What does reality demand of a realistic religion?

[wellwisher]

Conforming to What may be allowed by reality.
For instance, a religion whose tenets insist that the only things that can exist in reality are those things which can be proven to exist in reality, while at the same time insisting that we cannot prove everything that exists in reality to exist in reality, would be an unrealistic religion.
By religion I mean an agreed upon process or description of reality. By reality I mean the totality of processes, events, or objects that may directly or indirectly affect religion.

The problem is science cannot prove the details of inner reality; of the mind, due to its own philosophical limitations. For example a simple dream is not easily and exactly reproducible by a third party; philosophy of science. Yet dreams are real, since we have all had dreams that are unique. Science is only about the external world outside the five senses, but it does not go behind the scenes to the internal stuff of the mind, that impacts sensory perceptions and expectations. This is part of our inner reality.

If a young scientist was to graduate, and get their dream job, doing what they like, the "like" come from the inside and not the outside. Like is how we feel as we perceive this particular aspect of outer reality; dream job. We get an internal chemical buzz that drives us in that direction. This buzz is part of inner reality. Reality does not give off this buzz. This is buzz is where religion comes in, since is of the inner world.

Science by its own philosophy does not go there. What you like or dislike does not matter when you submit a paper or get published. To the religious, God knows about the things of the heart; how inner reality makes you tick? You can hide this from others and yourself, but it is still there, because it is real; impact of internal software and firmware which filters reality for you.

For example, does anyone remember the Russian collusion coup and hoax? How many thought this was reality? Why didn't science see through it and write a paper to debunk it? It had to do with the inner reality of those who wanted to see what they wanted to see. It was a religious affect based on an internal self deception, that was collectively called reality. This internal filter was not interested in the facts of outer reality; Liberal Religion.

Science could not be of any help, since by it own rules, it does not allow itself to explore and develop the needed skills. We have the soft science of Psychology, so why didn't these professionals find reality for us, first; truth? It has to do with with their own inner reality, which could be based on bias or fear or just plain poor science theory. It is easier to see things outside you; speck in your brother's eye, than to see the log in your own eye; inner reality. Religion deals with the tougher science of inner reality and often personifies the dynamics, since science expects to see reality as only from the outside.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's gotta speak the truth.

Aye .. that it has.

 

[setarcos]

I ask that because I recognize a great deal of complexity in the question "what is reality?" There is no answer to that question,

At first glance I think most people would dismiss this question as sophomoric and its answer as obvious.

I however see the importance of such a question and its complexities, but your definitive answer to such a question disregards the need for explanation.

I think there may indeed be no answer to this question because the question is nonsensical in that it does not refer to a specific thing but instead refers to a label applied to a particular shared condition of things and only demonstrates the limitations of human language, but it does not address the axiomatic conclusions of human awareness which is the basis of how we define anything. That is in contradistinction with anything else. Whether or not we apply our definitions correctly to any particular things condition is a different issue.
Never the less I recognize the profound issues it raises concerning being human. It raises the question of how can we define anything that we may somehow be productive in its application when we are so limited in our awareness?
We could also ask what is nothingness, a force, a feeling, a thought, hardness, wetness. What is up in space? What are YOU feeling? Can you describe it? These things may be readily defined but not so readily equally and directly experienced in our awareness. At least not provably.

Yet these things have been defined in contradistinction to other things and given substance through our awareness and experiences. Limited as this method is it seems to produce productive results.

I’m going to attempt to define reality by distinguishing differences in the condition of those previously mentioned things….

Reality is the canvass upon which existence and nonexistence is given form in possibility.

What then is realities contradistinction? Unreality, which is the canvass upon which those non-existent things can never exist and are given form in impossibility.

As a self-evident axiom I would define existence as the set containing those elements which have the potential of both affecting and being effected in some manner. Whereas those elements belonging to the set labeled non-existence have neither the capability of affecting nor being effected. Reality then in keeping with set notation is the set containing the sets of existent things and non-existent things.

Since we are finite creatures we could expect questions all the way down and I suppose we could set on our haunches contemplating if we can even define anything definitively but that sounds pretty unproductive to me and I don't care to just sit around until I pass away because I can't have a perfect model of what is or isn't in the form of a definition. Where ever we are in this never ending line of questions that is the point at which we must derive our meaning from.

First we must recognize that if we do not know what we mean by the terms that formulate the question, then we cannot ask a meaningful question.

So either you asked a meaningless question which may be disregarded since it cannot be shown to apply to anything let alone religion or you know what agreed upon meaning the term has been given and disagree with the definition or its meaningful application.

Since you've stated that the question can't be answered this implies that you have an inkling as to what it is that can’t be answered and why when given this term.

But how can one be familiar with a term such that one can determine a fact about that term by asking what the term means? The most you might do is ask what someone means by the term reality and get a definition. Then you may critique that definition or its application in particular circumstances.

I am aware of the limitations and complexities of human language but fail to see why the term cannot be used to productively impart any information to our understanding.

