Is religion inferior to logic ?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I experience it directly and have done since I was born.

I don't. Now since apparently I am in the universe and so are you and you know by experience that I experience and you do so directly, then you are me for my experience, because you experience all of the universe directly including my experience as yours.
The is called a reductio ad absurdum in regards to what you claim. So I will answer that your claim is neither evidence, knowledge nor logical.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A reasonable person will recognize that when making assertions to others about what one believes to be true, they are expected to justify them.

The atheist is telling you what he does NOT believe true. He doesn't need to justify that to you. If you disagree and want to be believed, you need to justify yourself.

The agnostic theist can and will do so, logically, using the power and value of faith.

You don't seem to know what logic is if you include faith-based thoughts.

The agnostic atheist could the same, but almost never does, because he not only rejects theism, he also reject the value and power of faith

Now you acknowledge the existence of agnostic atheism. You've been saying that no such thing exists and that those claiming that position are liars. Who's the liar now?

And so he rejects the very avenue that he could have used to defend being an atheist while also being agnostic. And that leaves him with no defense at all.

Defend to whom? People that consider faith part of logic?

Which is why he has to then lie and pretend that he believes nothing.

So now you're back to this. You demean yourself calling others liars by adding a moral error to your intellectual errors about atheism and atheists.

When that is very clearly and demonstrably not true.

But the claim was yours, not the atheist's. Every atheist believes plenty, just not in gods. Why? Why would he if he's comfortable with atheism? Because of the lack of evidence for them? Because of the comforting it provides that those who turn to theism seek but he doesn't need? To assuage the resentment of those who describe atheists as liars for not agreeing with him?

If the atheist is also agnostic, then he has already agreed that he cannot gain the truth.

About gods? Nobody can, although some make claims anyway and call it truth. And what would you know about truth? Are you talking about comforting, unfalsifiable guesses about reality? That's not truth. Those are lullabies.

your constant assertion that no one else's belief in God is valid, or with no justification at all.

You sound like a creationist now: "You have no evidence for abiogenesis or evolution" What you don't understand doesn't limit what others do.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't. Now since apparently I am in the universe and so are you and you know by experience that I experience and you do so directly, then you are me for my experience, because you experience all of the universe directly including my experience as yours.
The is called a reductio ad absurdum in regards to what you claim. So I will answer that your claim is neither evidence, knowledge nor logical.

Nothing you have just said makes any kind of sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing you have just said makes any kind of sense.

So you experience my mind directly?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you experience my mind directly?

No. I experience the Universe directly.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. I experience the Universe directly.

And I am not a part of the universe and not in the universe?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And I am not a part of the universe and not in the universe?

So you think "experiencing the Universe" means "experiencing every single part of the Universe"?

No, that's not what that means.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you think "experiencing the Universe" means "experiencing every single part of the Universe"?

No, that's not what that means.

So what is the universe?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So what is the universe?

A vast space in which the earth resides.

I'm really not interested in getting into a metaphysical discussion.

 

[wellwisher]

And if someone defines "God" as "all that is", does an atheist not believe in things that are and the agnostic not know whether or not the things that are, are?

This is good question, since it bring to light the main difference between science and religion. God is a 3-D concept, since the concept of God covers all the bases of known and unknown reality, simultaneously, in time and space. God, as concept, may be nebulous but it has to integrate even opposites, which science leaves separate since this easier.

Science is more 2-D and differential; cause and affect. Like in calculus, Science is good at differentiating reality; slope at a point on a curve, while religion is more about integrating; area under the curve. This makes religion superior, since it is harder to integrate data, than it is to differentiate it. The latter only needs better tools; better telescopes, while the former needs more brain power; seeing data plus evolve theory toward 3-D. The new space telescope has given us picture of galaxies that formed earlier in the universe than was expected based on the current theory. Science is stuck perpetuating obsolete theory since it is easier to see than to synthesize.

Religion went through a stage growth from polytheism to monotheism. Science is still in its own rational polytheism stage. This throw back to polytheism, is connected to specialization and specialty theory that cannot transcend its own specialty niche. What does biology teach us about particle physics, since both are about what science calls hard reality. They cannot, in their current form, tell you anything about each other. One is the goddess of rain and other the god of fire. Religion advanced to one theory; God, that covers all the bases at a conceptual level; God is 3-D. Fire and rain are part of a whole, just like good and evil is part of a single coin. Science can only see one side of that coin, at a time; differential or 2-D.

