Argument against "lacktheism"

[F1fan]

The thing that very few people recognize about science is that the questions asked, and the experiments derived to answer them, are all, themselves, 'subjective' in that they are based entirely on the understanding that we currently hold about the nature of existence.

It can be IF the person is not being professional and/or carfeul in how they conduct their work. The biggest problem in experiments is accounting for variables, and this is often something that isn't known about until work procedes, and failures happen. This isn't due to bias or subjectivity, but incomplete data.

And that is inevitably a subjective, limited, and flawed understanding. So although science tries to help us weed our our biases, it can only do so to a limited degree.

And bias is the assumvtions we make. In science even a creationist can come to the same conclusions as atheists IF they follow the scientific method. That is the point of the method, to remove bias that may exist in human minds. The statistics are also formulas that remove the personal bias, and leave it up to what the data says.

Science is NOT the antidote to subjective bias that so many (of you) folks these days sadly want to believe.

Like creationists. Would you consider atheists to be guilty of subjective bias because they haven't adopted some religious beliefs from society?

If not that, then what bias? Or is the bias you are referring to your own bias against science, calling it scientism?

 

[Audie]

So in your view, science can help us weed out our biases to a limited degree. Is there anything else in your estimation that weeds out or even eliminates our biases to a greater degree than science?

In my understanding anyway, math is
objective.
As for science- math, as a great man
noted, is the language with which God
wrote the universe.

If Tegman got it right, then "math / univers
may be more profound than the big E suspected.

Observations such as those that went into
say, the gas laws or principles ofvpopulation dynamics,
evolution, the moevent of planets etc etc are purely objective.
Facts cannot be otherwise, no more than two plus two
can be subject to its or opinion.

Laws of course like theories similsrly derived from
observation are of course always and invariably
provisional and cannot be stated as any sort of absolute.

This fact is no more subje time than is the data that goes into them.

Who is accepting of what theory is where subjectivity comes in. That can be a weakness in science though
ultimately it is among the greatest strengths of science.

Never being wholly satisfied that " truth" has been uncovered, never acceepting authority for its own sake
always being ready to be " wrong"...all this and more is essential to science.

Or,ftm, to intellectual integrity in general, to making
progress in underdtanding of anything.


And here I think it well to draw attention to the
enormous ous contrast between Christian thinking
the thinking of any " revealed" re.igion with its gods, prophets, books etc, and scientific thinking.

In science, objectivity is a highest value. It is essential.

Religion, other, is based on about feelings. Emotion.
On what charismatic people proclaim to be true.
On the endless interpretations of old books, often
guided by what people take to be God's help, as they each
find a differe t meaning.

Faith calls for the opposite of objectivity.
Hold fast to belief no matter what.

A highest value is in ignoring every data polint in the
the universe if need be, to hand on to one's chosen
purely subjective beliefs.

" Philosophy" is, if possible, even worse than faith
in religion, for objectivity.

 

[Audie]

It can be IF the person is not being professional and/or carfeul in how they conduct their work. The biggest problem in experiments is accounting for variables, and this is often something that isn't known about until work procedes, and failures hapven. This isn't due to bias or subjectivity, but incomplete data.

And bias is the assumvtions we make. In science even a creationist can come to the same conclusions as atheists IF they follow the scientific method. That is the point of the method, to remove bias that may exist in human minds. The statistics are also formulas that remove the personal bias, and leave it up to what the data says.

Like creationists. Would you consider atheists to be guilty of subjective bias because they haven't adopted some religious beliefs from society?

If not that, then what bias? Or is the bias you are referring to your own bias against science, calling it scientism?

" Even a creationist can, if"

Yes, and no. If the work in no way overlaps
with religious dogma / bias. Then yes,sure,
why not.

Objectivity and intellectual integrity are
pretty much the same. I've not worked out
how they may differ.

A creationist will be incapable of
arriving at an objective conclusion, if it is
contrary to faith. Intellectual honesty is out
the window.*

Objectvely accepting such data would the moment at which they cease to be a creationist.

