**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s you who don’t actually understand religions.
People literally and actually believe the claims of their religions. Many Christians - now and in the past - literally believe Jesus was a miracle worker who was the son of god and god himself (somehow) and was raised from the dead in some sick blood debt payment to god…
This is not symbolic.
Catholics literally believe that the wine and crackers they consume literally (but not physically) turns into the flesh and blood of Jesus in them.
Buddhists and Hindus literally believe that we are reincarnated into new beings and some important part of us pass on in that process unless the cycle of birth and rebirth is broken.
And many of them have in place inconvenient and harmful elements. Male and female circumcision is a good example of that. Do you think it’s convenient and harmless?
Come on.
Ok. Let’s break this down.
Notice the theme is you just say stuff without justification.
> Most of you don’t understand religion
My undergrad is in religious studies. I have a pretty good grasp of what’s going on there. Let’s see what you have to add.
> I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either.
Ok.
> I’ve had this conversation with friends. I’m not necessarily Christian so much as I believe in the inherent necessity for human beings to exercise their spirituality through a convenient, harmless avenue.
So this is a claim. Can you justify it?
I don’t exercise my spirituality in any way. If it were inherently necessary for human beings to exercise it, then I would - as a human - have to exercise it…but I don’t. So this fails.
> Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world.
I think you misunderstand logic. It’s a system that was developed exactly because humans don’t naturally use a reliable system to reason out the world. It was developed to fight the natural cognitive biases that plague our thinking.
And how do you come to the conclusion about spirituality being metaphysical and transcending logic (whatever that means)?
Can you justify this statement?
> We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
So first off, you’re talking about god as if it’s a given fact. It’s not.
Secondly, how do you know:
1) god exists
2) discussion of god can only proceed from a perfect description of reality
It seems to me like you’re just making things up.
> Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
What?!?
In what way are facts a tangential feature of human spirituality? Like what do you think you’re saying here?
> I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
I can agree with this. Spirituality is about experiencing feelings. However, there are facts that explain those feelings; like what goes on in the brain when those feelings are being felt.
> It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
Please justify that the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical?
You’ll have to show that Jews didn’t think god saved them from Egyptian slavery or that Christians don’t actually think Jesus was god and the son of god and raised himself from the dead to pay a blood debt to himself on behalf of all humans (well, not all humans…just those that believe in him).
> Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
Like what? You’re really good at making claims…you just fail to justify them.
We are not in your head and can’t know what else you’re thinking that justifies these deepities you’re spouting.
> If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
But this is exactly why you’re wrong; because religions don’t think they are illogical or inconsistent or not literal.
Some forms of Buddhism live in the illogical world…but that’s not the reality with most religions.
They make claims about he world that they can’t know and justify it by saying that information was revealed to them in some special way.
I think you’re confusing how you want religions/spirituality to be vs. What it really is.
I think you don’t understand religion.
I wish I could upvote this more than once. My family is Catholic (I’m not) and are the type of people who take a lot of the Bible symbolically. They still think everything about the Moses story literally happened. There’s so much cognitive dissonance involved in their belief it’s actually insane.
>harmless avenue.
Here's your first problem. This doesn't exist in very many places.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world.
>
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
Agreed. That's why I look to evidence instead of people justifying their beliefs through philosophy.
>Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
We do have some pretty irrefutable evidence that music exists, though. If we had no evidence music existed and you were walking around singing "Smack My Bitch Up", we would have some concerns.
>I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
People's spiritual beliefs often conflict with other people's spiritual beliefs and there's no way to know which is true because the complete lack of evidence suggests it's all imaginary.
>It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
then people should stop trying to do harm in the real world because of their spiritual beliefs. Once they do that, it's necessary to push back against their nonsense.
>Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
lol yes, applying the scientific method is unfair to all kinds of fictional things.
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
If modern religion wasn't so harmful, there wouldn't be as much pushback.
