Reality, Theory, God

[Moontanman]

Phi - This is interesting but I can't keep track. I'll cut it down.

 

 

Not all religious people are worshippers. Mohammed tells us 'An hour's contemplation is worth an year's worship'. And not all religions rely on interpretations of books, Bronze Age or otherwise. Some practices depend on burning them. I understand that you're a sceptic, I'm just trying to keep things fair.

 

Give us some examples of those religions, and as I've been told many times the Koran as told by Mohammad also says to kill anyone who converts to another religion, supports slavery of unbelievers and lots of other stuff that is a bit extreme. To be fair Christianity is no better, it has just been gelded by secularism...

 

 

It seemed to me that you went way beyond this. Obviously there is this difference between these things, and I would certainly agree that it would not be rational to to accept a religious doctrine as intontrovertibly true. Either you know it is true or you don't. Faith is not the same as self-delusion, or should not be. But here's the thing. There is no reason why a person should not study religion using a scientific methodology. For a sceptic there may be no other way to do it. It's your casual assumption that this would be impossible that I'm objecting to, not your methodology. You're highlighting a choice we don't have to make.

 

Religion has been subjected to scientific methodology, religion has always failed... always....

 

 

I agree that the claims of religion to certain knowledge (as opposed to dogma, which is more understandable) seem contrary to a healthy scepticism. How could such knowledge be possible? Many people believe that such knowledge is impossible, and you seem to be among them. But it would be impossible to know it is impossible, and so scepticism must allow for the possibility of certain knowledge. This would not entail that such knowledge actually is possible, of course, but it does mean that you cannot believe it is and remain a sceptic. The belief can only ever be a conjecture.

 

 

You are misusing the term "belief" in this context religious belief requires faith, scientific "belief" requires evidence, a theory is not just something some one thought up in a drunken stupor last night, even an hypothesis should be better thought out that that. You have claimed that religion contains knowledge, give an example of such knowledge, give an example of any knowledge that was given by a god or gods that was accurate scientifically. All you are doing it talking in circles trying to avoid being pinned down. Come on, man up, tell us this knowledge, lets hear it....

 

That seems to be partly true. The Gnostics were declared heretical to some extent due to their idea that religion is a living, evolving thing. But the Gnostics were also religious, and this criticism is not telling for all religion, just those that are 'religions of the book', and only then when we insist on a rigid historical interpretation. Sorry to be pedantic, but I hate seeing 'Religion' as a whole criticized for a fault that affects only a minority of its examples.

 

Sorry to be pedantic, but I hate seeing 'Religion' as a whole criticized for a fault that affects only a minority of its examples.

 

 

I call Horse Feathers on this, far more religious people have this fault than do not have this fault in their belief system, to suggest only a minority of people worship a religious book and it's contents is disingenuous to say the least, Christianity and Islam both worship based on a book, these two religions make up most of the people on this planet....

[Phi for All]

Not all religious people are worshippers. Mohammed tells us 'An hour's contemplation is worth an year's worship'.

My bad. I should have said "followers", perhaps. Or is that unfair?

 

And not all religions rely on interpretations of books, Bronze Age or otherwise. Some practices depend on burning them. I understand that you're a sceptic, I'm just trying to keep things fair.

I certainly didn't claim they all did. I merely mentioned those that do. Books like the Bible and the Koran are often called "sacred" by those whose beliefs are bound by them. Am I wrong?

 

It seemed to me that you went way beyond this.

I won't ask you to point out where (to avoid unnecessary nitpicking), but in re-reading my first post I have to disagree.

 

Obviously there is this difference between these things, and I would certainly agree that it would not be rational to to accept a religious doctrine as intontrovertibly true. Either you know it is true or you don't.

I don't get it. "Either you know it is true or you don't" seems like just the kind of incontrovertible statement that a skeptic should avoid.

 

Faith is not the same as self-delusion, or should not be.

I was very careful not to make any kind of qualitative judgement about religion, other than the observation that one risks greater error by accepting something as true as opposed to accepting something as the best current explanation. You seem to be reading a lot into my words and jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by what I wrote.

 

But here's the thing. There is no reason why a person should not study religion using a scientific methodology. For a sceptic there may be no other way to do it. It's your casual assumption that this would be impossible that I'm objecting to, not your methodology. You're highlighting a choice we don't have to make.

I made no such assumption. I never said studying religion using scientific methods was impossible. But there are some choices you would have to make. An unobservable deity is outside the natural world and therefore outside the purview of science.

 

I replied to tar's contention that one had to "believe" in scientific theories, with the stance that belief is the conviction that something is true, whereas scientific theory is simply the best, most supported explanation, reached using a methodology which is more trustworthy than belief.

 

I agree that the claims of religion to certain knowledge (as opposed to dogma, which is more understandable) seem contrary to a healthy scepticism. How could such knowledge be possible? Many people believe that such knowledge is impossible, and you seem to be among them. But it would be impossible to know it is impossible, and so scepticism must allow for the possibility of certain knowledge. This would not entail that such knowledge actually is possible, of course, but it does mean that you cannot believe it is and remain a sceptic. The belief can only ever be a conjecture.

This seems like word games to me, no offense. Religion is a broad topic and means something different to just about everybody. There are many things that make religion a valid study. I just wanted to point out where "belief" differs from accepting that a scientific theory offers the most supported explanation for natural phenomena.

 

I shun the concept of "belief" because conviction leads straight to being locked up. If we think we're right about something, we stop looking for other answers.

[PeterJ]

I certainly didn't claim they all did. I merely mentioned those that do. Books like the Bible and the Koran are often called "sacred" by those whose beliefs are bound by them. Am I wrong?

It seemed to me you used the general word 'religion' throughout, and made no distinction between the Mormons and the Alchemists.

 

I won't ask you to point out where (to avoid unnecessary nitpicking), but in re-reading my first post I have to disagree.

Well, I find your view that religion is nonsense evident in most of what you write. When I say nonsense, I just mean that you don't take its claims seriously.

 

I don't get it. "Either you know it is true or you don't" seems like just the kind of incontrovertible statement that a skeptic should avoid.

To me it seems simply a fact. Either we know a thing or we don't. This has nothing to do with being for or against scepticism.

 

I was very careful not to make any kind of qualitative judgement about religion, other than the observation that one risks greater error by accepting something as true as opposed to accepting something as the best current explanation. You seem to be reading a lot into my words and jumping to conclusions that aren't supported by what I wrote.

I see that you don't want to offend anyone, but your opinion of religion seems quite clear.

 

I made no such assumption. I never said studying religion using scientific methods was impossible. But there are some choices you would have to make. An unobservable deity is outside the natural world and therefore outside the purview of science.