* Dr. K. Wise, PhD. Paleontology-

"...even if all the data in the universe turns against
yec, I will still be yec, as that is what the Bible seems to indicate."


How well that applies to all religious thinking, I cannot say.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, honesty, skepticism, and logic are all very useful tools for helping us to recognize our bias, but ultimately, we WILL be biased. It's unavoidable. We only have our own subjective experience and cognitive capabilities to work with, and they are not going to be enough to avoid reaching and defending the wrong conclusions.

So, no then, there is no better alternative to mitigating human bias, human flaws and fallibilities, than through scientific inquiry. I would completely agree.

I also agree that each individual is unavoidably biased, but that is not what science relies on, is it. Intersubjective corroboration gets us out of our own head and helps us collectively build a "third party" perspective outside of any one persons subjective perspective. Although not perfect, it is enough of a foothold from which we begin to build an objective picture of the world. The track record of scientific inquiry, with both its successes and failures is adequate testament to that.

Also, it's important to recognize that science can only help us with our bias regarding the realm of physical interactions. And there is far more to our understanding existence then that.

I do not disagree that as we continue to figure out how the world works, we still have to live in it. My preference would be that decision-making on how we are to live in the world continually incorporates our ever expanding understanding, as opposed to stagnating society at the level of our distant, less informed past. I understand that others may not share my preference.

 

[PureX]

It can be IF the person is not being professional and/or carfeul in how they conduct their work. The biggest problem in experiments is accounting for variables, and this is often something that isn't known about until work procedes, and failures happen. This isn't due to bias or subjectivity, but incomplete data.

The data is always incomplete. And biased, subjective humans are always interpreting it.

And bias is the assumvtions we make. In science even a creationist can come to the same conclusions as atheists IF they follow the scientific method. That is the point of the method, to remove bias that may exist in human minds. The statistics are also formulas that remove the personal bias, and leave it up to what the data says.

You mean up to our interpretation of it. You keep ignoring this part.

Like creationists. Would you consider atheists to be guilty of subjective bias because they haven't adopted some religious beliefs from society?

Yes, because they've rejected theism based on nothing but their personal bias against it. Had they chosen to be undecided, or agnostic, I'd say no. But instead they chose to reject a legitimate possibility based on nothing but their own bias.

If not that, then what bias? Or is the bias you are referring to your own bias against science, calling it scientism?

I'm fine with science. My bias is against scientism. Which is an irrational and dishonest adoration of science.

 

[F1fan]

" Even a creationist can, if"

Yes, and no. If the work in no way overlaps
with religious dogma / bias. Then yes,sure,
why not.

Objectivity and intellectual integrity are
pretty much the same. I've not worked out
how they may differ.

A creationist will be incapable of
arriving at an objective conclusion, if it is
contrary to faith. Intellectual honesty is out
the window.*

Objectvely accepting such data would the moment at which they cease to be a creationist.

* Dr. K. Wise, PhD. Paleontology-

"...even if all the data in the universe turns against
yec, I will still be yec, as that is what the Bible seems to indicate."


How well that applies to all religious thinking, I cannot say.

There have been creationists in some of my science classes and one guy got so many Fs on tests he dropped the class. Others studied the material and answered questions correctly, but still didn’t believe the science. They wanted the grades.

A creationist CAN do the work if their life depends on it. But otherwise they will believe their anti-science nonsense.

 

[F1fan]

The data is always incomplete. And biased, subjective humans are always interpreting it.

IF there is incomplete data it isn’t known at the time of the work. The work is objective as long as all the available data is used. You have that abdolutist attitude common with creationists who assert that since science can’t make absolute conclusions that it’s unreliable and wrong. That’s just bias.

You mean up to our interpretation of it. You keep ignoring this part.

Interpretation is often made about uncertainties and future work. The point is that science proceeds objectively towards more accurate conclusions.

Yes, because they've rejected theism based on nothing but their personal bias against it. Had they chosen to be undecided, or agnostic, I'd say no. But instead they chose to reject a legitimate possibility based on nothing but their own bias.