Science cannot yet differentiate God; have proof or disproof, never mind integrate God with Science. Whereas, religion has concepts like an omniscience God. Religion has an extra, but intuitive fuzzy z-axis beyond cause; x, and affect; y. The z-axis requires one learn to use internal sensory systems when moving around data; mediation, prayer, intuition and faith.

I am able, as a trained scientist, to develop integral theories, by making use of 3-D thinking skills I learned from religion; right brain. I used science to help me differentiate, the brain's firmware and operating system data. I learned integral thinking by seeing how the inner self, placed these parts back in 3-D. I could break it down into parts but could not puts the piece back together; dissociated state of mind. The inner self helped to reorganize and I watched and helped fit it together.

Science is like going into the woods, and losing track of the forest because of the trees; so many firmware expression. It approaches reality based on the specialty data in front of your nose. The theories of Religion are more integral and 3-D and sees the forest from the top of the ridge, and therefore can see all the trees of the forest in terms of patterns and wholeness. However, it cannot see each tree in the same level of detail as science; the religious theory of creation lacks the details of theory of evolution. But science cannot fully see what other specialty areas of science are doing, so it can not design 3-D theory that can cross the boundaries of all specialties. How does the BB theory impact evolution of life leading to the rise of civilization ? This requires integrating physics, with biology and psychology, which are now like three different specialty gods in science, each with its own jargon and ways to worship.

Science has de-evolved over the past century due to too much dependency on casino math and science. As an example, when the weatherman says there is a 50% chance of rain, what does that mean? The god of the oracle has spoken. This casino science approach to weather is very subjective, and can mean what you want it to mean; half the day, half the hours, or we need to call the bookie and place a bet, thereby allowing any bad theory to appear rational. Coffee is good today but bad tomorrow based on who spins the wheel of fortune; statistical experience and whims of the gods.

The consensus of science is now based on politics and fads and not reason. Why did science allow this subjective dumb down? The answer is politics has the money for the gambling. Science needs to sober up; go to gamblers anonymous and return to 2-D science, instead of stay regressed at 1.5-D science; not fully rational but with emotional appeal, usually fear. They're a casino science bogeymen everywhere. Everything has finite odds own any given day. This may be the hottest season on record or the sun is acting funny so be on guard. This is lower than religion. Science needs to right the ship.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A vast space in which the earth resides.

I'm really not interested in getting into a metaphysical discussion.

No, it is epistemology. What do you mean when you write you know the universe. What does the universe meant to you? You should know what you mean with it, right?

 

[MikeF]

Not convincing a faith-based thinker of anything. I know better. If that's your purpose on RF, go find another activity. You have zero chance of changing such minds, because all you have is evidenced, sound argument, and that's not how such people come to their theistic beliefs and is powerless to budge them from it.

I'm answering the believer in my replies, but writing for the other critical thinkers - the only people here interested in what other critical thinkers have to say.

My purpose here, first and foremost, is to talk about things that interest me in a venue that presents me with other people who wish to talk about these things. Next would be to practice organizing my thoughts and communicating them as clearly as possible given the limits of my ability, with the hope of improving those abilities in the process. After that, my goal here on RF is to promote the value and efficacy of science and the process of scientific inquiry, especially in contrast to philosophy. In fact, I advocate the view that science is simply new and improved philosophy, philosophy 2.0 that supersedes or replaces the legacy philosophy inherited from the ancient Greeks. My definition of science is quite broad, however, as I simply define it as knowledge acquisition that acknowledges the flaws and fallibility of the human investigator and actively works to mitigate those flaws and fallibilities to the fullest extent possible.

In contrast to you, it seems, my intent is certainly not to preach to the choir. I fail to see the point in that. It is also not my intent to convert a religious person to an atheist. My intent is to craft arguments that will promote in others a dynamic world-view that can incorporate and adjust to our ever improved understanding of ourselves and the cosmos. And also unlike you, I have not written off everyone who does not think like me. I try to keep in the forefront of my mind that there but for the grace of fate would go I. I do not intend to judge people for the views they hold, nor belittle them for holding them, though I am human. I am sure in some instances I come across as condescending, though I try to avoid that.

I also try to keep in mind that I am not simply speaking to one person in the exchange, but that often there are others reading along. I may not reach the person I am directly engaged with in the conversation, but I may impact the views of someone following along.

In short, I am not here to bash the religious and preach to the enlightened choir, rather, I am here to create opportunities for others to expand their worldview regardless of what little effect that may have.