Let us first recognize, like Descartes's axiomatic "cogito ergo sum", that to declare that there is no answer to what reality is requires a "real" - Oops, what is "real"? - How about an "existent" - Oops, what is "existent"? - question which is given substance in that which is aware. That is, one that affects existence in some manner.

We define existence as that state whereby the nature of a thing can affect or be effected by other things and nonexistence as anything which cannot cause an affect or be effected.

Anything that "affects" other things in reality renders an "effect" in reality which is the name we give to the collection of elements that exist or don't exist in total.

Since we are aware of that which exists by its effect upon our awareness we can show that reality contains that which can affect our awareness. But awareness does not dictate the totality of reality since it is self-evident that we cannot be aware of all things in reality at once otherwise we could never be made to become aware of anything we were not already aware of.

How might that effect our description of what reality is? I don't believe it does. I think we need not be concerned with what reality contains in its entirety in order to define it since our definition does not require perfect knowledge of all that is realistic or "found in reality".

Now, again, we could render definitions all the way down should we have enough time and energy to do so but no matter where we are in such attempts at definition we remain in a framework defining our portion of experience in reality.
That no two self-aware finite beings can be effected by reality in the same manner is of little consequence if the collective effects on these beings is such that it can render a coherent reality possible to be affective.

Surely you agree that one must be capable of defining the term which is in question for any meaningful statement to be made which concerning the same? And once a term is defined it may be applied and/or compared to circumstance.
What you "really" should ask is "How can we, if possible, know what to apply that term to?” How can we determine what is real and thus capable of being affective versus what is unreal and incapable of being affective in reality?

We are walking embodiments of confinement. Confined by our senses, our materiality, our awareness, etc. and their finiteness. We are each infinitely separated from each other in that confinement but infinitely close to each other in our subjection to a unifying reality which makes a “synergistic" existence possible. This is our reality.

These statements aren’t meant to be definitive of course and need tweaked but they are meant as starting points of discussion. A discussion I hope might be very fruitful.

 

[Ella S.]

However, it can be shown that not all religions have Deities. Buddhism is one such example.

This is a common misconception. Buddhism does have deities. It's an offshoot of Hinduism and shares much of the same cosmogony, including the idea that one can reincarnate as a god in a celestial realm. The oldest texts attributed to Siddharta Guatama talk about this, although it's admittedly not as central of a belief to Buddhism as it is to Hinduism.

Much of Chinese and Japanese Buddhism also take syncretic elements from Shenism and Shinto, including many of their gods. Although, to be fair, Shinto does blur the lines between "god" and "spirit," since the word "kami" can translate as either.

Deities alone is over simplified and is not sufficient for a complete definition of religion. I am trying to be inclusive, so we can include secret religions, who try to hide under the radar. Much of what is called political may well be a type of religion, with or without deities, since beliefs and outcomes are not pre certified by science.

You make a great point here. Religion is a difficult to define concept. Political ideologies and philosophical ways of life could be considered religious under the definition of religion given by the concept of non-overlapping magisteria.

The term could be too vague for a productive discussion like this, unless we can agree on a definition.

One possible way to fine tune a definition of religion, so it is more complete and modern, is to consider the never ending debate between religion and science on these forums. Those who side with science seem to claim that God and gods are all imaginary, since they cannot be proven by science. Say we work with that. A possible complete definition for religion would be connected to a system of collective beliefs, based on imaginary things or ideas, which are not easy to prove with science. Buddhism is about evolving your mind from within, which requires a high level of imagination to make the command lines push internal buttons. This is not easy to prove with science, other than from the surface, which cannot see the inner man.

Personally, I think a better understanding of religion comes from two more common lines sometimes used in anthropology: firstly, the division between organized religion and private magical practices; secondly, the division between communal religion and individual spirituality.

The separation between religion and science is less relevant to religions that are more about orthopraxy than orthodoxy. Also, since ethnic religions are so common, it's worth noting that many of them do not contradict science because they're more concerned about a shared culture and community than about beliefs, too.

I think this also avoids calling religion imaginary, which I think could be taken the wrong way.

What about belief systems that lead to unnatural behavior? To study nature, is to study natural things, and from the study of these natural things science infers the laws of nature. Unnatural behavior will not be part of natural science. These will not be induced by natural instinct, and therefore will have an imagination component, that is not natural but may be religion based.

In the sense of "natural" used by science, all behavior is a subset of natural phenomenon. The exceptions might be if you believe in possession, magic, miracle working, spiritually transcendent states of consciousness, etc. which would be considered supernatural.

What comes to mind is the idea that gender preference can override assigned sex at birth even though assigned sex at birth is controlled by an entire chromosome. If you buy into this, you are claiming an entire chromosome, full of genes, is not that important to the final outcome. How does science justify that and/or why doesn't it speak up and settle this, instead of offer cover? Science appears to have it own religion or is afraid of religious persecution by Satan religions with money, that will fudge data, rendering the conclusions imaginary.

This is not how gender works. Gender is a real and observed facet of psychiatry, psychology, sociology, and neuroscience. It doesn't really have that much to do with chromosomal sex, or even anatomical sex.

Transsexuals are people who have or are in the process of undergoing sexual reassignment surgery, which medically changes one's anatomical sex, even if it doesn't change one's chromosomal sex.