False. Acknowledging that theism doesn’t describe facts or reality is why it’s rejected, and irrelevant to science. You fell for my trap, as I predicted you would respond with your bias intact.

I'm fine with science. My bias is against scientism. Which is an irrational and dishonest adoration of science.

Once again you reveal your bias. Notice you never articulate what you think scientism is and why it’s a problem, and who has it. You are pretty liberal in who you accuse, snd do so as an excuse and deflection.

 

[Audie]

There have been creationists in some of my science classes and one guy got so many Fs on tests he dropped the class. Others studied the material and answered questions correctly, but still didn’t believe the science. They wanted the grades.

A creationist CAN do the work if their life depends on it. But otherwise they will believe their anti-science nonsense.

It's worth noting here that in America, at least,
creationist churches draw their membership
from the lowest rungs of the socioeconomic /
education ladder.

I wonder what sort of chick tract type tales
the creationists told about being in a ( shudder)
science class.

 

[Alien826]

Creationists have two definitions of science. "Science" and "science so called". They are fine with "science". On examination, though they don't present it exactly that way, "science so called" is anything that conflicts with their interpretation of scripture.

 

[PureX]

So, no then, there is no better alternative to mitigating human bias, human flaws and fallibilities, than through scientific inquiry. I would completely agree.

Except that is not what I posted.

I also agree that each individual is unavoidably biased, but that is not what science relies on, is it. Intersubjective corroboration gets us out of our own head and helps us collectively build a "third party" perspective outside of any one persons subjective perspective.

That's true, but it would be both foolish and dishonest to presume that this consensus correlates with the truth of existence. Because we are just as prone to collective bias as we are to individual bias.

Although not perfect, it is enough of a foothold from which we begin to build an objective picture of the world.

All it really does is create the illusion in our minds that we "know existence" when we don't, simply because we can recognize something about how physicality functions and can manipulate it. But we humans will happily accept this delusion over having to face the enormity and significance of what we don't know, for the comfort it brings us.

The track record of scientific inquiry, with both its successes and failures is adequate testament to that.

And looking at it with an unbiased eye; one that considers other aspects of our existence besides physical functionality, it's not a very good track record. In fact, it's a bit if a dismal failure apart from this. Which is why the scientism crowd ignore all other aspects of existence but physicality as 'immaterial'.

I do not disagree that as we continue to figure out how the world works, we still have to live in it. My preference would be that decision-making on how we are to live in the world continually incorporates our ever expanding understanding, as opposed to stagnating society at the level of our distant, less informed past. I understand that others may not share my preference.

We don't need better medicine so rich people can live longer, or better guns and bombs and delivery platforms so we can kill each other easier. We don't need more entertainment or communication distractions feeding us ever more believable lies. And we don't need to be spending billions exploring outer space. We don't need more "objective intelligence". What we really need is more SUBJECTIVE intelligence. More WISDOM, not more knowledge. And that's not going to come from science. It comes from philosophy, and from art, and from religion. THESE are the areas we need to be focusing on right now, and in which we need to be trying to make advances. The combination of science and industrialized greed is killing us. And will kill us all if we don't find a way to stop ourselves being turned into raving self-destructive idiots by it.

 

[Audie]

Creationists have two definitions of science. "Science" and "science so called". They are fine with "science". On examination, though they don't present it exactly that way, "science so called" is anything that conflicts with their interpretation of scripture.

Aka " real science' ifn it matches the bible

 

[Alien826]

Except that is not what I posted.

That's true, but it would be both foolish and dishonest to presume that this consensus correlates with the truth of existence. Because we are just as prone to collective bias as we are to individual bias.

All it really does is create the illusion in our minds that we "know existence" when we don't, simply because we can recognize something about how physicality functions and can manipulate it. But we humans will happily accept this delusion over having to face the enormity and significance of what we don't know, for the comfort it brings us.