Yes. But who said anything about unobservable deities? You dismiss the whole of religion, not just those with anthropomorphic gods. Some major religions are atheistic.

 

This seems like word games to me, no offense. Religion is a broad topic and means something different to just about everybody. There are many things that make religion a valid study. I just wanted to point out where "belief" differs from accepting that a scientific theory offers the most supported explanation for natural phenomena.

Yes, but why this instistence that religion is no more than unsupported beliefs? Let us agree that we do not agree with holding strong and unsupported beliefs.

 

I shun the concept of "belief" because conviction leads straight to being locked up. If we think we're right about something, we stop looking for other answers.

Couldn't agree more. It would be one reason why the Buddha asks us to abandon our views. No criticism of religion follows, however, only of those evangelists who ask us to blindly believe what they say was once said by someone else in a book, instead of looking for answers ouselves. For the writers of the Hindu Upanishads these are 'the hymn-reciters, robbers of life'. Religion is not all about blind beliefs, but some religious systems are, and I'm only suggesting that what you say about beliefs and so forth relates to some religions, and the whole of religion cannot be tarred with the same brush. I suppose I'm talking about rigour.

 

Yes, of course there are some daft religions. A few are completely bizarre, and it beyond my comprehension how anyone could belong to them. Then there is the perennial philosophy in its myriad forms, for which we are able, so it is said, to verify for ourselves what's true and what is not, and can choose to believe whatever we like until we do. It would certainly be discouraged to merely believe in third-person reports, as we must in physics, for, as you say, this could never be certain knowledge, no more than could words in a book. Scepticism is the only sane position. But it is a starting position, predicated on ignorance, and not where even the most commited sceptic should want to end up.

 

If scepticism claims too much, as it does when it claims that certain knowledge is impossible, then it becomes a paradoxical dogma stating that the perennial philsophy is false. I always assume that a person who holds that such knowledge is impossible must believe that all religion is nonsense, for this is what would immediately follow.

Edited December 7, 2011 by PeterJ

[Moontanman]

It seemed to me you used the general word 'religion' throughout, and made no distinction between the Mormons and the Alchemists.

 

Maybe because there is none?

 

Well, I find your view that religion is nonsense evident in most of what you write. When I say nonsense, I just mean that you don't take its claims seriously.

 

I assert religion is nonsense, Phi for all may have a different take on it but I think it is nonsense and it's contribution to the worlds store of knowledge confirms this.

 

 

To me it seems simply a fact. Either we know a thing or we don't. This has nothing to do with being for or against scepticism.

 

At one time we knew the earth was a flat disc covered by a crystal dome with water above the dome and below the earth..... That was a religious fact....

 

 

I see that you don't want to offend anyone, but your opinion of religion seems quite clear.

 

Religion is nonsense, it's not an opinion, there is no supporting evidence for religion, i make no apologies for that....

 

 

Yes. But who said anything about unobservable deities? You dismiss the whole of religion, not just those with anthropomorphic gods. Some major religions are atheistic.

 

That doesn't make them any more or less nonsense....

 

 

Yes, but why this instistence that religion is no more than unsupported beliefs? Let us agree that we do not agree with holding strong and unsupported beliefs.

 

Show some religious beliefs that are not unsupported by nonsense....

 

 

Couldn't agree more. It would be one reason why the Buddha asks us to abandon our views. No criticism of religion follows, however, only of those evangelists who ask us to blindly believe what they say was once said by someone else in a book, instead of looking for answers ouselves. For the writers of the Hindu Upanishads these are 'the hymn-reciters, robbers of life'. Religion is not all about blind beliefs, but some religious systems are, and I'm only suggesting that what you say about beliefs and so forth relates to some religions, and the whole of religion cannot be tarred with the same brush. I suppose I'm talking about rigour.

 

Again, please name a religion that is not made up of unsupported beliefs, the burden of proof is on you....

 

Yes, of course there are some daft religions. A few are completely bizarre, and it beyond my comprehension how anyone could belong to them. Then there is the perennial philosophy in its myriad forms, for which we are able, so it is said, to verify for ourselves what's true and what is not, and can choose to believe whatever we like until we do. It would certainly be discouraged to merely believe in third-person reports, as we must in physics, for, as you say, this could never be certain knowledge, no more than could words in a book. Scepticism is the only sane position. But it is a starting position, predicated on ignorance, and not where even the most commited sceptic should want to end up.

 

We do not know everything about anything and what we do know always contains some error, science readily admits this, only religion claims to have the absolute truth.. but you have to believe it on faith.

 

If scepticism claims too much, as it does when it claims that certain knowledge is impossible, then it becomes a paradoxical dogma stating that the perennial philsophy is false. I always assume that a person who holds that such knowledge is impossible must believe that all religion is nonsense, for this is what would immediately follow.

 

Please explain how being skeptical impedes the progress of knowledge, better yet name some verifiable knowledge provided by religion? Religion has not only never added to the sum total of human knowledge religion actively impedes this progress.

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

"At one time we knew the earth was a flat disc covered by a crystal dome with water above the dome and below the earth..... That was a religious fact...."

 

At one time man considered all the universe homogenous and that the universe would look the same to any observer anywhere and that the "Earthly laws of physics" were the same everywhere and always in the universe, and that the universe begat itself from a single point of nothingness.....These where religious facts....

 

Regards, TAR2

 

At least it was the best explanation we had at the time.

[Phi for All]

It seemed to me you used the general word 'religion' throughout, and made no distinction between the Mormons and the Alchemists.

For the purpose of what I was replying to, the use of the word belief with regard to scientific theory, no distinction was really needed.

 

Well, I find your view that religion is nonsense evident in most of what you write. When I say nonsense, I just mean that you don't take its claims seriously.

I never really commented on any religion's claims. I just said I prefer the firmer foundation the scientific method provides for explanations of natural phenomena. What are your qualifiers for taking something seriously? Did you want me to include my life's experience with spiritual matters and various religions before making a rational choice?

 

To me it seems simply a fact. Either we know a thing or we don't. This has nothing to do with being for or against scepticism.

"Knowing" a thing seems a lot like deciding something is "true". The distinction between believing something is true and accepting the best supported current explanation may seem trivial to you, but the latter seems not only to be a wiser choice, but it's also makes it easier to recognize a better explanation when it comes along.

 

I see that you don't want to offend anyone, but your opinion of religion seems quite clear.

That's an assumption you're not really entitled to, but I'd be happy to explain my position on practically any aspect of religion.

 

Yes. But who said anything about unobservable deities? You dismiss the whole of religion, not just those with anthropomorphic gods. Some major religions are atheistic.

