A question for all religious believers -- why is your religion more true than any other?

[Left Coast]

If that's how you interpret it and feel it would work in your own life, sure. That's not how this "position" - in quotes because this your term - plays out in mine. I didn't realize we were engaged in battle with victory and defeat conditions.

But since we are, what did I loose? Ah, no need to answer. Whatever you say, yes. Also, no.

This interaction started because you challenged what I said and implied that it was somehow offensive to you. Despite the fact that I actually said it to defend religious people against the usual facile atheist "religious people don't think critically" criticisms. And you proceeded to make a point that was overtly self-contradictory.

If you want a different kind of conversation, you have the power to influence that outcome.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you know why do you believe this?

Are you really not familiar with both/and thinking? Relativism and pluralism? Anything that isn't black-and-white, this-or-that, true-or-false binary thinking?

I can see the point, and yet I cannot help feeling that if I think in "both/and" terms, then in desiring to apply my standards to someone else -- if it does not discount the other's beliefs, at least discounts the other's value in my world. If I thought Islam could be just as much "true" as Baha'ism, but insisted that Baha'is in my community be bound by Shariah, then I am discounting the worth of the Baha'is themselves.

I think part of why you are just not getting the responses you want is because a lot of us - myself included - occupy the both/and pluralism space. One can support one's own ideals without presuming that those who think differently are somehow "false" or "incorrect" or "sinners" or whatever. That religious tolerance exists at all is proof enough of such.

But do you see that, in the US for example, states are working on over 500 laws that would negatively impact LGBTQs, and that these are largely rooted in religious precepts, and that these are actual examples of religious intolerance. Or perhaps better to say, intolerance based in religion.

 

[Left Coast]

Well, the subject of the thread seems to be how one gets to the truth of things or assure themselves that the beliefs they have formed are true.

You seem to be saying that science is only *one* tool among some number of other tools that aid us in getting to the truth of things. What specifically are the other truth-finding, truth-verifying tools to which you allude? I would add that we are talking about getting to universal truths, or things that are true outside of personal subjective preference.

I suppose it would also be interesting to see exactly what you think the tool of science is for. To what do we apply this tool and how does it work?

I thought I fully acknowledged and accepted your point that *all* human beings are flawed and fallible creatures, each uniquely imperfect in their own way. The question then becomes, is there a way to mitigate "the cognitive biases that cloud our thinking and protect our paradigms of the world" that "we are all prone to."

I have suggested that it is the principles and standards of scientific inquiry that enables us to mitigate our flaws and fallibilities in this regard. You seem to feel there are other means outside of scientific inquiry to mitigate human flaws and fallibilities in determining what is true beyond subjective preference. I am anxious to learn what they might be.

Logic or reason is another tool that enables us to challenge cognitive biases and arrive at beliefs that are true. I thought I had said that a discussion of scientism would be for another thread...did you want to start a thread defending the proposition that science is the only means by which we can arrive at true conclusions? If you do, I hope you'll tackle the affirmative position. That would be fun.

 

[Quintessence]

I can see the point, and yet I cannot help feeling that if I think in "both/and" terms, then in desiring to apply my standards to someone else -- if it does not discount the other's beliefs, at least discounts the other's value in my world.

That's fair. I suppose I don't see it that way because I hold strongly to the notion that all things have intrinsic value. Comes with the territory of seeing the divine and the sacred in literally everything and deconstructing anthropocentric notions of value and worth. That I must prioritize certain things in my life over other things - limited time and attention and inevitable preferences and all - doesn't nullify intrinsic or inherent value. When value is intrinsic, it is not dependent on human judgements. It simply is.

But do you see that, in the US for example, states are working on over 500 laws that would negatively impact LGBTQs, and that these are largely rooted in religious precepts, and that these are actual examples of religious intolerance. Or perhaps better to say, intolerance based in religion.

It's based in certain specific religious traditions, yes. Name them. Why not take the time to actually name them? Even better, name the specific individual humans who are sponsoring, promoting, and voting for these things. Why we hide bigots under the vague and ill-defined smokescreen of "religion" as if that's what matters here is baffling to me sometimes. Treating religion like some sort of homogenous category and going "it's religion's fault" is at least as bigoted as the anti-LGBGQ garbage.

Name. Perpetrators. Specifically. Why don't we do that? It's weird.

 

[MikeF]

Logic or reason is another tool that enables us to challenge cognitive biases and arrive at beliefs that are true. I thought I had said that a discussion of scientism would be for another thread...did you want to start a thread defending the proposition that science is the only means by which we can arrive at true conclusions? If you do, I hope you'll tackle the affirmative position. That would be fun.

Ahh, I see .... accuse me of scientism, declare it off topic such that we can't explore whether I have actually done what you are accusing me of. Quite convenient.