If that's strange to you, I should also point out that people can be born with an anatomical sex that does not match their chromosomal sex. It's rare, but it can be caused by a number of syndromes and disorders. Since we tend to go by anatomical sex when assigning sex, this means that assigned sex is not the same as chromosomal sex.

ETA: Technically, those who are born with a "mismatch" between chromsomal and anatomical sex are considered intersex.

Many intersex people can also have an anatomy in-between both sexes, or even the anatomy of both sexes. Some are born with two sets of primary sex characteristics, or "genitalia," even.

Intersex people are still often forced into being assigned a male or female sex, often with surgeries performed on them as infants without their consent to help them pass as that sex.

The existence of intersex people pretty much destroys the idea that assigned sex is controlled by our chromosomes.

ETA2: Also, while "preferred pronouns" is a real phrase, "preferred gender" is not really a thing. Gender identity is tied to brain activity and development. You can't really choose your gender. People are born transgender and transgenderism is diagnosed by medical professionals.

One's preferred gender expression is usually a fairly reliable means of self-diagnosis, although not always.

If you look at manmade climate change and how science censored science, that did not agree with its preferred premises and conclusions, this made it semi-imaginary due to data tampering. Science is supposed to be able to look under any rock to cover all the bases. We can learn even from mistakes. Once it censors competing science experiments, it is trying to stack the deck, so the theory can becomes semi- imaginary and pat of a Satanic style religion, that is now based on an archetypical end of the world scenario, to feed their religious mob, for its own pseudo-science confirmation.

The scientific community, for the most part, has not been fooled by the studies on climate change that have been paid off by corporate entities. This was mainly an issue with science communicators being fooled and intentional obfuscation by PR agencies.

 

[Ella S.]

Naturalism hasn't been proven to be the only accurate descriptor of reality has it?

Yeah, it pretty much has been.

Wouldn't it be unrealistic to assume only those facts which can be verifiable are facts that exist in reality?

It would be unrealistic to assume that unverifiable claims are in accordance with reality. Since they are unverified, that means they have not been demonstrated to likely be true. Under the Law of Excluded Middle in logic, this means that they must be assumed to be false until shown otherwise.

How does science verify experience?

Using the scientific method.

Yet who among us would claim to have never had an experience that can't be independently verified?

Independent verification plays an important role in the academic sciences, but you can be a scientific thinker without needing independent verification of every single experience.

We already know that humans are limited in their sensory capacity and it has already been shown that science is limited in its ability to discover facts about reality. These things alone should be enough to indicate that reality is more than we know and facts exist beyond independent verification.

I agree.

Why does that which is unfalsifiable automatically mean that it doesn't exist in reality?

Because if it's unfalsifiable, then it cannot be demonstrated to be true through experimental evidence since it cannot be tested. This means that we can't say that our data indicates that any unfalsifiable claim is likely to be true. The opposite of true is false. If something is not likely to be true, that's the same as saying that it's likely to be false.

So if a claim is unfalsifiable, we can safely regard it as likely to be false.

And if it can't be shown not to be able to exist in reality in that it violates no known facts that exist in reality then we cannot use that as a criteria in determining a realistic religion.

I agree. There's a major difference between something being impossible, which means that it is necessarily false given the laws of the universe, and something being likely to be false.

However, the existence of the supernatural would violate the laws of physics, so it's considered nomologically impossible.

Which makes me wonder....how could we know if we "bumped" into God somewhere that it was God?

It depends on what you mean by "God." Pantheists regard the universe as God, and we have significant evidence that the natural universe exists. In that sense, you could say we found God, although I think that's misleading.

 

[setarcos]

setarcos said: ↑
Naturalism hasn't been proven to be the only accurate descriptor of reality has it?

Yeah, it pretty much has been.

The preeminent tool of naturalism for prescribing a description of reality is science. However science itself and scientists themselves have determined and acknowledged that science has limitations to its ability to determine and describe all of reality.
Knowing that there is a reality beyond the scientific tools ability to determine and/or explain - By scientists own admission - there is no rational reason to presume naturalism can describe the entirety of reality using a tool of limited capability to describe reality. Likewise there is no rational reason to believe that there can be no alternative tools for describing reality other than the scientific process. Indeed, since the scientific method utilizes procedures indirectly interpreted by our consciousness's, direct spatiotemporal experience of unrepeatable events may be a more accurate descriptor of reality to the experiencer than attempts at repeatable experimentation in some cases.

It would be unrealistic to assume that unverifiable claims are in accordance with reality.

You didn't answer my question. You've simply taken the assumptions
of one particular view of reality and made it okay while implying that the alternative viewpoint should be condemned - by again making assumptions.

Since they are unverified, that means they have not been demonstrated to likely be true.

The truth of spatiotemporal events is not contingent upon their ability to be demonstrated. How do you demonstrate the likelihood of a unique event happening? How do you quantify such things? For instance in a lottery you have the quantified data of how many numbers are to be picked, the rules for their winning arrangements, the amount of tickets sold, and the corresponding quantified odds of a winning number being picked.
Naturalism hasn't : 1) Proven that it describes all of reality
2) Proven that events cannot happen beyond its ability to describe
3) Determined what rules things must follow in order to be realistic

Under the Law of Excluded Middle in logic, this means that they must be assumed to be false until shown otherwise.