You claimed I made a "casual assumption" that the scientific method couldn't be used with religion. I didn't "dismiss the whole of religion", I pointed out that unobservable deities are supernatural, something the scientific method is not equipped to explain.

 

Read back through my posts. I'm really just trying to define why accepting scientific explanations doesn't qualify as belief in the way most religions use the term.

 

Yes, but why this instistence that religion is no more than unsupported beliefs? Let us agree that we do not agree with holding strong and unsupported beliefs.

I didn't say "religion is no more than unsupported beliefs". I said scientific theories offer the most supported explanations.

 

If scepticism claims too much, as it does when it claims that certain knowledge is impossible, then it becomes a paradoxical dogma stating that the perennial philsophy is false. I always assume that a person who holds that such knowledge is impossible must believe that all religion is nonsense, for this is what would immediately follow.

Frankly, I've lost track of all the things you thought I said that I didn't. I don't know where I said "certain knowledge is impossible", but making an assumption that something will immediately follow is just the kind of thin-ice kind of reasoning I like to avoid.

[PeterJ]

Phi - Maybe I'm misreading you, but I'll reply to what you seem to be saying.

 

For the purpose of what I was replying to, the use of the word belief with regard to scientific theory, no distinction was really needed.

Yes, you think religion is nonsense. I know this already. It's not a topic that interests you. Fair enough. Fairness and rigour still deserve some respect. In this discussion I don't remember you ever taking care to distinguish between religions when dismissing them.

 

I never really commented on any religion's claims.

You think this because you don't know what those claims are. I do, so I can see that you dismiss them.

 

I just said I prefer the firmer foundation the scientific method provides for explanations of natural phenomena. What are your qualifiers for taking something seriously? Did you want me to include my life's experience with spiritual matters and various religions before making a rational choice?

There you go again, assuming that the scientific method is opposed to religion. You like the method, so use it. By making the claims you make about religion you are abandoning it for prejudice and over-generalised criticisms.

.

"Knowing" a thing seems a lot like deciding something is "true". The distinction between believing something is true and accepting the best supported current explanation may seem trivial to you, but the latter seems not only to be a wiser choice, but it's also makes it easier to recognize a better explanation when it comes along.

I find the distinction important, as I said earlier, and you miss my point. The belief that something is true is not certain knowledge, and nor is recognising a better explanation. You deny the idea that certain knowledge is possible, or that there is 'absolute truth', on the basis of no evidence. Where's the evidence? I'd say that 'knowing' does not involve making a decision that something is true. I don't decide whether I'm in pain. I just know.

 

Btw, I agree that an acceptance of a scientific explanations doesn't qualify as belief in the way most religions use the term. I would not agree that scientific theories always offer the most supported explanations. It depends on what is being explained. Religion tends to go in for fundamentals, while science tends to avoid them like the plague, so they tend to theorize in different areas.

 

Frankly, I've lost track of all the things you thought I said that I didn't. I don't know where I said "certain knowledge is impossible", but making an assumption that something will immediately follow is just the kind of thin-ice kind of reasoning I like to avoid.

It is not 'thin ice' reasoning, and I cannot see why you would imagine it is. It is a blunt and simple fact that if we believe that certain knowledge is impossible then we must conclude that religion is nonsense. This is easily demonstrated. You think otherwise only because you do not know the knowledge claims that are made by religion, or so it seems. This leads you to post sweeping and unrigorous comments that lead me to object to them. You are proposing that nobody can know if their religious faith is justified, and that none of the prophets and sages knew the truth. This would make religion nonsense.

 

But I agree that this discussion is impossible to keep track of. Shall we avoid the multiple quotes and just stick to the knowledge/belief question?

 

I assert religion is nonsense, Phi for all may have a different take on it but I think it is nonsense and it's contribution to the worlds store of knowledge confirms this.

At one time we knew the earth was a flat disc covered by a crystal dome with water above the dome and below the earth..... That was a religious fact....

Oh boy. No wonder you think religion is nonsense. I'd rather say that your idea of religion is whacky.

 

Religion is nonsense, it's not an opinion, there is no supporting evidence for religion, i make no apologies for that....

No need to aplogise. But it is an opinion, of course it is. It is certainly not a scientific view. A scientific view would be researched.

 

Show some religious beliefs that are not unsupported by nonsense....

Oaky. Kabbalists, Taoists, Buddhists, Sufis, Theosophists, Alchemists, Advaitans and Gnostics believe there is no creator God. To be pedantic, whether this is a belief would depend on who is claiming it, but in my case it's a belief.

 

We do not know everything about anything and what we do know always contains some error, science readily admits this, only religion claims to have the absolute truth.. but you have to believe it on faith.

Aha. Here may be the nub of the disagreement. It is not true that we have to take it in faith. Maybe we do for some forms of religion, but I'm not defending them.

 

Please explain how being skeptical impedes the progress of knowledge,

I don't think it does. In fact I'd say it's crucial to the process of gaining it.

 

better yet name some verifiable knowledge provided by religion? Religion has not only never added to the sum total of human knowledge religion actively impedes this progress.

All knowledge would be possible, so a list would be a long one. To say that religion, or, better, religious study and practice, has not added to human knowledge is to say that we do not believe its claims. How can you so vigorously deny its claims and then have to ask me what they are?

Edited December 7, 2011 by PeterJ

[Phi for All]

Yes, you think religion is nonsense. I know this already. It's not a topic that interests you. Fair enough. Fairness and rigour still deserve some respect. In this discussion I don't remember you ever taking care to distinguish between religions when dismissing them.

It's almost - repeat, almost - funny the way you keep trying to substitute your straw man "you think religion is nonsense" argument for my "science provides a more trustworthy explanation for me" argument. I understand why you feel the need to make me seem to ridicule religion. You want to lump me in with a category of people you feel able to dismiss due to the extremism of their stance.

 

Religion doesn't interest me?! I've been on these boards for the last seven years and have fought hard to keep this section open in spite of multiple attempts (some successful) to close it. You have no clue about what I've been saying if you think I'm trying to dismiss all religion.

 

 

You think this because you don't know what those claims are. I do, so I can see that you dismiss them.

This seems like an arrogant argument. This thread isn't about specific religions, so your assertion about my lack of knowledge of specific claims is unfounded.

 

There you go again, assuming that the scientific method is opposed to religion. You like the method, so use it. By making the claims you make about religion you are abandoning it for prejudice and over-generalised criticisms.

There you go again, arguing against something I didn't say. You need to start reading the actual, carefully chosen words I'm writing and stop generalizing yourself. I didn't say the scientific method is opposed to religion, I said it's about observing the natural world and therefore isn't interested in a supernatural deity. Before you go jumping the gun again, this is specifically in regards to deities who have chosen not to reveal themselves to the kind of observation science would require for study and experimentation. Just that. Only that. Read no more into it.

