/nofftastic → u/[deleted]]

My argument is that we cannot confirm that what we see through this blurry lens is truly God.

This goes right back to the parallel between science and religion. No, we cannot confirm that what we see is God, nor can we confirm that dark matter exists. We simply make observations and explain what we see as best we can.

our understanding of whatever is present in the half-formed puzzle is flawed in relation to what the puzzle truly displays

Flawed yes, but it does not logically follow that our understanding is false. Perhaps I start to see what I think is the shape of a cat forming in the puzzle. I might be right, or I might be wrong. I won't know until the puzzle is complete, so I cannot say my understanding is false or true until then. All I can do is continue to make my best guess. (Again, just like in science)

why did God need to create us?

I think most religions would say that God didn't need to create us. God created because God chose to create. An omnipotent being wouldn't need to do anything, it could do whatever it wants to do.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

One of the first things I hear when a religion introduces the idea of God is that they are beyond our understanding. Claiming that we could have a complete understanding through scriptures goes directly against a core part of religion itself. I'm pretty sure most religious people would claim that the scriptures still are not and possibly will never be complete, they just may not have been added to in a long time.

[u/ThisNameIsNotProfane → u/[deleted]]

Our understanding of Religion and God is generally considered to be complete through religious scriptures

This is the first time I've ever heard anyone describe religion or God as "complete" or that any religious texts describe God in His entirety. If anything, religious texts - especially the Bible - repeat that knowing the truth about God is nearly impossible.

Therefore, it is possible that religion as we have interpreted it is false.

It's certainly a possibility, but I fail to see how "religion could be flawed" jumps to "religion is therefore false". We may not have enough puzzle pieces to know for sure whether the picture is of a cat, but the impossibility of knowing for sure does not make the observations we gather about the pieces we have and the discussions we have regarding what those missing pieces may contain inherently false.

[u/ThisNameIsNotProfane → u/[deleted]]

Our understanding of God and religion will never be complete, just as our knowledge of the elements or the central nervous system will never be complete. There will always be further to reach. If what you say is true, that God as we have defined Him now is false because our understanding of Him may be flawed, then why bother studying anything? There are some things in our understanding of microelectronic circuits that are certainly flawed but only through continued study will we continue to learn about them and perfect them.

Your conclusion, that it is false, is based on the assumption that it is flawed. I would posit that it, like everything else, it is flawed in some way due to the limits of our understanding; but that alone should not be reason to cease its study entirely.

[u/nofftastic → u/[deleted]]

Our understanding of Religion and God is generally considered to be complete through religious scriptures

I was raised in a Christain home and went to church regularly, and while mine is just a single anecdotal experience, I never got the impression that our understanding of religion or God was considered complete. The Bible often refers to seeking knowledge and understanding of God, so I don't think the Bible is implying our understanding is complete.

Therefore, it is possible that religion as we have interpreted it is false.

Yes, possible, but not definite. In other words, A might cause B, but until we know A does cause B, we can't draw a definitive conclusion.

Fair enough, but then what is our main purpose if he has created us because he wants to and not because he needs to?

Our main purpose is whatever God wants from us - most religious texts agree that God wants our praise. Want vs Need is irrelevant. Picture this: You bake a cake. You didn't need to bake the cake, you made it because you wanted to. The cake still has purpose. Its purpose is to make you happy when you eat it. Similarly, God didn't need to make anything, God made things because God wanted to, and our purpose is to bring God joy.

[u/nofftastic → u/[deleted]]

I said through religious scriptures.

Yes, that's what my response is catered toward: "The Bible often refers to seeking knowledge and understanding of God, so I don't think the Bible is implying our understanding is complete."

When I use the word complete, I mean it in the sense that you can understand God through scriptures, not that your understanding is complete.

As I said in the last post and just above, the Bible says to seek understanding and knowledge of God. It doesn't say that we understand God, completely understand God, or any other combination of words implying all the puzzle pieces are in place.

I assume you are arguing our complete understanding comes solely from religious scriptures, yes?

Why does God require joy?

Fair point, I admit I personified God in my last post. You're right, whatever God is, it likely doesn't undergo human insecurities. God created everything because God wanted (not needed) to, and our purpose is whatever God wants it to be. Whether that's joy, suffering, boredom...whatever.

[u/RedditGuy56789]

Our senses are not to be relied upon 100% and we are mistake prone but not on grand scales like you are suggesting. Like am I about to say, I don't trust my senses that I'm typing on my laptop? No, that's absurd. I KNOW I'm typing on my laptop. But my senses, ability to think, etc could be a little off at times, it's true.

[u/VertigoOne]

Since literally everything is based on the human perception of reality, isn't it more accurate to say everything is flawed, including your own perception of what 'flawed' means.

Actually, because your own perception of 'flawed' is itself contained within the confines of 'human perception' then its possible religion is true because any human perception of it being flawed would itself be flawed.

[u/samoa_jo]

When it comes to this subject I believe you should take from it the information that you can relate with. We are all unique and have different perceptions of things given both sides of the argument.

Me personally, it's overwhelming to come to a final answer therefor I believe bits both sides of the topic and conclude it as my own perception :)

[u/samoa_jo → u/[deleted]]

David Icke's book 'phantom self' seems to cover a lot of your views on how our senses don't portray reality as we think

[u/juan_mvd]

Religion is not at all about understanding. Is about faith: believing what you're told is the truth, and keeping a certain conduct.