I must be misunderstanding that law. Its my understanding that it means that the statement must be either true or false. It makes no assumptions about whether the statement IS true or false. It makes no claims about whether the statement must be assumed a certain case in the absence of proof.

setarcos said: ↑
How does science verify experience?

Using the scientific method.

Sorry, I didn't clarify. Science may be able to determine what was experienced in some cases with its limited ability to describe reality. But science cannot verify what individuals experience in reality by applying this descriptive manner to all cases.
For instance science might determine that, definitionally, pain is being felt by an individual, but how that individual is experiencing that pain is beyond sciences ability to determine. Same with emotions and other self aware perceptions.

Independent verification plays an important role in the academic sciences, but you can be a scientific thinker without needing independent verification of every single experience.

I don't think so. I think by scientific thinker you mean, logical and rational. But in specifying "scientific" thinker you restrict those methodologies to what science is capable of showing to be true.
We already know that there are unverifiable truths in reality which science cannot determine to be true. For instance we all can "normally" feel or have emotion in some manner being sentient and self aware - This is true - but science cannot determine the truth of how we feel or why we feel. That is individualistic and evidenced only by the experiencer.
In what way are you being a "scientific" thinker if you can't use science in your thinking process? Logic and rationalization are not synonymous with science.

setarcos said: ↑
Why does that which is unfalsifiable automatically mean that it doesn't exist in reality?

if it's unfalsifiable, then it cannot be demonstrated to be true through experimental evidence since it cannot be tested.

True. But we've already shown that reality includes truths that are unfalsifiable.
Heck most of what we consider historical is basically unfalsifiable in certain aspects.

This means that we can't say that our data indicates that any unfalsifiable claim is likely to be true.

Again, likelihood does not in anyway indicate what is actually true or false. If that were the case you wouldn't believe you were living in this universe to begin with since science has shown its likelihood to be much greater that it wouldn't have happened than that it did happen the way it did.

The opposite of true is false. If something is not likely to be true, that's the same as saying that it's likely to be false.

Your merely pointing out the self evident. But I would like to reemphasize the fact that "likely to be false" is not synonymous with "must be false". Case in point...the existence of our universe.

So if a claim is unfalsifiable, we can safely regard it as likely to be false.

Ibid

However, the existence of the supernatural would violate the laws of physics, so it's considered nomologically impossible.

Again I must be misunderstanding your use of nomologically impossible.
This would be the case if,
(1 We could prove any "laws" of physics. We cannot, beyond our probabilistic presumptions of the future.
(2 We could prove that we now have a perfect understanding of all the laws of physics as they govern reality. We have not and we do not.
(3 We could prove that "all" of reality must be subject to physical laws. We haven't and I don't think they are.
Why might it not violate nomology?
A might not be subject to B.
A and B might be subject to an unknown C.
or A and B might be subject to their own exclusive unknown.

It depends on what you mean by "God."

Does it? If it is a God which one may be able to interact with in person..."bump into" then what criteria could we use to determine that is was indeed "God"? For instance if we run into an individual we generally distinguish that individual from others in contradistinction with others of like kind. However with God - presupposing monotheism - this would not be possible given the necessity of its absolute uniqueness. Yet given a realization of ones own finite disposition one might also assume that should such a being exist then other beings of proportionally more advanced abilities than ones own might also exist which are capable of impersonating God in some fashion to the extent that we could be fooled. How might one discover the difference without being externally forced into a particular viewpoint?

 

[Ella S.]

The preeminent tool of naturalism for prescribing a description of reality is science. However science itself and scientists themselves have determined and acknowledged that science has limitations to its ability to determine and describe all of reality.
Knowing that there is a reality beyond the scientific tools ability to determine and/or explain - By scientists own admission - there is no rational reason to presume naturalism can describe the entirety of reality using a tool of limited capability to describe reality.

This is an argument from ignorance. The fact remains that naturalism is the most likely scenario we have now and it's the most supported by the evidence. If you want to contest that, then you need evidence, not pseudo-philosophical rhetoric.

You didn't answer my question. You've simply taken the assumptions of one particular view of reality and made it okay while implying that the alternative viewpoint should be condemned - by again making assumptions.

My response was more relevant to my point. Your question was not.

The truth of spatiotemporal events is not contingent upon their ability to be demonstrated.

Our ability to call them true is, though.

Naturalism hasn't : 1) Proven that it describes all of reality
2) Proven that events cannot happen beyond its ability to describe
3) Determined what rules things must follow in order to be realistic

1) It has demonstrated itself to be the most likely description of reality given our current evidence, so it's unrealistic to make claims that are incompatible with it. That's all that matters for the sake of this discussion.
2) Not relevant to the thread, although I think it has generally debunked the existence of the non-natural given how it has investigated supernatural claims and repeatedly demonstrated them to be rooted in natural phenomena.
3) Depends on what you mean by this. There are the laws of physics, for instance.