 

 

I find the distinction important, as I said earlier, and you miss my point. The belief that something is true is not certain knowledge, and nor is recognising a better explanation. You deny the idea that certain knowledge is possible, or that there is 'absolute truth', on the basis of no evidence. Where's the evidence? I'd say that 'knowing' does not involve making a decision that something is true. I don't decide whether I'm in pain. I just know.

I don't deny it, I never said it's impossible, I said I prefer not etching knowledge in stone or putting it under a sacred shroud where it remains free from scrutiny or investigation. Do you see the difference?

 

It is not 'thin ice' reasoning, and I cannot see why you would imagine it is. It is a blunt and simple fact that if we believe that certain knowledge is impossible then we must conclude that religion is nonsense. This is easily demonstrated. You think otherwise only because you do not know the knowledge claims that are made by religion, or so it seems. This leads you to post sweeping and unrigorous comments that lead me to object to them. You are proposing that nobody can know if their religious faith is justified, and that none of the prophets and sages knew the truth. This would make religion nonsense.

 

But I agree that this discussion is impossible to keep track of. Shall we avoid the multiple quotes and just stick to the knowledge/belief question?

What's making this hard to follow is your attempts to push my arguments into places I don't mean them to go. Quite frankly, I don't need as strong an argument as "religion is nonsense". I know that's an easier stance for you to rebut, but it doesn't reflect reality.

 

Honestly, you remind me of my 12-year-old. With her, if something isn't great it's horrible, if food isn't yummy it's gross, if a game isn't exciting it's boring. Why do you assume that if I say I prefer the firmer grounding and the rigor of scientific methodology that I must think religion is nonsense? There are many valid aspects of spirituality and even specific religious teachings. I just think science has a firmer claim on those aspects that are based in reality and the observable universe.

[PeterJ]

Phi - I'm happy to cut this down to just the points I make about your last para. But I'll deal with all of it.

 

It's almost - repeat, almost - funny the way you keep trying to substitute your straw man "you think religion is nonsense" argument for my "science provides a more trustworthy explanation for me" argument. I understand why you feel the need to make me seem to ridicule religion. You want to lump me in with a category of people you feel able to dismiss due to the extremism of their stance.

No. I just see that you dismiss the knowledge claims of religion. You keep doing it, and saying you're not doing it doesn't make much sense when your posts are still there to read.

 

Religion doesn't interest me?! I've been on these boards for the last seven years and have fought hard to keep this section open in spite of multiple attempts (some successful) to close it. You have no clue about what I've been saying if you think I'm trying to dismiss all religion.

You keep saying things that religion would dispute, so what can I do but assume you don't take it seriously? What else can I assume? Maybe we're having a miscommunication, but your words seem clear enough.

 

This seems like an arrogant argument. This thread isn't about specific religions, so your assertion about my lack of knowledge of specific claims is unfounded.

Not arrogant. You mke claims and don't appear to know they are inconsistent with many of those made in religion, so I just reached the natural conclusion. Your comments apply to specific religions, and not all of them. If they applied to all of them I wouldn't be nitpicking.

 

There you go again, arguing against something I didn't say. You need to start reading the actual, carefully chosen words I'm writing and stop generalizing yourself. I didn't say the scientific method is opposed to religion, I said it's about observing the natural world and therefore isn't interested in a supernatural deity.

Yes. This is what I objected to. You seem to think religion is all about supernatural deities. I therefore assume you have not taken much interest in it. I wasn't being rude, just drawing a reasonable conclusion.

 

Before you go jumping the gun again, this is specifically in regards to deities who have chosen not to reveal themselves to the kind of observation science would require for study and experimentation. Just that. Only that. Read no more into it.

Okay. But I wish we could move on from all this talk of deities. They are not necessary to religion, merely sufficient.

 

I don't deny it, I never said it's impossible, I said I prefer not etching knowledge in stone or putting it under a sacred shroud where it remains free from scrutiny or investigation. Do you see the difference?

Yes of course. So why do you state that absolute truth is impossible?

 

What's making this hard to follow is your attempts to push my arguments into places I don't mean them to go. Quite frankly, I don't need as strong an argument as "religion is nonsense". I know that's an easier stance for you to rebut, but it doesn't reflect reality.

Well, it still seems that it reflects reality to me. I'm only reading what you write. Perhaps it would help if you clarified your position on religion, so I don't keep making these mistakes. Which one do you feel is most plausible?

 

Honestly, you remind me of my 12-year-old. With her, if something isn't great it's horrible, if food isn't yummy it's gross, if a game isn't exciting it's boring. Why do you assume that if I say I prefer the firmer grounding and the rigor of scientific methodology that I must think religion is nonsense? There are many valid aspects of spirituality and even specific religious teachings. I just think science has a firmer claim on those aspects that are based in reality and the observable universe.

There you go. This says it all. This is the epicentre of our dispute. If you don't know that religion claims to be about reality and to deal in absolute truths, while the natural sciences claim to be about the relative world and to deal only with relative truths, (hence the permanent need for scepticism) then it is because you don't take religion seriously enough to look into it. You do not even acknowledge that much of religion requires the same methodology as science. One claim of religion is that the truth about the world, our existence, etc, can be known with certainty by human beings. You dismiss this claim. Ergo you believe that religion is nonsense. If Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao-tsu etc. did not know the truth about reality then they are charletons and liars, and this appears to be what you are suggesting. Or would this this be another misunderstanding? Do you believe it possible for someone to know the truth about God? If not, then you are dismissing any religion that teaches otherwise. It would mean that all religious teachings are unverifiable dogma.

 

I don't expect we're far apart in our approach to these things, both being highly sceptical people by nature. If I thought that science had a 'firmer claim on those aspects that are based in reality' than religion, I'd have nothing more to do with it. More accurately, if I thought that religion could not be pursued scientifically I'd have nothing more to do with it. You think my view is nonsense, which is fine. I don't want evangelicise. But I think you reach your conclusions about religion for unsound reasons, and this makes them worth discussing as an academic issue. Or that's how I see it.

Edited December 7, 2011 by PeterJ

[mooeypoo]

It's almost - repeat, almost - funny the way you keep trying to substitute your straw man "you think religion is nonsense" argument for my "science provides a more trustworthy explanation for me" argument. I understand why you feel the need to make me seem to ridicule religion. You want to lump me in with a category of people you feel able to dismiss due to the extremism of their stance.

No. I just see that you dismiss the knowledge claims of religion. You keep doing it, and saying you're not doing it doesn't make much sense when your posts are still there to read.

You mean you ASSUME he wants to dismiss the knowledge claims of religion? For a person that seems to insist on conciseness to the (almost aburd) extreme, you don't seem to follow your own advice.