And looking at it with an unbiased eye; one that considers other aspects of our existence besides physical functionality, it's not a very good track record. In fact, it's a bit if a dismal failure apart from this. Which is why the scientism crowd ignore all other aspects of existence but physicality as 'immaterial'.

We don't need better medicine so rich people can live longer, or better guns and bombs and delivery platforms so we can kill each other easier. We don't need more entertainment or communication distractions feeding us ever more believable lies. And we don't need to be spending billions exploring outer space. We don't need more "objective intelligence". What we really need is more SUBJECTIVE intelligence. More WISDOM, not more knowledge. And that's not going to come from science. It comes from philosophy, and from art, and from religion. THESE are the areas we need to be focusing on right now, and in which we need to be trying to make advances. The combination of science and industrialized greed is killing us. And will kill us all if we don't find a way to stop ourselves being turned into raving self-destructive idiots by it.

First I think we have to agree (or not) that there actually is a reality "out there" that has some form that can be known. If you deny that then we might as well give up and just do random things, as anything is as likely to be correct as incorrect. Then we ask ourselves what is the best way to determine what that reality is, while admitting that we can probably only get closer and closer to matching our theories to reality and we probably won't ever "get there" totally. I submit that the scientific method has had more success in that than anything else we have come up with.

Why is that important? Even if we never get to exact correspondence between the models we create and reality, a near miss is still a lot better than random guesses. I just had a tooth extracted, with practically no discomfort, let alone pain. My father dreaded going to the dentist and avoided it most of his life. Science!

Now to subjective things, like what is the best thing to do with the knowledge that we gain through science? We use science to develop anesthetics and bombs. It's true that the choices are made subjectively, and what is "good" or "bad" is generally determined by feelings. Nevertheless, once an objective is determined, science can be very helpful in getting there, or measuring our progress. Unfortunately we haven't been very good at formulating our objectives. That really isn't the fault of science. Once we get to things that trigger our emotions we dump science and go by feelings. And I might say that focusing on "philosophy, art and religion" is exactly how we got into this mess, because all of these things lean heavily on feelings.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Pretty" useless?

It has some occasional use, eg, when
a religion's premises conflict.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is actually said is that if atheism is defined as "lacking belief in god/s" then it follows that babies are atheists.

Are you familiar with the term implicit atheism:

By this reckoning, babies can be called atheists, as can anybody who grows up never hearing of gods. The category called explicit atheism comprises all who answer "No" to the question of whether he holds a god belief, and excludes both babies, who don't answer, and people who have never heard of gods ("What's that?" would be their answer). And explicit atheism is divided above into gnostic (strong) atheists and agnostic atheists.

I highly recommend reading up on the physiology of addiction.

When I studied this subject (I was a hospice medical director who prescribed narcotics to people who sometimes lived several months taking maybe escalating does of them), we made the distinction between addiction and dependence. Only the latter is physiological. The former is psychological. Addiction, as somebody has mentioned, relates to destructive behavior, and is not limited to drugs. We have shopping addictions, sex addictions, gambling addictions, etc.. With drugs, there may also be dependence, which refers to bodily responses to withdrawal such as sweating, vomiting, and racing heart, and this can be observed even in unconscious people who have developed drug dependence and are withdrawing while unconscious. But maybe this is only technical jargon and the words are used otherwise elsewhere.

What's to defend is the very odd (and illogical) notion that your not seeing something is a reason to presume that it doesn't exist.

One of your favorite strawmen. The critical thinker doesn't presume that that for which he has no evidence doesn't exist. When considering god beliefs, you're describing the category of atheists called strong or gnostic atheists, which is a subset of explicit atheists (and the smaller piece of it), which in turn is a subset of atheists.

So why do you keep posting this after being shown your error at least a dozen times by me alone? As I see it, there are only three logical possibilities: [1] you are unable to see that there is a difference between strong atheism and other forms of atheism, [2] you don't believe that there any atheists that aren't strong atheists, or [3] you know but don't care that you're wrong. I won't bother asking which it is, because you in the past, you've NEVER answered such questions. You behave as if they weren't written. If you want to have any influence over how others decide this issue, you'll need to address that.