I must be misunderstanding that law. Its my understanding that it means that the statement must be either true or false. It makes no assumptions about whether the statement IS true or false. It makes no claims about whether the statement must be assumed a certain case in the absence of proof.

A statement, for the sake of logical analysis, must be considered either true or false. If you're doing probability analysis like risk management or decision theory, this is less relevant, but if you're deciding what is true then logic is the tool you use.

If a statement is not true, then it is false. If a statement cannot be demonstrated to be likely to be true, then it cannot be taken to be true. That means that it is going to be taken to be false, because it has to be assigned truth or falsity and it has not shown itself to be true. Since it cannot be called true, it has to be called false.

Sorry, I didn't clarify. Science may be able to determine what was experienced in some cases with its limited ability to describe reality. But science cannot verify what individuals experience in reality by applying this descriptive manner to all cases.
For instance science might determine that, definitionally, pain is being felt by an individual, but how that individual is experiencing that pain is beyond sciences ability to determine. Same with emotions and other self aware perceptions.

I disagree. Neuroscience has answered these questions straightforwardly. You're implicitly assuming mind-body dualism here, but mind-body dualism was disproven over a century ago. Pain is an abstract category we give to certain kinds of signals generated by our nerves.

I don't think so. I think by scientific thinker you mean, logical and rational. But in specifying "scientific" thinker you restrict those methodologies to what science is capable of showing to be true.

I'm referring to critical rationalism grounded in empiricism and methodological naturalism, which is the core of the philosophy of science and the root of the scientific method.

We already know that there are unverifiable truths in reality which science cannot determine to be true. For instance we all can "normally" feel or have emotion in some manner being sentient and self aware - This is true - but science cannot determine the truth of how we feel or why we feel. That is individualistic and evidenced only by the experiencer.

More from mind-body dualism, I see.

In what way are you being a "scientific" thinker if you can't use science in your thinking process? Logic and rationalization are not synonymous with science.

You can indeed use science in your thinking process if you understand the philosophy of science rather than intentionally cherry-pick the most restrictive formulation of the scientific method you can find.

True. But we've already shown that reality includes truths that are unfalsifiable.
Heck most of what we consider historical is basically unfalsifiable in certain aspects.

Irrelevant. It's still unrealistic to believe in or make any particular unfalsifiable claims.

Again, likelihood does not in anyway indicate what is actually true or false. If that were the case you wouldn't believe you were living in this universe to begin with since science has shown its likelihood to be much greater that it wouldn't have happened than that it did happen the way it did.

"Actually true" is unknowable. All we have is what is formally true, which is what we can demonstrate through the method of logic. If we could tell what was "actually true," then we would have to be omniscient, at which point we would have no need of methods to distinguish between truth and falsity since we would already know.

Your merely pointing out the self evident. But I would like to reemphasize the fact that "likely to be false" is not synonymous with "must be false". Case in point...the existence of our universe.

I agree that "likely to be false" does not mean impossible. The existence of the universe is not likely to be false, though. It is more likely that the universe does exist, given our data.

Again I must be misunderstanding your use of nomologically impossible.
This would be the case if,
(1 We could prove any "laws" of physics. We cannot, beyond our probabilistic presumptions of the future.

That's called a statistical proof. So, yes, it is proving them. I have no idea what you think "prove" means if this isn't what you're referring to.

Are you referring to deductive proof? In that case, we have deductively falsified alternative hypotheses to the laws of physics, but we cannot deductively prove a positive claim outside of abstract axiological systems like mathematics. I can't see why deductive proof is relevant here.

(2 We could prove that we now have a perfect understanding of all the laws of physics as they govern reality. We have not and we do not.

This is not necessary. Our methods to discover truth are already based on the fact that our knowledge is incomplete, and they're self-correcting. If we discover that we were wrong, then we gain a better understanding of what is true. You cannot short-cut this process, to my knowledge. Claiming that you can would be unrealistic.

 

[Eric Hyom]

In our town, Churches Together have opened up five houses for the homeless, two food banks, debt help, Acts of Random kindness which is a good neighbours scheme, help for the elderly, mentors for ex - offenders, help for the disabled, recovery for addicts, and more. All these schemes are voluntary.

 

[rational experiences]

To be enabled to adapt Information as an evolving healing consciousness.

To allow family to reunite and be comforted by chosen building conditions. Sounds voice smells. To know their life holds meaning and purpose....no matter what community human behaviours claim.

To be a human who believes their group advice assists the governing of the human family without organised human corruption. Outside of trade and self gain.

To be considered as a higher advised conscious being by not being involved in governing corruption. But as it's conscious advisor.

As a heard mutual human voice in that shared community environment of humans trying to own a peaceful mind...a higher forgiving mind by their spiritual practices.

Rituals owning a true position in gaining that type of mind state. With humans whose intention by practice is to only obtain that feeling for their whole community.

By being a practitioner first but mutually sharing that gained wisdom development with others.

So all family always feel welcomed nurtured and never belittled by false human hierarchy.