 

Phi doesn't claim what you say he claims. Further, he keeps telling you are wrong when you say he thinks religion is nonsense. This is a very simple matter here; you can claim it seems like he thinks religion is nonsense, which will lead him to either agree or correct you (or correct himself and rephrase if needed). You cannot, however, say he thinks that, since you don't know what he thinks. You are not in his mind.

 

I think much of this repetitive strawmanning in this thread stems out of that fact. Perhaps if you take your own advice and phrase your own claim better, you will actually get somewhere rather than try to trip Phi with his own words with disregard to his actual meaning.

 

It's quite clear you already decided what Phi thinks, and it seems you are not quite willing to review this no matter what he says. You show that no matter how many times he tells you "That's not what Ithink", instead of trying to weigh his argument, you go on a subjective rant reinterpreting every syllable to come out with the pre-conceived conclusion of what you think he thinks.

 

With due respect, that's not how a civil debate should be done.

 

 

Religion doesn't interest me?! I've been on these boards for the last seven years and have fought hard to keep this section open in spite of multiple attempts (some successful) to close it. You have no clue about what I've been saying if you think I'm trying to dismiss all religion.

You keep saying things that religion would dispute, so what can I do but assume you don't take it seriously? What else can I assume? Maybe we're having a miscommunication, but your words seem clear enough.

You don't need to assume anything, Peter. You can ask, Phi is right here and answers you.

 

Same here:

This seems like an arrogant argument. This thread isn't about specific religions, so your assertion about my lack of knowledge of specific claims is unfounded.

Not arrogant. You mke claims and don't appear to know they are inconsistent with many of those made in religion, so I just reached the natural conclusion. Your comments apply to specific religions, and not all of them. If they applied to all of them I wouldn't be nitpicking.

 

Let me save you the trouble:

Phi, can you repeat, please, the things that you said that are disputed by religion?

 

Peter, can you give a few actual example of claims Phi made about religion that are disputed?

 

We can start talking practicalities and stop with this whole miscommunication battle. We're here to discuss, not win.

 

 

There you go again, arguing against something I didn't say. You need to start reading the actual, carefully chosen words I'm writing and stop generalizing yourself. I didn't say the scientific method is opposed to religion, I said it's about observing the natural world and therefore isn't interested in a supernatural deity.

Yes. This is what I objected to. You seem to think religion is all about supernatural deities. I therefore assume you have not taken much interest in it. I wasn't being rude, just drawing a reasonable conclusion.

Peter, you're doing it again.

 

Phi said the scientific method is about observing the natural world, and therefore isn't interested in a supernatural deity.

You claim he said that religion is "all about" supernatural deities.

 

That is a strawman. Whatever you assume after that is based on that strawman, and is irrelevant.

 

 

Phi spoke about science, not about religion. It seems to me that you are the one with the preconceived notion about a rather strong relationship between science and religion and you insist to correlate Phi's perception to fit yours, which is when you misinterpret him. He made no such correlation.

 

I don't deny it, I never said it's impossible, I said I prefer not etching knowledge in stone or putting it under a sacred shroud where it remains free from scrutiny or investigation. Do you see the difference?

Yes of course. So why do you state that absolute truth is impossible?

 

Claim: "I prefer not riding horses when I'm tired."

Counter claim: "How can you say riding horses is impossible?!"

 

Strawman, in the making.

 

That said, I too believe "absolute truth" is unattainable. Notice, please that I don't use "impossible" because that word is irrelevant to 'truth', as it's not something that is or isn't possible, it just is. I do think, however, that our past and current experience in both science and religion (and arts, spirituality, language, and most everything else) shows us that our "ultimate truth" changes slightly. That's how we tend to define "progress".

 

What's making this hard to follow is your attempts to push my arguments into places I don't mean them to go. Quite frankly, I don't need as strong an argument as "religion is nonsense". I know that's an easier stance for you to rebut, but it doesn't reflect reality.

Well, it still seems that it reflects reality to me. I'm only reading what you write. Perhaps it would help if you clarified your position on religion, so I don't keep making these mistakes. Which one do you feel is most plausible?

It reflects reality to you because you force it to. Stop assuming what Phi means. Check out the next quote, this brings the entire things way over the cliff on your part, PeterJ:

 

Honestly, you remind me of my 12-year-old. With her, if something isn't great it's horrible, if food isn't yummy it's gross, if a game isn't exciting it's boring. Why do you assume that if I say I prefer the firmer grounding and the rigor of scientific methodology that I must think religion is nonsense? There are many valid aspects of spirituality and even specific religious teachings. I just think science has a firmer claim on those aspects that are based in reality and the observable universe.

There you go. This says it all. This is the epicentre of our dispute. If you don't know that religion claims to be about reality and to deal in absolute truths, while the natural sciences claim to be about the relative world and to deal only with relative truths, (hence the permanent need for scepticism) then it is because you don't take religion seriously enough to look into it. You do not even acknowledge that much of religion requires the same methodology as science. One claim of religion is that the truth about the world, our existence, etc, can be known with certainty by human beings. You dismiss this claim. Ergo you believe that religion is nonsense. If Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Lao-tsu etc. did not know the truth about reality then they are charletons and liars, and this appears to be what you are suggesting. Or would this this be another misunderstanding? Do you believe it possible for someone to know the truth about God? If not, then you are dismissing any religion that teaches otherwise. It would mean that all religious teachings are unverifiable dogma.

 

I'm not sure if I should even do much of an answering here. Phi said A, you said something like "There you go, B, hence C, hance D."

 

First problem is that he didn't say B. Second problem is that "B hence C" is not as obvious as you seem to make it. That is, even if your initial premise of what he said was right, your follow up claims and conclusion -- about what another person THINKS despite the fact he keeps telling you he does NOt think that -- is a non sequitor. It doesn't follow, PeterJ. You're using weird chain of logical premises to come to a conclusion you want to come, not the one that was presented.

 

I don't expect we're far apart in our approach to these things, both being highly sceptical people by nature. If I thought that science had a 'firmer claim on those aspects that are based in reality' than religion, I'd have nothing more to do with it. More accurately, if I thought that religion could not be pursued scientifically I'd have nothing more to do with it. You think my view is nonsense, which is fine. I don't want evangelicise. But I think you reach your conclusions about religion for unsound reasons, and this makes them worth discussing as an academic issue. Or that's how I see it.

Risking treading in mud here, I have to say I disagree with the above, but that's my own opinion. I see religion and science as two different methodologies. Not necessarily all-exclusive, and not necessarily against one anotehr, but they are completely different. As such, they deal with different types of questions, and go at answering those questions in different ways.