They can and do. Likewise with the apologist's use of the word religion to mean any ideology or even a single idea like atheism. But again, is that the skeptic's concern? There's an ocean of confused, emotionally sensitive people here, but they want to be here and keep coming back for more conversation. I really don't know why unless it's to get a peek into a world they see nowhere else, which is a major reason of mine for being here.
Where else can one have protracted discussions with the same several dozen people over protracted periods of time at one's convenience and with strangers enjoying anonymity? Nowhere that I know of. Imagine a discussion like these occurring at the Thanksgiving table or in the lunchroom at work. It would last about two minutes and might well cause problems afterward at work or in the family.

Digression: This is atheistic humanist school for me. It's where I learn what others like me think and where we share ideas with one another. It's where I read what the scientists and the scientifically sophisticated posting here have to say about the science in their fields. We can call that the lecture section. But it's also where I see the distribution of religious types by denomination. This is the lab section. And this broad view helps me understand the effect faith and religious teaching has on minds, the atheistic humanists serving as the control group. I've come to understand that I have much in common with theistic humanists and polytheists like the Dharmics and pagans.

I've come to understand what a disaster in the cultural evolution of man the removal of the sacred from nature and casting it out of the universe and depicting it as a person with commands and the ability to hold you hostage in the afterlife because it inserted an immortal soul into you and woke it up so now it can never sleep again. Look what that kind of religion has done to the world. Look at these threads? Who are the most adversely affected by religion? The Abrahamics who aren't also humanists.

And I learned what Dunning-Kruger actually is. It's not an inflated sense of one's own competence, but an underestimate of the competence of others. If these sound the same, one is seeing oneself as being a lofty thinker and the other doesn't recognize that such a thing is possible. I recognize that when I read, "That's just your opinion" in response to a sound argument. They're telling you that they are only aware of one way of coming to opinions - guessing like they do, and all guesses are equivalent for that reason. Where else was I going to get the data that led to this insight if not discussions like this, and where else could one have them except anonymous message boards?

Perhaps it is merely wishful thinking on my part, but anecdotally I have seen softening in the position of others or the sincere acknowledgment of a valid point that I have made. I see it as baby steps. But I also see where the discussion style and approach of others does nothing but entrench the other person in their position. Approaches that exacerbate confirmation bias rather than mitigate it. I have seen those who are skeptical of science push the discussion to the limits of our scientific understanding to use as the frontline in their defense, and I see the “critical thinkers” follow along and stay there arguing vehemently about non-settled science. If the individual does not have a good understanding of how science works, it does nothing to argue in this way. It would be much better in my view to acknowledge the limits of current science yet fall back to settled science and show how “the current limits of science” has continually moved in a positive direction over the millennia. Establish common ground on that score and get acknowledgment that the scientific process works before tackling highly theoretical issues, if ever. The only reason to get into a detailed discussion about competing ideas in theoretical physics, for example, is if both parties have the knowledge and appreciation of all that went into getting to those theoretical points. The layperson, like me, doesn’t really have anything to say on the matter and has to trust in the process that things will resolve however they resolve, or they won’t. I’d rather work on building trust in the process than arguing theoretical physics with someone with absolutely no background or serious self-study of the subject.

“Thinking critically” does not guarantee the use of common sense, in my opinion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, it is epistemology.

I don't care. Both are a waste of my time.

What do you mean when you write you know the universe,

I didn't say that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Nothing you have just said makes any kind of sense.

To you

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say that.

No, but you did use the words "the Universe". So what do they mean? And if I experience something you don't, do I experience the Universe?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To you

That's obvious by virtue of the fact that I said it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, but you did use the words "the Universe".

That's not the same as saying "I know the Universe".

So what do they mean?

I gave you a definition.

And if I experience something you don't, do I experience the Universe?

I have no idea what you're experiencing.

I'm quickly losing interest in experiencing this conversation, however. All I did was point out a simple distinction between faith and trust. I got over all this infantile epistemology stuff when I was a teenager. It doesn't interest or impress me anymore.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To you

Non-believers generally don't like to speak about how they know something as themselves. They rather like to discuss that we don't know, but we shouldn't challenge them for how they know.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Non-believers generally don't like to speak about how they know something as themselves.

To you.

They rather like to discuss that we don't know, but we shouldn't challenge them for how they know.

In your opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not the same as saying "I know the Universe".


I gave you a definition.


I have no idea what you're experiencing.

I'm quickly losing interest in experiencing this conversation, however. All I did was point out a simple distinction between faith and trust. I got over all this infantile epistemology stuff when I was a teenager. It doesn't interest or impress me anymore.

How do you experience directly as the Universe that it is infantile? What do you mean by that? If I am using infantile thoughts is that then in the Universe?