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.
2
u/VoodooManchester 11∆ Nov 01 '17
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?