 

[wellwisher]

What are the criteria for determining a religion to be realistic? That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality. What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

The purpose of religion is to help people deal with human nature and unnatural behavior. Religion is designed to deal with human consciousness and the human mind. Science's best substitute for religion has been Psychology. This has not been doing very well, as a substitute, since this is considered soft science. The subject matter goes beyond the philosophy of science.

Since the rise of Psychology, we have had two world wars due to defects in human nature that were unleashed. It is not coincidence that Psychology evolved in Austria and Germany just before the first world war. Naturalism was not up to the task of anticipating these future problems it helped to unleash; Social Darwinism. Psychology is still at the stage of rational polytheism with the various sects each having a pay to play cult following.

For example, the homeless and drug situation is America, the land of plenty, is due to secular interests, which works hard to undermine religion. As secular degrades religion the problem gets worse. How could science not bring attention to this screw up? Science is patting itself on the back too soon.

Most of the problems connected to human nature and unnatural behavior, are connected to the human imagination, which is not limited to material reality. The gender nonsense is in the head; will and choice.The Russian Collusion Coup was an example of humans creating alternate reality. Did science see this first by comparing this to material reality? It always tells us, it knows what is real. Did it speak up to this imaginary religion? How many so-called scientists fell for it or just looked the other way? Science is not equipped to deal with things of the imagination, which can lead a country to social division.

If you have been keeping up with the Twitter File release, part 9 showed how a wide range of defense and intel agencies, besides the FBI; CIA and branches of the DOD, were working with Twitter and other social media, running a interference scam to help promote one side of the political spectrum. Why didn't science see this data tampering in advance? There appears to be blind spots within the materialism approach.

Trump was right about the Swamp in 2016, and how it is aligned to the DNC. It is used to create faux reality in its quest for power and abuse of power. Should this Cabal be defined as a religion, since its tactics are not consistent with material reality or any natural laws? Separation of Church and State should mean a loss of funding. Maybe we need to tax their funding. Maybe they can get funding through donations from their rich Cabal benefactors; freedom of religion.

 

[setarcos]

This is an argument from ignorance.

Sorry been so long…I’ve been indisposed.

First off, thanks for responding. Second I would ask that you show a modicum of respect for the other person’s perspective.

If one wishes to have a productive and instructive conversation about a subject matter it’s not wise to lead off with a statement which declares a person to be wrong. It’s more prudent - the more perceptive minds will know this - to allow the person to discover this for themselves by easing them into that discovery through explanation first.

The fact remains that naturalism is the most likely scenario we have now and it's the most supported by the evidence.

The most likely scenario for what? Science itself shows that there is portions of reality that we experience that it is incapable of shedding light on and naturalism cannot account for.

If you want to contest that, then you need evidence, not pseudo-philosophical rhetoric.

Sigh- I’ve been down this road before. What's your criteria for evidence? Science itself has provided the evidence! And how do you apply pseudo-philosophical to what I've said specifically? Or is that simply an argument from ignorance?

My response was more relevant to my point. Your question was not.

Um, shouldn't your point be relevant to my question? You know, the question you responded to, presumably for a relevant reason?



setarcos said: ↑

The truth of spatiotemporal events is not contingent upon their ability to be demonstrated.

Our ability to call them true is, though.

What does simply calling something true or not true have to do with reality?

I can tell you I feel wonderful. That doesn't make it true or even demonstrably true but it does self-evidently demonstrate your limited ability to determine reality.

1) It has demonstrated itself to be the most likely description of reality given our current evidence, so it's unrealistic to make claims that are incompatible with it.

Consider what has been called the “Naturalistic Fallacy”…

When the conclusion expresses what ought to be, based only on what is, or what ought not to be, based on what is not. This is very common, and most people never see the problem with these kinds of assertions due to accepted social and moral norms. This bypasses reason and we fail to ask why something that is, ought to be that way.

You may think it’s unrealistic but that would be irrational since reality has yet to be determined.

It’s already been demonstrated by the scientific community that the scientific method is limited in its ability to determine and describe all of reality. Since the scientific method is the primary if not sole tool for examination of what is real we might conclude then that naturalism cannot describe all of reality. Not only that but we may say that naturalism cannot describe reality as it is but can only model reality with a limited capacity, with the realization that our experience of reality exceeds sciences ability to determine.

It is of course possible that your naturalism is not my naturalism since there are different versions in circulation, including theological naturalism, so it might be best here to define terms.

How do you define naturalism and what is natural?

2) Not relevant to the thread, .

Not relevant to the thread? Naturalism touts its ability to explain/describe all that reality consists of. Yet it cannot prove this. Sounds faith based to me.

2 although I think it has generally debunked the existence of the non-natural given how it has investigated supernatural claims and repeatedly demonstrated them to be rooted in natural phenomena.

This would be a form of the confirmation bias fallacy. Since scientific inquiry has determined many supernatural claims to be "rooted in natural phenomena" it is probable that "all" claims are likely rooted in the same. This is where we would bring in a "science of the gaps" so to speak. Science can't explain it now, but it will eventually.