Originally @Twilight Hue claimed there was no objective standard. That's typical atheist ignorance of the Bible.

Spoiler: trigger warning

For dyb, if he hasn't put me on ignore as I suggested earlier: I'm intending to address your words, "Along the way, another outspoken atheist, with a pattern of preaching from a virtual pulpit, saw the word "book" in my reply and that triggered their preaching atheism AT me, even though it was completely irrelevant and off topic."

If you can't read them without going apoplectic, then you probably shouldn't open the next spoiler. Remember, you are responsible for your emotions and reactions.

Spoiler

Still reading? OK.

Last time, you worded it, "The objective standard is in the book." In response, I wrote, "Holy books are evidence of nothing except that they were written. They're not evidence of gods, nor even evidence that the writers believed what they wrote. Nothing in such a book can believed except by faith or following empirical confirmation. We know David existed and was a Hebrew king three millennia ago thanks to empirical confirmation from archeologists. But Adam, Noah, and Abraham remain only characters in stories for lack of empirical confirmation."

That comment seems correct to me. It's also what you called preaching, and what triggered you to report those words after issuing an angry reply rather than address them, and what you also called a triggered response from me just now. I still don't know what you found objectionable about that or why you reacted like you did.

it takes absolutely zero brain power to be atheist.

Correct. One can believe that no gods exist by faith the same way that theists believe that there are, which I hope you will admit takes no more intelligence than to be able to speak and understand one language enough to understand simple concepts like a powerful, invisible guy watching one. And if one does, he might, like me, choose atheism if he feels comfortable enough living without a god belief or in a religion. That doesn't happen without intelligence. That's not to say that there are no intelligent theists, just that the former theists turned atheist rethought their position.

Human's are hard wired for god-belief.

Disagree, but even if you're correct, like I said, that can be overcome. We're hard-wired for magical thinking and to respond to authoritarian figures like parents. You have to teach them about gods for them to become theists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you familiar with the term implicit atheism:

I am now.

View attachment 84228

I find the terms "positive" & "negative" inapplicable.
They're also troubling because of connotations.

By this reckoning, babies can be called atheists....

I've oft said that of myself.
I never have believed in sky fairies.
And upon learning of claims they existed,
kept on not believing in them.

 

[Alien826]

Are you familiar with the term implicit atheism:

By this reckoning, babies can be called atheists, as can anybody who grows up never hearing of gods. The category called explicit atheism comprises all who answer "No" to the question of whether he holds a god belief, and excludes both babies, who don't answer, and people who have never heard of gods ("What's that?" would be their answer). And explicit atheism is divided above into gnostic (strong) atheists and agnostic atheists.

I don't think I've heard the term "implicit atheist" before. I have heard "apatheist" (apathetic atheist) that describes someone who knows that people believe in things called "gods" and has some idea what that means, but probably don't think about it from one month to another. It describes a large proportion of people in the UK, in my experience.

We're hard-wired for magical thinking and to respond to authoritarian figures like parents. You have to teach them about gods for them to become theists.

As I started this, I'll point out that I was referring to superstitious beliefs and behavior (magical thinking if you like) that I see as a kind of "proto religion".

Incidentally, there used to be a news item much quoted on atheist forums about a truck carrying grain that overturned, providing a huge feast for local birds. The next day, birds were observed performing actions that seemed to be unconnected to what was going on around them. The conclusion was that they were repeating actions that they had done the previous day just before the truck overturned in the hope of getting more grain. I have no idea if that was factual.

 

[PureX]

First I think we have to agree (or not) that there actually is a reality "out there" that has some form that can be known

That is a valid theory, yes. But it is not a truth we can verify. I am not disagreeing, I am simply pointing out that to accept it as truth would be an unverified bias.

If you deny that then we might as well give up and just do random things, as anything is as likely to be correct as incorrect.