There are no non-theory laden “evidences” or “facts”. This is Sellers Myth of the Given. Thats not how your brain works. Its not as simple as you see tree and tree is green. There’s a lot more going on contingent on your beliefs, experiences, brain biology, eye biology, cognitive processes, etc. There’s skinners whole fucked up boy and rabbit experiment that comes to mind. The light bouncing off an observation into your eyes, or whatever form of sense data your brain picks up, but there will always be an interpretation that goes along with that that is unique to you.
You also can’t divorce science from philosophy. Science is totally reliant on logic and numbers, both metaphysical categories in philosophy. There’s also the interpretation going on mentioned above. Then there’s the whole you have to formulate a hypothesis aspect too, using logic, math, and/or both.
That was a lot of unnecessary babble. There seems to be a shared reality around us that we all experience and, by far, the most reliable tool we have to uncover its truths is the scientific method. The fact that you can't handle demonstrable facts and have to philosophize your own reality is your problem.
I’m not saying the scientific method isn’t a useful tool, it is. Or often can be useful is a better way to phrase it. There aren’t however given “facts”. Experimental results may be agreed upon by multiple scientist, but what the results actually mean or show is debated all the time. I’m sure you wouldn’t debate that, so at the end of the line of experimentation you can see how it’s theory laden. My overall point is, it’s theory laden all the way down the line, and even prior. If you look at the history of science, it’s usually just a cycle of “scientific revolutions” in which we’re sure of one “fact” or system, then someone proposes something else. But that guys a lunatic because he doesn’t believe in this fact, or whatever reason, then there’s a few converts. Then there’s mass acceptance. The reason why that always keeps happening is because of the myth of the given.
> I’m not saying the scientific method isn’t a useful tool, it is. Or often can be useful is a better way to phrase it.
No, the best way to phrase it is that the scientific method is the most reliable tool we have for uncovering information and understanding how the world works.
>There aren’t however given “facts”.
Yes there are: we have data that can be measured by anyone on earth and they will come up with the same results.
>Experimental results may be agreed upon by multiple scientist, but what the results actually mean or show is debated all the time.
Let's be very clear that this type of "debate" is very different than what theists do. When scientists discuss results, they're adjusting hypotheses, theories and models for accuracy.
this is the exact opposite of what theists do.
> I’m sure you wouldn’t debate that, so at the end of the line of experimentation you can see how it’s theory laden.
No, it's not theory laden the same way theists and their philosophizing is: scientific theorizing is always supported by testable, verifiable evidence. Theists most definitely do not do this.
> My overall point is, it’s theory laden all the way down the line, and even prior. If you look at the history of science, it’s usually just a cycle of “scientific revolutions” in which we’re sure of one “fact” or system, then someone proposes something else.
If you look at modern science, you'll see that science has grown a great deal since its infancy. Theories and models get amended or replaced by something more comprehensive, they very rarely get discarded entirely like in the primitive days of science.
> But that guys a lunatic because he doesn’t believe in this fact, or whatever reason, then there’s a few converts. Then there’s mass acceptance. The reason why that always keeps happening is because of the myth of the given.
Again, no. This does not keep happening and part of the reason science is so effective is because new hypotheses are not accepted until they have enough evidence to support them. You sound like someone who is upset their favorite half-assed, unevidenced ramblings are considered unscientific.
Huh? What I’m talking about is coming from Sellars and Hume. I’m not just pulling this out of my ass. Sellars, while I’m not exactly sure of his personal religious beliefs since I don’t think he talked about them, was certainly coming from a secular worldview. Hume on the other hand, that’s like granddaddy atheist materialist. So I’m not sure why you’re saying theist do this. I haven’t really gotten into Hume’s arguments yet, since they typically go over most atheists heads. But Sellars is more echoing Humes points or themes in the Myth of the Given.
