Right, because we can't determine there is anything that exists outside of nature.
No, that's not really true. The reason science does not study things outside of the material physical world is because it's the wrong set of tools. Not that it is not possible for humans to explore these domains.
It's like saying, I'm going to use geology to try to understand Shakespeare. Say what??
But we certainly can gain insight into Shakespeare without the use of science, can't we?
The funny thing is that if a God exists it would be subject to examination, but thus far God/gods are in the category of imaginary beings.
But what do you think mystical experiences are actually doing? Experience is data. We can examine the data. In a very broad sense of doing science, we can actually look at and compare the collected data of human experiences and draw rational conclusions about them.
However, if you want to know what an orange tastes like, you don't read scientific studies on oranges. You actually have to peel one and put it into your mouth and taste it experientially to know it from a personal experience perspective.
You didn't explain what was trascendent, so I made the point that science does move humanity from ignorance to knowledge, which is transcendent in a real way.
I thought the context explained I wasn't talking about transcendent ideas. I was talking about transcending conceptual realities altogether. I was talking about immersing oneself within the Ocean, not conceptualizing about the Ocean. Transcending reality as the mind conceives it to be, in other words.
Because gods are in the same category as other imaginary characters, like the Tooth Fairy, and they aren't subject to science either.
Hardly the case. However, if you want to argue that they are comparable because they both entail the use of the imagination, then let's make that a spectrum of imagination and see where they land upon that.
First all of our perceptions of reality are in fact imaginary. They are
mental constructs. Yes, those mental constructs have for the most part actual material referents, but not all of course. There are also immaterial referents, such as ideals, values, plus emotional, and spiritual experiences. But all of what we think about those, are mental constructions of what they are, models, frameworks, and so forth. Therefore ALL of that, is the imagination. All of our ideas about what makes up reality to us, are products of the imagination.
Now, for most people that idea causes a mental shortcircuit. "But it IS reality!!". No, it really isn't. What it is is yours and mine and everyone else's shared constructs that make it a common illusory, or imaginary reality. It is the experience of our own mind.
So now on that spectrum of imaginary reality, we are really dealing more with what has utility in a functional way. If the status quo is that tooth fairies don't add value, then they are considered frivolous. But to a child in a child's world, tooth fairies have a more functional reality for perhaps psychological reasons, developing the wings of active imagination in early childhood development, for instance.
So while to a functioning adult trying to run a multi-million dollar business, a tooth fairy believe is not a good fit functionally, to a child using the imagination to a business strategist doesn't work either.
It's all about appropriate context.
Now take this to the question of gods, or God. Yes, our ideas about God are also on that spectrum of imagination, right along with the tooth fairy, and right along with our scientific ideas of realities as well. Everything, including the tooth fairy have some referent in the reality of the perceiver. So too does the gods. What is the referent, the higher, or transcendent sense of self, of course!
So in engaging the imagination towards "God", it engages those parts of ourselves which open us up through the imagination towards higher states of being, or of consciousness itself. This is the utility of "god beliefs".
Archetypal forms. Through the imagination, we are able to access something in ourselves beyond ourselves in our otherwise complacent place in the illusory comforts of our mental constructs we call reality.
You may have to spend some time trying to unpack that, but by all means ask questions if that doesn't make sense.
Does that make the Tooth Fairy special? No, and nor are gods.
Yes, they are special, in ways I just explained. Take this statement for instance to underscore what I just said about Archetypal forms and how it has a transformative effect on us, through the imagination:
"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. John Blofeld quotes Edward Conze on the Vajrayana Buddhist viewpoint: " 'It is the emptiness of everything which allows the identification to take place - the emptiness [which means "transcendental openness" or "nonobstruction"] which is in us coming together with the emptiness which is the deity. By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate' ". At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."
~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85
There is a lot of cultural power in the popularity of gods, but being objective means understanding why this is, and dismissing it.
What I am talking about is objective. But it is a better objective understanding than the dismissive "it's just the brain and not reality" nearsightedness.
It's related to the fallacy of argument by popularity. Critical thinkers follow the evidence, and reason based on what the evidence dictates.
Indeed. I am a critical thinker, and I am looking at the larger picture, and not just the myopic reductionist imagination of reality.
To assume a God, and a purpose via a God, is nothing more that a guess, there are no facts.
That is untrue. I personally have experienced the Absolute, which I could call God, at the least. And that experience comports with others who report the exact same thing. So there is a real, experiential, profound and transcendent reality that creates a common referent.
It's like how you can relate to others who describe the experience of love. You know it's real, not just because you've experienced it yourself, but you hear others describe it in the same ways you do. That's not nothing. That's something. That's an actual objective referent. That makes it factual.
Now how we talk about that, will of course vary because of the nature of language and personal individualities, but that's not really different than anything else in life, is it?
This is why science can't examine these, the lack of facts.
There are facts, and there are studies that have in fact been done about spiritual experiences. Quite a good number of them.
Humans believe all sorts of irrational things and science can't invesigate the imagined.
My experience, and the direct experience of others is not a 'belief' nor is it irrational. What I try to say about it, is a product of the imagination trying to put language to it, but that's true of anything about anything really. I may have certain beliefs about my experience, but beliefs and experience are two different things.
Science can't study the biology of Mickey Mouse. Don't you want to know how Mickey talks?
You really want to try to say that someone opening up the Absolute, have an immersion in Emptiness, or Nirvana, is comparable to Mickey Mouse? I seriously doubt you're that ignorant about these things.
I'll try to maybe address a few more points later about the other points raised, but this is the bulk of it.