 

I think religion can be pursued scientifically, and it is in a neurological, biological, evolutionary and psychological sense. In those aspects it makes a lot of sense. There are, however, aspects of some religions (see how I do my best not to generalize here, since generalizations bring about most of the miscommunication imho in this thread) that are NOT following reality. That is, science deals with these aspects and found those aspects to be either flawed, inconsistent, or outright false.

 

That doesn't mean "religion is bunk". It might mean SOME aspects of religion are bunk, though even that is disputable when you raise the issue of the need to have belief. A particular aspect might be "bunk" in rigid scientific terms but still have value as a form of belief. There's no harm there. They're not necessarily mutually exlusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think we should really back track here. There's no point in arguing with anyone about what exists in their own mind. I can be absolutely certain that Phi thinks I'm the awesomest person on Earth, but it won't do anything if he tells me that's not wht he thinks. Claiming he doesn't know what he thinks in his own mind is condescending, and isn't conducive to a civil debate.

 

You both should take a step back and start over. For the past few posts it's more about "I don't think X" "YES YOU DO!" rather than actually discussing the topic of the thread.

 

Maybe we should all just go back on topic, and start *asking* one another what we mean when we say X rather than insist we know they meant what they insist they don't.

 

 

~mooey

[tar]

So, the question is, in your own first person, what is it that you understand, that I don't see, that they are getting wrong?

 

This was and is a thing I am "investigating" and it is interesting how Phi and PeterJ are sort of answering me, without trying.

 

Mooey,

 

I agree that those avenues, neurology, biolology, evolution, psychology and probably some other "sciences" that deal with the human do indeed offer possible approaches to understanding religion from an actual, verifiable, or falsifiable perspective. This is not to take away from our personal connection and relationship with that which is beyond our understanding or that which is absolute or that which is greater than us or whatever Reality/theory/God turns out to be...but to understand how it is such in ways that are sensible to all.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Can't tell why I think this is important to this question, but do you remember a few years back a thread discussing the "what color is my hat" riddles?

 

In one of the riddles, the answer was only deduced "after" the realization that nobody could determine the color of their own hat.

Edited December 8, 2011 by tar

[Moontanman]

 

 

No. I just see that you dismiss the knowledge claims of religion. You keep doing it, and saying you're not doing it doesn't make much sense when your posts are still there to read.

 

 

 

 

I'd really like to know, No, I mean really like to know, what knowledge does any religion have that humans couldn't have without religion? Just exactly what are the knowledge claims of religion that are being dismissed here? Evidently to you it doesn't matter what religion we are discussing so I'll not specify that you identify a religion that has this knowledge, just tell me what that knowledge is.....

[mooeypoo]

Mooey,

 

I agree that those avenues, neurology, biolology, evolution, psychology and probably some other "sciences" that deal with the human do indeed offer possible approaches to understanding religion from an actual, verifiable, or falsifiable perspective. This is not to take away from our personal connection and relationship with that which is beyond our understanding or that which is absolute or that which is greater than us or whatever Reality/theory/God turns out to be...but to understand how it is such in ways that are sensible to all.

 

Regards, TAR2

Tar,

 

I personally think that religion is most relevant to the fields above, mostly so in psychological aspects. While I can't generalize to say that "all religion" or "all religions" or "all aspects of religion" go against reality, I think that there are quite a number of aspects of religion that do go against reality. My personal belief aside, I think that we need to be honest with ourselves. If what we hold as true is due to scientific methodology, or if what we hold as true is due to belief regardless of scientific methodology.

 

My problem is not with neither of those, my problem is people who decide to force scientific methodologies to beliefs that don't fit them ("The world was created 6000 years ago" is an example). If one wants to hold a belief that is against what we know empirically of reality, that's their business; I don't see it as any obligation to convince them otherwise unless they explicitly invite me to do so.

 

However, If one insists on abusing scientific methodology to reinforce dogmas that are against what the evidence show us, I feel it's not only my right to argue back, but it's my obligation as a budding scientist to set the record straight.

 

 

Science isn't a belief, it's a methodology, and if someone chooses to use it, they'll have to use it consistently, including having their claims questioned, their evidence scrutinized and their premises shaken and peer-reviewed. If certain religious people don't want to do that to their religious beliefs, they should stay away from claiming ownership on scientific methodology. Going 'half way' doesn't cut it.

 

 

 

~mooey

[Phi for All]

I think we should really back track here. There's no point in arguing with anyone about what exists in their own mind. I can be absolutely certain that Phi thinks I'm the awesomest person on Earth, but it won't do anything if he tells me that's not wht he thinks. Claiming he doesn't know what he thinks in his own mind is condescending, and isn't conducive to a civil debate.

 

You both should take a step back and start over. For the past few posts it's more about "I don't think X" "YES YOU DO!" rather than actually discussing the topic of the thread.

Thanks for that mooey, and you're right, the argument really had no point. It wasn't really about religion or science. I found myself just correcting PeterJ's re-interpretation of what I'd written. I really dislike fallacious logic used as an argument against ANY statement, much less personal opinion.

 

Btw moo, I DO think you're the awesomest person on Earth, and don't let PeterJ tell you any differently.

 

 

So, the question is, in your own first person, what is it that you understand, that I don't see, that they are getting wrong?

[

When it comes to faith, and those things that people believe without the kind of evidence that the scientific method would consider supportive, I don't automatically assume someone is getting it wrong. There are many things we don't know about, many greater powers possible. But assuming we understand those powers to the extent that many religions claim seems hasty and lacking in reasoned judgement.

 

There are many claims religious followers make that can be refuted or better explained by science, such as creationism, or faces on shrouds or pieces of toast. Belief in the supernatural, that which can't be tested or predicted using science, also has its value, but that can only be measured by the individual holding such beliefs. Things that can't be repeated or tested, those things that offer no predictive power as a foundation for the measurable advancement of knowledge, these things don't interest science, but they have a power in people's thoughts and actions.

 

Again I'll say, I prefer the firm foundation, the careful steps that science takes as opposed to the leaps of faith and mysterious ways of many (not all) religions. I find a lot of wisdom in religious writings, but prefer my knowledge more filtered by testing.

[Moontanman]

 

Can't tell why I think this is important to this question, but do you remember a few years back a thread discussing the "what color is my hat" riddles?

 

In one of the riddles, the answer was only deduced "after" the realization that nobody could determine the color of their own hat.

 

 

Sounds like Indian poker...

[mooeypoo]

Btw moo, I DO think you're the awesomest person on Earth, and don't let PeterJ tell you any differently.

I would say you do even if you claim you didn't. The greatness of selective logic.