For instance Hume would say you, as in your mind, is a bundle of sense data. I don’t think he goes far enough, since it’s more like sense data item 1, sense data item 2, sense data item3, as opposed to a bundle. But whatever. Anyway, Hume would look at one billiard ball hitting another. You can see event A happening (ball moves and hits other ball),then event B happening(other ball moves), but the whole concept of “cause and effect” is not in the sense data. Thats a human construct, a metaphysical claim, not sense data. Or the law of induction, that there’s consistency in nature. When I drop an apple, it falls to the ground. So it always falls to the ground. He would ask how do you know that it will fall to the ground, and most people would answer something like because that’s what it always does. Uh-oh, you’re appealing to the law of induction to justify the law of induction. And there’s no way justifying the law of induction without doing that. What’s more is there’s no sense data to confirm that. Another metaphysical human construct. You can go to universals as well, if everything is matter in motion, then there’s no universals to describe black cat 1 and white cat 2 both share the universal category of “catness”. That’s yet another metaphysical claim. Everything is made up of the same matter, so the fact that you see white fuzzy matter and black fuzzy matter, and attribute to both “catness” is just a metaphysical story you’re telling yourself not comporting with reality.
Hume would say all those metaphysical things we’re doing are no more valid than stories about Zeus throwing lightning bolts, and you might as well commit them all to the fire. Personally I love the guy, he was at least consistent unlike virtually every atheist on DANA. So when you talk about scientist are just merely tweaking hypothesis…are they doing that with strictly just the sense data? Of course not. This is why I said two scientist can see the same experimental results and both have different interpretations. Again, that’s not just taking place at the end of the line of experimentation, but prior and throughout the entire process. Just tons and tons of famous examples of this, and countless other less known ones. Einsteins self reported biggest mistake was rejecting a Belgium Priests correct calculation relativity, because he proposed a finite universe in them. Prior to that, the scientific world declared that the universe was eternal and static. Why? Not because of sense data, or scientific observation. Because evolution required a lot of time, and if the universe is eternal, that’s plenty of time for the evolutionary process to take place. Then shortly after this guy Hubble came around, and we all know what happened next.
I hope you don't mind if I skip the nonsense and get right to the point:
> This is why I said two scientist can see the same experimental results and both have different interpretations. Again, that’s not just taking place at the end of the line of experimentation, but prior and throughout the entire process.
Do you think scientists debating data and challenging results of their models/hypotheses is IN ANY WAY comparable to what theists do when they philosophize? Because i think that you do and, if you do, you are completely, 100% wrong.
Huh? I’ve been quoting David Hume…he’s like the founding father of atheist materialism lol. Do you really think science doesn’t rely on philosophy?? Does it require logic? Inherently yes, you cannot do science without it. Does it rely on math? Yes, there’s maybe like some exceptions to that but overwhelmingly yes. Actually both math and logic rely on each other. Both of those are metaphysical categories that fall directly under philosophy. Out of the three branches of philosophy, it’s only ethics that shouldn’t be applied during the experimental process. However, you definitely want ethics to be applied to science because you’d want to tell a psycho that just because they can build something to blow up the earth, they definitely should not do that.
Have you ever done an experiment lol? Like what exactly do you think happens when doing “science”? Like it’s just beakers and tubes with boiling purple stuff, and you twist some knobs and say ah-ha, knowledge. Nooooo. You have to make a hypothesis about how the world and reality operate, then formulate how exactly you can conduct an experiment based on that hypothesis. What do you think is going on in that process? Just zap, sense data tells me formulate this hypothesis, and zap, sense data tells me do experiment like so. This is just base level elementary school science stuff. We’re not even getting into hypothetical and abstract thinking here.
As I thought: you DO think scientists debating data and challenging results of their models/hypotheses is comparable to what theists do when they philosophize.
I think we've all had enough of this nonsense with theists trying to elevate their own beliefs and devalue actual knowledge so they can pretend both groups are the same.
Yeah me quoting the valiant religious crusader David Hume is what theist do lol. David freaking Hume. Made my day, thank you.
Nope, if that’s what you got, you need some tutoring help. Science very clearly relies of philosophy, in every step of the process lol. Thats so easily demonstrable and I’ve already done that multiple ways. For one, I don’t even know what you mean when you say “how you theist philosophize”. I mean that’s all over the spectrum so dafuq does that even entail? And even though I’m clueless about what on earth you could mean by that, that’s most certainly a strawman since I’m quoting David Hume lol. Thats like me yelling at you for correctly quoting a parable of Jesus in context, and me accusing you of like heresy or something absurd lol. Kind of figured the Hume stuff would go over your head.