I would also take issue with your holding up Logic as a tool that enables us to challenge cognitive biases. In fact, I would say that Logic is highly susceptible to cognitive bias. Logic is a tool to derive true statements from other true statements. What then are the foundational "true" premises from which we are to begin deriving other true statements? Logic is a valid tool when applied to the real world, and equally valid when applied to completely abstract systems and fictional worlds. The task then becomes how do we demarcate between what is real and what is merely abstraction. If we begin with abstract fictional premises, our logic can be perfectly sound and internally coherent, yet the conclusions will still only be abstract fictions. Logic is simply an algorithm and the computer industry adage of "garbage in equals garbage out" aptly applies to the application of Logic. Logic, like a calculator, is vulnerable to the errors of the user. Simply using the tool does not guarantee truth or accuracy.

 

[Left Coast]

Ahh, I see .... accuse me of scientism, declare it off topic such that we can't explore whether I have actually done what you are accusing me of. Quite convenient.

I didn't accuse you of scientism. I asked if you wanted to defend it. You can always say no.

I don't want to derail the current thread.

I would also take issue with your holding up Logic as a tool that enables us to challenge cognitive biases. In fact, I would say that Logic is highly susceptible to cognitive bias. Logic is a tool to derive true statements from other true statements. What then are the foundational "true" premises from which we are to begin deriving other true statements? Logic is a valid tool when applied to the real world, and equally valid when applied to completely abstract systems and fictional worlds. The task then becomes how do we demarcate between what is real and what is merely abstraction. If we begin with abstract fictional premises, our logic can be perfectly sound and internally coherent, yet the conclusions will still only be abstract fictions. Logic is simply an algorithm and the computer industry adage of "garbage in equals garbage out" aptly applies to the application of Logic. Logic, like a calculator, is vulnerable to the errors of the user. Simply using the tool does not guarantee truth or accuracy.

Science, too, is prone to human error, yet those humans errors don't stop us from recognizing its value to help us arrive at accurate views. Logic, done correctly, does the same.

 

[MikeF]

I didn't accuse you of scientism. I asked if you wanted to defend it. You can always say no.

I don't want to derail the current thread.

<chuckles> I see ..... well, if I'm not engaging in "scientism", why have you brought it up? Never mind. I don't really care at this point.

Science, too, is prone to human error, yet those humans errors don't stop us from recognizing its value to help us arrive at accurate views. Logic, done correctly, does the same.

Everything involving human beings is prone to human error, including Philosophy and Religion. What is important, then, is which institutions specifically acknowledge the inherent fallibility of human beings and takes deliberate and proactive measures to mitigate that fallibility. Hint: not Philosophy nor Religion.

Logic is not an institution of inquiry with checks and balances, it is a calculator. It is the system of checks and balances that ensures the calculator is used correctly, it is not inherent in the calculator itself.

 

[Left Coast]

<chuckles> I see ..... well, if I'm not engaging in "scientism", why have you brought it up? Never mind. I don't really care at this point.

It's not clear to me whether you're engaging in it or not. Are you?

Everything involving human beings is prone to human error, including Philosophy and Religion. What is important, then, is which institutions specifically acknowledge the inherent fallibility of human beings and takes deliberate and proactive measures to mitigate that fallibility. Hint: not Philosophy nor Religion.

...you're aware science is predicated on philosophy, yes?

Logic is not an institution of inquiry with checks and balances, it is a calculator. It is the system of checks and balances that ensures the calculator is used correctly, it is not inherent in the calculator itself.

Without logic, the "institution of inquiry" you're referencing collapses in incoherence. The one needs the other.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I thought I had said that a discussion of scientism would be for another thread...did you want to start a thread defending the proposition that science is the only means by which we can arrive at true conclusions? If you do, I hope you'll tackle the affirmative position. That would be fun.

Where is this thread?

 

[muhammad_isa]

...you're aware science is predicated on philosophy, yes?

Mmm .. I get "bogged down" with it all in Pure Maths..

 

[Left Coast]

Where is this thread?

I suspect we won't get it.

 

[MikeF]

It's not clear to me whether you're engaging in it or not. Are you?

LOL ... I thought we weren't going there.

...you're aware science is predicated on philosophy, yes?

Evolved from, yes of course. It is essentially Philosophy 2.0, that for the most part, supersedes and replaces Philosophy 1.0. Science was born out of the dawning realization that relying on logic applied to an individual philosopher's "intuition" wasn't getting us anywhere, certainly not beyond "the cognitive biases that cloud our thinking and protect our paradigms of the world", as you put it.

Without logic, the "institution of inquiry" you're referencing collapses in incoherence. The one needs the other.

<sigh>

 

[MikeF]

I suspect we won't get it.