 

There are many claims religious followers make that can be refuted or better explained by science, such as creationism, or faces on shrouds or pieces of toast. Belief in the supernatural, that which can't be tested or predicted using science, also has its value, but that can only be measured by the individual holding such beliefs. Things that can't be repeated or tested, those things that offer no predictive power as a foundation for the measurable advancement of knowledge, these things don't interest science, but they have a power in people's thoughts and actions.

 

Again I'll say, I prefer the firm foundation, the careful steps that science takes as opposed to the leaps of faith and mysterious ways of many (not all) religions. I find a lot of wisdom in religious writings, but prefer my knowledge more filtered by testing.

 

You know, I think we're comparing two completely different things here. Science is a set of methodologies for analyzing reality as objectively as possible. Religion is (usually) a set of answers.

 

Science is about "what do we do to get an answer to X".

Religion is about "what is the answer to X".

 

 

I tend to separate "spirituality" (some sort of belief in a higher power, a god, etc) and religion (which is more organized). I think we might want to be more specific when we discuss religion in general in this thread too. Are we referring to the "system" that is religion, or are we talking about personal beliefs that might be more flexible? It's an important distinction.

 

~mooey

[Moontanman]

I would say you do even if you claim you didn't. The greatness of selective logic.

 

 

 

You know, I think we're comparing two completely different things here. Science is a set of methodologies for analyzing reality as objectively as possible. Religion is (usually) a set of answers.

 

Science is about "what do we do to get an answer to X".

Religion is about "what is the answer to X".

 

 

I tend to separate "spirituality" (some sort of belief in a higher power, a god, etc) and religion (which is more organized). I think we might want to be more specific when we discuss religion in general in this thread too. Are we referring to the "system" that is religion, or are we talking about personal beliefs that might be more flexible? It's an important distinction.

 

~mooey

 

 

I agree, for me it's the system that rubs me the wrong way, if you are spiritually inspired by the full moon i have no problem with it, ask me to join you, no problem. Be upset that it doesn't effect me that way? Creepy... Require me to feel that way, unacceptable. Be hell bent on changing civilization to fit your feelings about the moon....

 

Now i do think religion is real, it's as real as syphilis and and almost as transmittable but I have to say and I think I have said this already, it's the written word that is causing most of the problem, until the written word religion was a fluid thing, told around the fire at night, stories about great deeds done by great men and even greater gods. These stories mirrored the Zeitgeist of the times.

 

Human interaction evolved in the direction of larger more cooperative groups dominating the smaller less cooperative groups and the stories of the times mirrored this but then someone figured out how to write things down. Suddenly exactly what some one said last year about the effect of the gods or god could be reread exactly the way it was told last time, no further evolution of the stories was possible but human civilization continued on and the written stories of old are used by believers to hold us back, prevent change but change still occurs and thus the rending of religion from the human Zeitgeist...

[PeterJ]

I think we might want to be more specific when we discuss religion in general in this thread too.

Yes. I don't think there's any 'might' about it. Unless we do this I can't see how to have a sensible discussion about religion.

 

Phi - Here is what you said.

 

"To the skeptical mind, there are no absolutes, no firmly fixed truths, no proofs, no beliefs. Scientific theory simply offers the best current explanation for observable phenomena, as free from bias and interpretation as we can possibly get. This keeps us questing for the refinement of our knowledge, always seeking ways to test what we think we know.

 

Belief requires absolute adherence to a certain answer. There's usually no way to test a belief so we have to suspend skepticism even further. Religious belief adds a "sacred" factor, threatening eternal punishment if the belief is questioned, making any kind of progress all but impossible. Scriptures written for bronze age primitives have to be interpreted with maddening vagueness to derive meaning for modern people. People stop thinking about the question when they "believe" they know the answer.

As you say you are a sceptic, then I must read this as saying that in your view all religion is nonsense. It makes no distinction between them but is aimed at them all. It shows that you equate the whole of religion with the particular systems of religious practice and belief to which these objections would apply, or a particularly 'unscientific' interpretation of scriptures, and feel no need to be fair to religion by distinguishing between different forms of it. Scientific theory offers no current explanation for observable phenomena, just theories about their behaviour, and yet you prefer that lack of explanation to any explanation offered by religion. How much more dismissive could you be?

 

I really can't imagine what else a person could conclude from these words. Really. Why would you make this statement and then complain when someone assumes that you think religion is nonsense? You say it is here in plain words. You could hardly state your view more clearly. Okay, you don't use the word nonsense, but that's a technicality.

 

Yes, Mooey, I'm being pedantic. I'm asking for some rigour because without it a sensible discussion on this topic is not possible. I'm asking for the same consideration we give to science.

 

Phi...."When it comes to faith, and those things that people believe without the kind of evidence that the scientific method would consider supportive, I don't automatically assume someone is getting it wrong. There are many things we don't know about, many greater powers possible. But assuming we understand those powers to the extent that many religions claim seems hasty and lacking in reasoned judgement.

 

There are many claims religious followers make that can be refuted or better explained by science, such as creationism, or faces on shrouds or pieces of toast. Belief in the supernatural, that which can't be tested or predicted using science, also has its value, but that can only be measured by the individual holding such beliefs. Things that can't be repeated or tested, those things that offer no predictive power as a foundation for the measurable advancement of knowledge, these things don't interest science, but they have a power in people's thoughts and actions.

 

Again I'll say, I prefer the firm foundation, the careful steps that science takes as opposed to the leaps of faith and mysterious ways of many (not all) religions. I find a lot of wisdom in religious writings, but prefer my knowledge more filtered by testing.repeat

 

I have no problem with this. It is quite careful and makes no wild claims, just says that we should build our knowledge on firm foundations and careful steps. I agree. Fortunately religion does not require that we must change our minds about this. Only a few well known examples do. Religious practice often requires that we build our knowledge on firm foundations and in careful steps, testing our theories and conjectures empirically every step of the way. Only the dogmatic religions are guilty of not encouraging this approach, and I suspect they will eventually fade away because of it.

 

However, it is still possible to read into this second quote of yours a low opinion of religion. A central claim of religion is that we can verify the truth of its claims empirically and with complete certainty. If we believe that religion produces no knowledge that is more certain than that produced by the natural sciences, as you say you do, then you are dismissing the knowledge claims of religion as nonsense. If you did not think they were nonsense then you would be unable to hold this view of knowledge.

 

Just to be clear, I'm trying to be fair to the claims of religion, and not arguing that they're true or false.

Edited December 8, 2011 by PeterJ

[Phi for All]

As you say you are a sceptic, then I must read this as saying that in your view all religion is nonsense.

YOU. ARE. WRONG.

 

Your logic is atrocious and fallacious. I've tried using clear statements to show you why, so I'm reduced to words a child should understand. You're the only person here who "can't imagine what else a person could conclude from these words", yet you fail to grasp what this should clearly tell you:

 

YOU. ARE. WRONG.