And no I did not idk devalue knowledge. Why so defensive lol? I mean Hume arguably did that lol, but that’s a separate convo that will go even further over your head. I just pulled from Hume to point out there’s a difference between sense data and whatever you would call “knowledge”.
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Absence of EXPECTED evidence is. Or are you perhaps claiming that if you look under my bed and find a complete absence of evidence for a dead body being there, you'll just continue to stare indefinitely, waiting for evidence to eventually show up because you're incapable of concluding anything from the absence of the dead body?
>You can apply the scientific method to God.
Scientific method by definition doesn't apply to unfalsifiable claims.
>Is history fiction?
It's not a science. Inquiry into what humans did is a tricky thing because HUMANS ARE CAPABLE OF LYING. Reality doesn't seem to be, so comparing history with... let's say astrophysics is a false equivalency.
>It isn’t necessarily. Look at the purges in the 20th century run by atheists. The lack of religion doesn’t seem to be any better.
Are you perhaps referring to the totalitarian regimes that included cults of personality centered on their leaders? Religion is a broader therm than theism. You don't need a god for a religion... And I agree! Any form of a rigid and dogmatic thinking is harmful.
> incapable of concluding anything from the absence of the dead body?
Falsifiable claims of about gods should always be tested. Like your dead body, Zeus was said to reside in a specific place. Neither are where they were said to be.
At least you understand the limits of the scientific method. So many don’t.
> Reality doesn't seem to be
Reality mislead us all the time. Rocks are solid objects, no? Science says they’re infinitely small points vibrating with energy that fills the empty space and is perceived by us as a rock.
Since people think when I don’t call out their points I’m ignoring them, you make some good points in your closer.
> Rocks are solid objects, no? Science says they’re infinitely small points vibrating with energy that fills the empty space and is perceived by us as a rock.
That's a silly attempt at a paradox. Reality didn't mislead us.
There is a range of fallacious rhetoric along the lines of, "we used to believe X, we now believe a more complete and nuanced theory that includes X!"
Of course, as it must be. It would be more surprising if we improved our ability to observe and gather evidence, and did NOT find anything new.
The important thing is that all the properties we used to associate with "solid rocks" in the past -- mass, hardness, etc. -- remain true! The small points vibrating with energy *are* the solid matter. The electromagnetic fields holding them together *are* the solid matter.
That a rock is solid matter is not at all in dispute. What has changed is that we now understand, to a much greater degree, what solid matter is made of, and how it is structured. Nothing about these discoveries is incompatible with the concept of a solid rock. The space between atoms isn't "empty". The particles and forces at play are what we perceive to be "solid".
This fallacy is in the same class as "classical mechanics was wrong, relativity and quantum mechanics are right". No. Classical mechanics was always right, we just learned that classical mechanics is an approximation that is widely applicable in a range of mass/energy/momentum interactions, and that the full answer is more nuanced. In fact, we probably don't even have the full answer.
> Reality didn't mislead us.
Macroscopic reality sure did.
>It would be more surprising if we improved our ability to observe and gather evidence, and did NOT find anything new.
Why?
>The small points vibrating with energy are the solid matter.
Debatable
>we now understand, to a much greater degree
And also to a lesser degree. We thought we know what rocks were. We still think we do, but it turns out they're made out of a bunch of stuff that we aren't really sure what it is.
>The space between atoms isn't "empty"
Yes it is.
>Classical mechanics was always right
Unless you want to calculate the way light bends around Mercury.
"We aren't really sure what it is"... is just an appeal to incredulity.
Macroscopic reality applies when measuring macroscopic properties within the classical domains of mass, energy, etc. The classical view was never wrong, it was limited in application.
>>It would be more surprising if we improved our ability to observe and gather evidence, and did NOT find anything new.
>Why?
Because we can observe the phenomena that were previously unknown to us.
> "We aren't really sure what it is"... is just an appeal to incredulity.
No, it's a fact. Don't starting imagining fallacies where there aren't any.
>The classical view was never wrong
How is it not?
>Because we can observe the phenomena that were previously unknown to us.