The fact of the matter is that there are a significant percentage of phenomena which have been scientifically investigated, sometimes during the event, which science has not been able to resolve with a natural explanation. As I've said...que "science of the gaps". There are also many events which science dismisses simply because scientists cannot figure out how to test a uniquely unrepeatable event beyond the testimony of the experiencer.

3) Depends on what you mean by this. There are the laws of physics, for instance.

"Laws" in science are a bit of a misnomer. No physical laws have proofs. All physical laws are probabilistic collections of many experiments. There are no proofs that any particular law cannot be at any point something other than what they have been determined to be at the moment of experimental determination. It is absolutely within the realm of possibility that tomorrow the "law" of gravity will change for some unknown realistic reason and cause chaotic cascades of effect in the universe.

Actually, if you ask any science technician or professor you will find that on occasion they have ran into anomalous results in there experimentation. Usually chocked up to faulty instrumentation, misinterpretation, or control mistakes by the scientist....but, what if, just what if, occasionally those anomalous results were accurate, even if unrepeatable, glimpses into the true nature of reality? Science has to ignore them because it’s often unknown or unproven how they happened and thus how to repeat the results. If you don't know where to begin, how can you?

A statement, for the sake of logical analysis, must be considered either true or false.

Okay, we take that as a logical axiom? And?

If you're doing probability analysis like risk management or decision theory, this is less relevant,

It’s not relevant at all. The logical application of probability analysis has nothing to do with certitude...unless you reach unopposed numbers so astronomical that probability becomes a kind of "Hobson's choice" with only one logical outcome.

if you're deciding what is true then logic is the tool you use.

Sure if certitude is achievable -which it often isn’t. Since reality deals with indeterminable certitudes at its core logic becomes impotent in its presence and must be confined to our ability to define certitudes through “if/then” and “given that” statements on a finitely framed scale.

I think you’re making the mistake of equating logic with probability. They are not equal terms. Actually they are the antithesis of each other. One deals in certainties, the other in uncertainties. We may however apply the proposed certainties obtained with logic to how we make necessary choices with uncertainty. I call this framing reality.

For instance, ancient hunter/gatherers might choose to avoid foods or water sources that seemed to kill those of their group that first tried them. That would be a logical choice given probabilistic uncertainty, but the choice would not be one of logical certainty - the food/water might not have been what killed them, or they might have had an allergy that others do not for instance.

Even in the face of high correlative probability it might not even be the most logical choice to make. If say, for instance, you were about to die of thirst and no other prospects were available nor time to find any, even though you saw almost all others die that drank, given no other options the most logical choice to attempt to live would be to take the chance and drink.

If a statement is not true, then it is false. If a statement cannot be demonstrated to be likely to be true, then it cannot be taken to be true. That means that it is going to be taken to be false, because it has to be assigned truth or falsity and it has not shown itself to be true. Since it cannot be called true, it has to be called false.

I think if we analyze your statement one assertion at a time you'll see you've made some logical fallacies.

According to your statement…

[A is NOT true. Therefore A IS false.] This can be taken as axiomatic and I agree.

Here’s where I think you start to stray from logic….

[IF “A Statement” cannot be demonstrated to be LIKELY true THEN “Statement” CANNOT be taken to BE true.]

“CANNOT be true” does not follow logically from “cannot be demonstrated to be LIKELY true” Since for this to be true your demonstration would have to include logical certitude about what can be true not simply likely true or false. If your demonstration cannot include logical certitude about what can be definitively demonstrated true or false then likely versus not likely cannot be definitively defined and likely cannot logically determine certainty.

[ “Statement” is going to be taken as false] Taking a statement to BE false does not logically follow from taking that “statement” to be LIKELY false.

[because it has to be assigned truth or falsity] It may have to be in a state of being true or false but that state does not logically follow from your presumptions of what that state MUST be. Likelihood does not equate to certitude. Especially if how one defines what is likely may be flawed. Schrodinger’s thought experiment might be relevant here.

So…basically your statement says, the thing has to be either true or false. Since the thing can’t be shown definitively to be true or false but we have data indicating that the thing is probably false we can logically deduce that the thing IS false. Your logic breaks down when you try to logically go from LIKELY to IS.

Also consider that our LIKELIES are framed by the tools and data we include in its determination.


Enough for now….

 

[wellwisher]

Reality has two aspects. There is outer reality and inner reality. Most of science deals with outer reality, while psychology and religion deal with inner reality; inner man. If one was afraid of cats, this can make it hard to study cats since there is an unconscious bias will shadow external reality. One would need to clean this up before they can see external reality in an objective way.

A mercenary scientist, who is driven by ambition and money, can still do good science. But his inner man is driven by ego-centricity. Ambition can make one compromise truth, for politics, prestige and money. Do you remember the bad advice by bureaucratic experts with COVID?

Religion deals with human nature and has a better handle on the inner man. Most religions are not ego-centic. Turn the other cheek, does not help the ego, since it makes the ego look weak and become a target. When religions become too ego-centric, problems start to appear. Religious Literalists often deny science observations of the outer world, since they fail to see that religious is geared to the inner man. Some systems are mapping out the psyche not the world.