[mooeypoo]

PeterJ, you're not seriously suggesting that "Skeptics" mean ridiculing religion? Maybe you know a skeptic that does that, but not all do, that's absolutely far from being the default position of skeptics, and you are again strawmanning.

 

Yes, Mooey, I'm being pedantic. I'm asking for some rigour because without it a sensible discussion on this topic is not possible. I'm asking for the same consideration we give to science.

You're not being pedantic, you're being unfair, and you're strawmanning Phi's position -- and, it seems, skeptics in general.

 

I consider myself a skeptic too. And yet, I am far from hating or ridiculing religion(s). My local "Skeptics in the Pub" group has a few people who are, in fact, non atheists, and we have some that are full blown religious. Skepticism does not equal combative anti religionism.

 

 

 

 

I will answer the rest of your claims when I get back from work.

[Moontanman]

PeterJ I asked you a perfectly reasonable question yet you refuse to answer it preferring to dance in circles and say nothing and imply everything. How about answering my question.....

[mooeypoo]

I have no problem with this. It is quite careful and makes no wild claims, just says that we should build our knowledge on firm foundations and careful steps. I agree. Fortunately religion does not require that we must change our minds about this. Only a few well known examples do.

 

Stop generalizing. Which religion "does not require that we must change our minds about this" ?? I can give you quite a number of examples of religions that *DO* require you change your mind. In fact, the whole political battle that's still raging in the US educational system about Creationism vs Evolution (Or the so called "Intelligent Design" which is remarkably similar to creationism without the mention of a specific 'god') is a good example.

 

The Evangelical Creationism museum is another example.

 

That said, there's also the issue of WHAT it is you speak of when you ask about religion. If you talk about specific individual beliefs, maybe you're right. If you speak of the bible, the quran and the old testament, you'll be absolutely wrong.

 

The old testament has absolute claims that are contradictory to reality, from the idea that tens of thousands of species can fit into a small boat in the flood, to the idea that the earth is flat, etc. The only way to fit those to reality is re-interpret them -- which is possible, but creates secondary problems. But then we also move into the question o what, exactly, it is that the RELIGION claims -- is it what's in the book, or what's in the people's minds, or one part of the religious group, etc.

 

Hence, the danger of generalization.

Religious practice often requires that we build our knowledge on firm foundations and in careful steps, testing our theories and conjectures empirically every step of the way. Only the dogmatic religions are guilty of not encouraging this approach, and I suspect they will eventually fade away because of it.

 

Some do, some don't, which is why you should start following your own "pedantic" advice and stop generalizing.

 

However, it is still possible to read into this second quote of yours a low opinion of religion.

Everything is possible if you really really try to. I'm going to ignore the next paragraph because it's an irrelevant attempt on your part to insist Phi thinks something he is telling you he doesn't think.

 

Move on from this, PeterJ.

 

Just to be clear, I'm trying to be fair to the claims of religion, and not arguing that they're true or false.

 

If you are, then stop generalizing and stop assuming you know what people mean before they explain it. If you are unsure of something, ask. People respond and clarify. Stop assuming, it's getting very distracting from the ACTUAL points that are made in the thread.

 

 

 

Also, as Moontanman pointed out, a few other questions were raised in this thread and you conveniently skipped them. I raised a few points too in my posts.

 

Can we move on from the irrelevant points about what you assume Phi's inner world looks like and go on to the actual points made?

 

~mooey

[Phi for All]

Religious practice often requires that we build our knowledge on firm foundations and in careful steps, testing our theories and conjectures empirically every step of the way.

Can you, please, cite some examples of what you mean here? It might help with your answer to Moontanman's request here:

 

PeterJ I asked you a perfectly reasonable question yet you refuse to answer it preferring to dance in circles and say nothing and imply everything. How about answering my question.....

... which, to make it easy to find, is here:

 

I'd really like to know, No, I mean really like to know, what knowledge does any religion have that humans couldn't have without religion? Just exactly what are the knowledge claims of religion that are being dismissed here? Evidently to you it doesn't matter what religion we are discussing so I'll not specify that you identify a religion that has this knowledge, just tell me what that knowledge is.....

[PeterJ]

YOU. ARE. WRONG.

 

Your logic is atrocious and fallacious. I've tried using clear statements to show you why, so I'm reduced to words a child should understand. You're the only person here who "can't imagine what else a person could conclude from these words", yet you fail to grasp what this should clearly tell you:

 

YOU. ARE. WRONG.

Oh, right. I can see why you're so annoyed if this is what you think I've been proposing. No, of course I'm not proposing this. I'm surprised you could think I'd be so idiotic. Your interpretation of my comments is what is incorrect, that's all. This may well be my fault, but I expect it's a bit of both of us.

 

I started out by suggesting that your version of scepticism, at least as you explained it, would be self-defeating and paradoxical, and that it would rule out the possibility of religious truths. I don't know why it became so complicated. We can agree that scepticism is what we should maintain until we have knowledge. Fine. But scepticism does not allow us to dismiss the knowledge claims of other people. If we are sceptical people, and if we do not know that those claims are false, then we are obliged to remain sceptical. Iow, we can completely agree that scepticism with a small 'c' is a rational approach to the study of anything. But this cannot be extended to the claim that true knowledge is impossible, for this claim would be the abandoment of scepticism.

 

I read you as taking the second position, as saying that truth is impossible to know, that true knowledge is impossible. This would be what I meant by 'epistemilogical nihilism'. To say that true knowledge is impossible would be to say unequivocally that religion is nonsense. It would also be to accuse many millions of people who have claimed to speak from knowledge of making it all up. My preferred religion sometimes claims that knowledge is impossible, but it is not in this sense. Is not the whole point of studying something to do away with the need for scepticism?

 

Anyway, can I have a go at stripping away the muddle and come at it a different way. I don't want to fall out with anyone, but it's would be nice to reach some sort of conclusion. Whether we need to disagree anymore seems to all hinge on one question.

 

Q. In regard to the sort of questions that religion asks, and also claims to answer, would your scepticism allow for the possibility that the answers to them can be known with certainty, such that there could be no possiblity of disbelief and no possibility of error?

 

If the answer is 'no' then I'll stick by everything I've written. This is what I thought you thought, and what I thought you said on a number of occasions. If it is 'yes', then I'll apologise for misreading you.

[mooeypoo]

We're going to have to ignore any and all references you make about Phi's state of mind. You have other points to relate to, this is circular, contributes NOTHING to the thread and will, at least on my part, be ignored.

 

Can you please answer the actual POINTS we made, or are just here to be all-out against Phi_for_All ?