Here are some threads in which I actively participated that were specifically related to this subject. Feel free to go through them and respond to any of my comments if you have questions or wish to discuss them.

Who here believes in "Scientism"?

What are some examples of scientism?

 

[sun rise]

"Jewish secularism, which describes Jews who do not explicitly reject the existence of God but also do not believe it is an important part of their Jewishness, has a long tradition in the United States." Jewish atheism - Wikipedia

As I noted in my post, being Jewish is an ethnic identification and a matter of matrilineal descent (someone born of a Jewish mother is Jewish). Practicing the religion of Judaism is not a necessary part of being Jewish.

 

[Left Coast]

LOL ... I thought we weren't going there.

Ah okay, I thought not.

Evolved from, yes of course. It is essentially Philosophy 2.0, that for the most part, supersedes and replaces Philosophy 1.0. Science was born out of the dawning realization that relying on logic applied to an individual philosopher's "intuition" wasn't getting us anywhere, certainly not beyond "the cognitive biases that cloud our thinking and protect our paradigms of the world", as you put it.

Firstly, where did you get the idea that all philosophy prior to, say, the 18th century was predicated on nothing but philosophers' "intuition?"

Secondly, modern science didn't just historically "evolve from" philosophy. Science itself is a brand of philosophy. It's not something separate from philosophy.

 

[MikeF]

Ah okay, I thought not.

Provided links in post #153. Happy to respond to any comments you wish to make there on my posts regarding "scientism".

Firstly, where did you get the idea that all philosophy prior to, say, the 18th century was predicated on nothing but philosophers' "intuition?"

Secondly, modern science didn't just historically "evolve from" philosophy. Science itself is a brand of philosophy. It's not something separate from philosophy.

Would the evolution of Philosophy be off topic? Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread.

 

[Left Coast]

Provided links in post #153. Happy to respond to any comments you wish to make there on my posts regarding "scientism".

Would the evolution of Philosophy be off topic? Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread.

Oh for goodness' sake.

 

[Tamino]

In seriousness, though, a radically impractical embrace of paradox is something that roots my worldview that I do not often discuss much. In the day-to-day, it is not very useful beyond promoting a sort of cultural humility and respect for the way all peoples tell their stories. Less focus on "oh ho ho, I gotta be right!" and more focus on "oh ho ho, look at this!" Go figure, as curiosity was cultivated in me from a young age far more than authoritarian obey me obey me rhetoric.

I like it.

I was still struggling with logic and propositions, when I came across the Indian tetralemma.

We tend to go, in western logic, with a very simple "either /or". Either it's true or it's false. No other possibility.
Then I hear of this other logical frame of tetralemma that proposes: there's actually four possibilities, not two:.
Either it's true
Or it's false
Or it's both true and false
Or it's neither true nor false.

It busted my brain wide open at that time. A valuable lesson to show that not just my proposition might be false... My entire way of thinking about propositions might be severely limited.

So I might be a bit more conservative and n my thinking, but in general I'm with @Quintessence here: we need to keep looking just to see what's out there. Being right or wrong is not the relevant question.

 

[MikeF]

Being right or wrong is not the relevant question.

Yet, given your description of the Indian tetralemma, right/wrong may apply. The question then becomes, how do we distinguish between those things that should be considered in a true or false framework, and those things that have no right or wrong answer but are instead dependent on personal subjective preference. Oh, I suppose I should add that sometimes things are unanswerable simply because we lack sufficient information with which to make any kind of determination, or, sometimes the question being asked does not fit or does not apply to the circumstances.

So it's not that right/wrong true/false is not relevant, it is having an appropriate mechanism to determine whether or not it is relevant in any particular case, in my view.

 

[Tamino]

The question then becomes, how do we distinguish between those things that should be considered in a true or false framework, and those things that have no right or wrong answer but are instead dependent on personal subjective preference.
(...)
So it's not that right/wrong true/false is not relevant, it is having an appropriate mechanism to determine whether or not it is relevant in any particular case, in my view.

Good point, I kind of agree... but that's actually not what I wanted to illustrate with my tetralemma example.
My point was: if you have an "appropriate mechanism" to assess any new information you learn, you might actually limit yourself and do a disservice to the things you learn. Because there's a lot of new and interesting information and concepts out there, and your current mechanism may be inappropriate to assess them at all.

Humans are very good at grabbing any vague fragment of information and making it fit into a known box... It's a survival trait: assess incoming info and make a judgement FAST because it might be a snake or a tiger...
But in the case of worldviews, cultures, scholarship, we need to try and train ourselves out of that habit. Learn first. Withhold judgement, explore - at this moment, right or wrong are not the relevant categories.

You can still make a judgement later, or change you framework for judgement, or continue to withhold judgement.