Science is better at outer reality, but it does not deal much with inner reality, since its philosophy is about the outside and not the inside. The potential problem for science is since consciousness is the main tool of science, how can you calibrate this tool without knowing the inner man? Lack of calibration will shift all the curves. The curves still seem integrated, but too high or too low. Does going along mean truth? Or can this be a tactic to not stand out and be abused, for not running with the herd? The ego can pretend either way.

This is why we have both religion and science, since both are needed for consciousness to see the full picture of reality, inside and out, so there is proper calibration of consciousness. We need proper calibration to be able to see both inside and outside reality, apart from the ego.

Does anyone remember the Russian Collusion Coup? Even trained scientists fell for the scam. How is this possible, since they know so much about physical reality. They are weaker when it comes to inner reality. Such as these do not have a calibrated consciousness.

 

[LuisDantas]

What are the criteria for determining a religion to be realistic? That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality. What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

I would start by establishing some benchmarks and goals for a religion proper, before attempting to determine whether it is realistic.

As a starting point, I would determine that reliance on supernaturalism is by definition a flaw to be fought and if at all removed entirely. People will hold supernatural beliefs, of course, but that can't be accepted as part of the sustentation of a religion. Least of all if the eventual goal is to have a realistic religion.

Reasonable goals for a religion would include the establishment of set of concepts (language) to enable discussion of religious themes; of desirable and undesirable events according to whatever doctrine that religion adopts; of practices to develop and correct traits at both individual and collective levels.

In essence, it is a group that declares what it perceives as human improvement and presents activities to discuss, detail, course-correct and nurture that view according to circunstances.

Yes, it is a very restrictive conception of religion - and an utterly agnostic one (as well as apatheistic). I find that ideal if not indispensable.

 

[LuisDantas]

All creeds* of a religion that cannot provide claims and and its reasonable arguments from its core revealed book of its founder, is a false/unrealistic religion, please, right?

I for one am not seeing the connection. What you describe is a matter of reliability of transmission and origin.

Those are rather minor points and in no way helpful in making a religion realistic or even true (however you define truth here). It is entirely possible and perhaps frequent for a doctrine to improve its relevance and ethical value by diverging from its own origins. Adherents to a religion are not expected to fail consistently and inexorably at improving it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What are the criteria for determining a religion to be realistic? That is, a religion that conforms to and does not contradict what we know of reality. What criteria would we use to be able to recognize such a religion and/or determine such a religion unrealistic?

Anything not embellished or fabricated.

 

[JDMS]

Itd have to be based on things that are difficult to disprove or define the meaning of. "Everything is alive", "we get reincarnated", etc are statements that can be taken to mean nearly anything. Someone could be implying that particles are "alive" in a way, or reincarnation is just the reuse of atoms. Religions like this are "more realistic" because they play to terminology that can be taken a number of ways.

 

[FredVB]

Knowing reality would require of religion that it would be "realistic", in other words, not contradicting the reality that is known. The fault in this is any assumption that we know enough of reality. We really don't, it is just unfounded arrogance to think we do. We have a good idea of greater probability but that is not absolutely knowing, we do know things but those are a very small part of all reality. So with any intelligent awareness we will have faith in things beyond knowing, and religion is included in what faith might be had. Religion can deal with things that are not really known about reality. There can be faith in something in reality that is not really known of reality.

 

[Secret Chief]

It has to conform to physical laws, for one.

My central heating system doesn't seem to

(and the gas engineer agrees)

 

[wellwisher]

Reality is not just what is outside us, but it also what is inside us. To know reality you need to know both the outside and the inside, since consciousness is a major part of the equation. Science still changes since consciousness thinks it has the solution only to need an upgrade. Who predicted the core of the earth could rotate faster or slower than the surface. It takes consciousness to design experiments.

Animal instinct for example, does not deal with all aspects of outer reality. The lion is not concerned with the external reality of outer space, even though this is the largest part of reality. Their inner nature; inner reality, funnels them toward narrower aspects of the full set of inner and outer reality.

If humans evolved from apes, then humans were natural at one time. When did humans become unnatural and lose our instincts? What was the inner reality of the last natural humans and how did it funnel humans into natural outer reality? Once inner reality became unnatural war began. Their distorted perception of reality was full of greed and fear and the need to act out.

This original natural balance is what a good religion will try to balance. Religions is very old and started at the transition into the unnatural; civilization. They have records. Unlike science, it will not try to ignore the inner man and focus only on the outer man; ego, who has messed up natural reality after it lost its natural internal integration.

When you mess-up outer reality, you show that you are not really in touch with outer reality, since you mess it up; incompetence in both inner and outer reality. The lion takes what it is internally directed to take, and does not mess-up the rest of reality; this is called an optimized balance of inner and outer reality. Science is not yet up for the full task, since it philosophy does not yet include inner reality. I have been trying to get them to upgrade, but they are still not ready, since fake is better for the ego; will and choice, but this messes up inner and outer reality.

 

[Sand Dancer]

My central heating system doesn't seem to

(and the gas engineer agrees)

Funny but not funny. Stay warm.