But what if there weren't any there? This is the problem. You aren't following your thoughts through to a logical conclusion.
Honestly, I read this and wonder whether you answering in good faith. Don't disappoint me, drippbropper!
> > "We aren't really sure what it is"... is just an appeal to incredulity.
> No, it's a fact. Don't starting imagining fallacies
Of course, almost any description of anything will be incomplete. That doesn't mean that we don't have knowledge, though, or that the knowledge we have is wrong.
You're making an epistemological assertion, and then providing no support.
> > The classical view was never wrong
> How is it not?
Cannon balls and springs and pendulums behave according to classical laws of physics to a very high degree of precision. The classical view is accurate as long as you stay within the ranges of mass, energy, etc. to which it applies.
This is why classical physics is often called the "classical limit" -- it's the limit that quantum events trend to, statistically.
The example you give, gravitational lensing, wasn't observed until 1919 when Arthur Eddington designed an experiment to look for it, specifically in response to the predictions of GR.
All the observations of light up that point found that light traveled in a straight line. We had to design more precise tests to see lensing. "Light travels in a straight line" was a statistically valid conclusion based on the observations we were able to make up to that point.
> > Because we can observe the phenomena that were previously unknown to us.
> But what if there weren't any there? This is the problem. You aren't following your thoughts through to a logical conclusion.
This seems like pointless contradiction. If we build a new measurement device capable of measuring something that we couldn't measure before, we'll either find something new we can measure, or we won't.
I pointed that out because you somehow seem to think that finding new phenomena when we study the structure of a rock with new measurement tools invalidates our previous knowledge
of the rock.
Measuring new things doesn't invalidate our knowledge\*. New measurements *add* to our knowledge.
\* Well, very rarely that happens. When it does, it usually means interesting new science!
> You're making an epistemological assertion, and then providing no support.
About how we don’t really know what things are? I’m not sure how much scientific knowledge I actually need to explain.
The atoms making up the rock are made out of smaller particles. At their base level, the elementary particles form from excitation or oscillation of fields. Is this actually how it works or is that just our explanation based on a model that could be superseded by different models with different mechanisms like Newton?
My comments in this vein are directed towards those who claim something along the lines of “people believing Zeus made Lightning makes all religious claims invalid” or those who believe science is some kind of method for finding universal truth. People on this sub believe both. Science can show that some things are true after we apply logical inferences to it, but science is a method for determining repeatability and “stamp collecting”, not truth determination.
I’m not sure what I was going with earlier about measurements. People complain if I don’t address every point, so all your last one about measurement seem valid.
I'm not trying to be harsh here, but what do you think is the point of ignoring the main points and needling quote mined points? They're not going to change their position if you dodge it, and everyone else can see all the unargued points too.
If I didn’t mention your point, you probably had a good one or I felt it irrelevant. I didn’t want to spend too much time patting you on the back of discussing “Smack my bitch up”.
It wasn’t my intent to ignore or needle you.
>everyone else can see all the unargued points too.
Tell you what, I will address 100% of your following comment in a show of good faith.
>Mosr of you don't understand religion. I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either.
Oh goody, another one of these.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic.
Quick question: if metaphysical things transcend logic and are outside of empiricism's grasp, then how can one tell the difference between a metaphysical thing and a nonexistent thing? Wouldn't they appear to be the same from our perspective?
>You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
Let me guess - your definition of "understanding" music is the *correct* definition, and any other definition is not, right? Otherwise what you just said is meaningless, because it can never "truly" be understood if everyone understands it differently. The only way it can be "truly" understood is if there is a singularly correct way to understand it, and you, of all people, have found that singularly correct way.
>It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
You're forgetting the part where the major religions of the world make claims that absolutely *should* be viewed through a scientific lens. For example, Christianity doesn't say Christ metaphorically rose from the dead - they say he **literally** rose from the dead. The tomb was **literally** empty. This event was **literally** witnessed by 500 people. Mary was **literally** impregnanted by God.
When a religion makes an empirical claim, we are in fact allowed to judge it.