I think you are conflating truth with some criteria of "correct action", here. Humans held the truth that the Earth is a relatively flatened disc for a very long time because that truth concept functioned "correctly" when it was acted upon. But nevertheless, it was not the whole truth. And today, we hold the truth that the Earth is a sphere, because that truth concept functions "correctly" within the context of our actions. But it's not the whole truth, either. And it is very likely that at some time in the future we will hold to a different truth about the Earth that is not confined to it's shape, because our interactions with the Earth will have changed to a point where shape is not the main characteristic of it's reality to us.

The point being that we humans don't get to know the whole truth. And without it, all we can have is relative factuality that we tend to presume to be the truth, but is not.

Then we ask ourselves what is the best way to determine what that reality is, while admitting that we can probably only get closer and closer to matching our theories to reality and we probably won't ever "get there" totally. I submit that the scientific method has had more success in that than anything else we have come up with.

Reality is an idea that we create in our minds to make sense of our experience of existence. Reality is not the truth of existence. It's just pur current concept of the truth of existence. And it's always changing, because it's always showing itself to be incomplete, and often wrong.

Why is that important?

It's important because it's true. It's one of the few true things we can know about existence: that it remains a great mystery to us. It's also important for us to recognize this so that we don't fall for our own delusions. We need our skepticism to help keep us awake, aware, and open to the possibility of our own catastrophic error.

Even if we never get to exact correspondence between the models we create and reality, a near miss is still a lot better than random guesses.

No one is making any random guesses. No one. Everyone is creating their version of reality based on their limited experience and understanding of existence. And then we're all trying to live in it the best we can.

Now to subjective things, like what is the best thing to do with the knowledge that we gain through science?

The only knowledge we gain through science is knowledge of physical functionality. And unfortunately that does not generate or impart wisdom. It's like tossing a box full of loaded pistols into a cage full or hyper-active chimpanzees. Sooner or later they are going to learn how to destroy themselves with those pistols, unless they they meanwhile somehow learn how NOT to. And that's not going to come from science, or from the pistols. It needs to come from some other cognitive methodology. Like philosophy, art, and religion. Because those endeavors explore concepts of wisdom, ethical value, and metaphysical purpose; that science cannot.

We use science to develop anesthetics and bombs. It's true that the choices are made subjectively, and what is "good" or "bad" is generally determined by feelings. Nevertheless, once an objective is determined, science can be very helpful in getting there, or measuring our progress. Unfortunately we haven't been very good at formulating our objectives. That really isn't the fault of science. Once we get to things that trigger our emotions we dump science and go by feelings. And I might say that focusing on "philosophy, art and religion" is exactly how we got into this mess, because all of these things lean heavily on feelings.

We don't need any more pistols in the monkey cage right now. What we need is the wisdom NOT to destroy ourselves with them. We need to stop obsessing over technological functionality and start seriously exploring those other human methodologies.

 

[Alien826]

That is a valid theory, yes. But it is not a truth we can verify. I am not disagreeing, I am simply pointing out that to accept it as truth would be an unverified bias.

It's the only "theory" that makes any sense. Try hitting your thumb with a hammer. Then think about whether the pain was an unverified basis, or maybe very real?

I think you are conflating truth with some criteria of "correct action", here. Humans held the truth that the Earth is a relatively flatened disc for a very long time because that truth concept functioned "correctly" when it was acted upon. But nevertheless, it was not the whole truth. And today, we hold the truth that the Earth is a sphere, because that truth concept functions "correctly" within the context of our actions. But it's not the whole truth, either. And it is very likely that at some time in the future we will hold to a different truth about the Earth that is not confined to it's shape, because our interactions with the Earth will have changed to a point where shape is not the main characteristic of it's reality to us.

The point being that we humans don't get to know the whole truth. And without it, all we can have is relative factuality that we tend to presume to be the truth, but is not.

No. I'm saying that if you don't accept that there is any reality, then all ideas about reality are equally deluded and all actions are equally unguided. I agree that different views of reality have persisted for a while in the past and no doubt some still do today. But navigation with the assumption that the Earth is round works better than assuming it's flat.