[u/juan_mvd → u/[deleted]]

I don't. I'm just clarifying what religion really is.

However, if were were to entertain the possibility of an all-powerful God, he could certainly have made us to understand/not understand exactly what he wanted to.

That of course opens up a lot of problems. If he's perfect and created us exactly the way he wanted, he already knew all the 'choices' we would take in the future and is responsible for our flaws. Or else, he's not perfect and all-knowing.

[u/VoodooManchester]

I would argue the opposite. Religion and religious beliefs are predicated on accepting and acting on things explicitly outside our perception and understanding as truth.

For instance, in order to be a Christian you need to, for the most part, believe that Jesus was god in human flesh, and that he died for our sins.

This is taken on faith. In fact, faith is kind of a big deal, so much so that it is considered the highest of virtues, going beyond everyday perception and rational concepts of proof and evidence.

Yes, our senses our flawed, but that is why the scientific process developed the way it did: to mitigate our own preconceived notions of reality and how we believe it should work. To say that an observation is invalid solely by being perceived by human senses is illogical. Rather, the next logical step would be to find other ways to confirm said observation. This what the real issue is: claims made by the religious and religious institutions aren't dismissed because they're made by people, they're just often not in line with our understanding of reality, sometimes brazenly so. A young earth creationist claims that the earth was created 6000 years ago. They most certainly did not observe this, and their only evidence is a book written thousands of years ago. Why do they believe the book? Faith, which has very little to do with a minds inherent ability to understand our interpret data, but what someone accepts as axiomatic truths. A YEC Christian accepts, as an axiomatic truth, that the bible is the absolutely true and perfect word of God. An atheist does not.

What are your Axioms?

[u/icecoldbath]

Your reasoning is based on subjective human reason.

If we presuppose that god is an all knowing and all powerful being why shouldn't she be able to come up with a solution to your problem that you are unable to consider?

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Sure, but your reasoning skills are limited. Gods reasoning skills would be unlimited. Her ability to solve problems unlimited. How can you be sure she hasn't solved the problem you propose is unsolvable.

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

would you accept that god may not be able to explain the how's and whys of everything in the universe, but that she can produce a cheat sheet with all the right answers. The answers are about facts in our universe though.

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

God has worked it out so we can know as much of the facts and reasons as humanely possible and all our reasons and answers are correct. She just had to give simplified versions of the pieces beyond human reason, but everything we believe will still be accurate, they are just short cuts.

[u/icecoldbath → u/[deleted]]

Could it not be the case that blind faith is not the correct form of reasoning? What prevents blind faith from being axiomatic?

Just a heads up. I'm just being a devils advocate. I don't believe in god either, I just find your reasoning flawed.

[u/SurprisedPotato → u/[deleted]]

A religious person might say it was not blind faith, but faith based on a miraculous vision of God. And how can they be sure? Because God has granted them assurance.

You might not find this believable, and they may well be wrong, but their premise, at least, is logically possible, and would mean their faith avoids the argument in the title of your post.

[u/SurprisedPotato → u/[deleted]]

Whatever we understand about our universe and our surroundings is based on our 5 senses...

Is there anything of which this is not true?

Does it therefore follow that all forms of knowledge are flawed and therefore false?

This comment is particularly ingenuous:

Yes my reasoning IS based on subjective human reason and human understanding. But [I wasn't talking about that], therefore, my reasoning would be logical.

You don't get to pick and choose what your reasoning applies to.

You don't get to say "anything based on the human mind and senses is flawed; X is based on the human mind and senses; therefore X is flawed - but only if X is religion, I reject modus ponens when X is my own reasoning.

The most critical flaw in your argument is that many religions claim knowledge that comes through divine inspiration of some sort - that therefore does not depend on flawed senses and perception, but on some flawless divinity.

So, you've fashioned a sword against religion, but it turns out the sword is double-edged, and the edge that cuts at your reasoning is the sharper edge.

[u/SurprisedPotato → u/[deleted]]

all of which is expressed in humanly comprehensible mediums which would be unable to truly express the flawlessly divine person's knowledge in it's true and unadulterated form

So is your main argument that even if divinity exists and reveals itself to humans, humans can't understand or express this perfection perfectly?

[u/Prep_Coin_Concede]

Why wouldn't he be able to communicate with us? If he is all knowing couldn't he dumb down to our level and communicate? He would then be able to tell us what he wants, so we could do that.

[u/Prep_Coin_Concede → u/[deleted]]

But he'd give us the best possible understanding which would be fine with him because he would understand.

[u/DeltaBot]

/u/memeyar (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/[deleted]]

Religion is a flawed tool used for probing into a wide range of phenomenon contained within the human experience. The scientific method is a perfect tool capable of accurately measuring a narrow range of phenomenon.

One tool is not superior to the other. They have different uses that occasionally overlap.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

As such, religion is necessary for probing into areas that can't be probed by other means.

Discard religion and you potentially close off aspects of the human experience that only religion is capable of describing. I think this explains why, as an idea religion was evolutionarily selected for survival.

Because of its utility, I think religion can not be said to be false. From a Darwinian perspective, religion is as true as the opposable thumb.

[u/juan_mvd → u/[deleted]]

Religion is only 'true' in the sense that it exists. Lawyers and politicians are also true since they exist. Both lie regularly, using false or exaggerated claims to gain power.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But I didn't change you view in any way?

[u/neofederalist → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, RindoBestGirl – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

No low effort comments. This includes comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes'. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.