Reality is an idea that we create in our minds to make sense of our experience of existence. Reality is not the truth of existence. It's just pur current concept of the truth of existence. And it's always changing, because it's always showing itself to be incomplete, and often wrong.

What you say is correct to an extent, but you can't assume that everything we conceive is inaccurate. It's usually at the boundaries of knowledge that big corrections occur.

It's important because it's true. It's one of the few true things we can know about existence: that it remains a great mystery to us. It's also important for us to recognize this so that we don't fall for our own delusions. We need our skepticism to help keep us awake, aware, and open to the possibility of our own catastrophic error.

I agree that healthy skepticism (that is keeping a small door of doubt open), but most things that matter to us now are not a mystery.

No one is making any random guesses. No one. Everyone is creating their version of reality based on their limited experience and understanding of existence. And then we're all trying to live in it the best we can.

And the vast majority of people have a very similar "version" of reality. Doesn't that suggest something?

The only knowledge we gain through science is knowledge of physical functionality. And unfortunately that does not generate or impart wisdom. It's like tossing a box full of loaded pistols into a cage full or hyper-active chimpanzees. Sooner or later they are going to learn how to destroy themselves with those pistols, unless they they meanwhile somehow learn how NOT to. And that's not going to come from science, or from the pistols. It needs to come from some other cognitive methodology. Like philosophy, art, and religion. Because those endeavors explore concepts of wisdom, ethical value, and metaphysical purpose; that science cannot.

So, you want to throw out all science? And go back to what? Living in caves?

We don't need any more pistols in the monkey cage right now. What we need is the wisdom NOT to destroy ourselves with them. We need to stop obsessing over technological functionality and start seriously exploring those other human methodologies.

We sure as heck don't want more religion.

 

[Heyo]

Incidentally, there used to be a news item much quoted on atheist forums about a truck carrying grain that overturned, providing a huge feast for local birds. The next day, birds were observed performing actions that seemed to be unconnected to what was going on around them. The conclusion was that they were repeating actions that they had done the previous day just before the truck overturned in the hope of getting more grain. I have no idea if that was factual.

Possibly. See Skinner's pigeons at 2:55:

 

[PureX]

It's the only "theory" that makes any sense. Try hitting your thumb with a hammer. Then think about whether the pain was an unverified basis, or maybe very real?

The pain is subjective. Not objective. Perception IS conception. The point is the presumption that existence is objective. Yet all we can ever know of it is via subjective conceptual experience. It may be our only theory, but whatever sense it makes is happening in our own minds.

No. I'm saying that if you don't accept that there is any reality, then all ideas about reality are equally deluded and all actions are equally unguided.

I didn't say there is no reality. I said reality is a fiction that we create in our minds.

I agree that different views of reality have persisted for a while in the past and no doubt some still do today. But navigation with the assumption that the Earth is round works better than assuming it's flat.

Only because we can now travel further than to could in the distant past. And in the future, if we have one, the spherical Earth reality may well become an antiquated concept. The point here is that NONE OF THESE CONCEPTS IS WRONG. They are simply more or less applicable to our current experience. This is something that most people cannot or will not accept, because they are so invested in the idea of their being "right".

What you say is correct to an extent, but you can't assume that everything we conceive is inaccurate.

The problem is that we can't know which is which except via personal or collective experience. So the presumption that ANYTHING we think we know is "right", is just presumption. And an unnecessary one at that.

I agree that healthy skepticism (that is keeping a small door of doubt open), but most things that matter to us now are not a mystery.

Everything is a mystery if we look close enough at it. And we need to be more honest with ourselves about this. Lest we fall for our own hubris.

And the vast majority of people have a very similar "version" of reality. Doesn't that suggest something?

Yes, we are all self-deceived in equal measure. Mostly because we are all structured to desire the same illusion.

So, you want to throw out all science? And go back to what? Living in caves?

When you have to jump to extreme and absurd conclusions like this, and then foist them onto your "opponent", you have already lost the debate.

We sure as heck don't want more religion.

It's not about "more", it's about "better".