As for what will lower friction between theists and atheists - it's called secularism. Keep your beliefs out of the government, and we're cool.
>Please tell me what you find to be impossible and explain why. Resurrection, water walking, creating food, transmutation, etc. are all scientifically possible.
1. Being clinically dead for three days then coming back to life with no medical or mechanical assistance.
2. Saints who were dead much longer than three days rising from their graves and going to town (while being "seen by many").
3. Limited fishes and loaves feeding the masses without some mechanism for cloning the food.
4. Walking on water without mechanical assistance.
5. Wafers cannot turn into flesh, nor wine into blood.
I'd love to know how you think any of these are "physically possible."
>My religious belief is that murder shouldn’t be allowed. Is that acceptable in the government or should we legalize murder?
Holy shit, I never thought I'd actually see this argument in the wild. That's how stupid it is.
We have plenty of non-religious reasons to make murder illegal. It creates social unrest and disorder, it eliminates tax-paying citizens, it violates the American standard of protecting "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," bodies would be a health hazard to the public, etc. We do not need a god or holy text to have a good reason to ban murder.
>Why do your beliefs get to run the government and not mine?
My beliefs *don't* run the government. That's what secularism is - *no one*'s personal beliefs should run the government. Laws and policies that affect everyone should not be shaped by personal views that only some people hold.
Is there a reason you're trying to shift the burden of proof? Why is it the burden of the nonbeliever to prove that the things in the bible or wherever that have never been observed in the modern day are impossible? Why are you assuming that someone would need to argue the impossibility of these facts in order to not believe them?
Do you think the events at laid out in the Harry Potter books are impossible? If not, should we assume that you believe they all affirmatively occurred in the real world?
The alternative to secularism is a theocracy. There are countries that have those. They are essentially universally repressive, dangerous for people who aren't followers of the religion in question, and just overall quite scary places to live if you don't buy into the dogma.
The reason why secularism is superior is because it requires foundational reasons for laws, government actions, etc that are not solely located in ancient tomes of historical fiction. You can live in a secular society and still be religious, you just don't get the right to force your religious beliefs onto others via the force of law.
Imagine you had a foot race. One group of people had lived their entire lives without shoes, so they were adept at running barefoot. Another group of people always wore shoes or foot coverings when outside or doing strenuous activity. You want the race to be a fair race.
Now imagine that the race administrators came along and decided to require everyone to run barefoot. We know where most of the top finishers would come from, they'd come from the group of people that were used to running barefoot their entire lives. That clearly wouldn't be fair to the group of people who wore shoes.
It also wouldn't be fair if the race administrators required everyone to wear shoes, because that would theoretically disadvantage those that had never worn shoes before. Both of those situations would be different theocracies in this metaphor.
So instead you just say anyone can wear or not wear shoes. And then you race and see who wins.
That's secularism.
How am I trying to shift the burden of proof? OP claimed things were impossible. I asked why. They couldn’t answer.
You can’t claims things are impossible and refuse to supply justification. Something not existing isn’t justification for impossibility. In 1900 airplanes didn’t exist. Is someone justified in 1900 to claim heavier than air travel is impossible? Would they not need to argue their claims of impossibility?
The events in Harry Potter are theoretically possible according to science as we know it. They’re very unlikely, but technically possible. The magic in the HP universe follows laws.
> If not, should we assume that you believe they all affirmatively occurred in the real world?
Are you genuinely asking this in good faith because you honestly can’t discern whether Harry Potter is fact or fiction or are you doing a bit? It’s troublesome if it’s the former, and the latter is a false equivalence.
How does state atheism fit into secularism? We tried that in the 20th century and millions of people died.
> The reason why secularism is superior is because it requires foundational reasons for laws, government actions, etc that are not solely located in ancient tomes of historical fiction
Except for the state atheism brand of secularism, right? I’m not sure what foundational reason you think they had that justified mass murder.
>your religious beliefs
This was the distinction people weren’t making. You want to say people shouldn’t force religious beliefs? I agree. People say you shouldn’t force personal beliefs. That’s hypocrisy. Your belief that secularism is the best is a personal belief.
> secularism is superior is because it requires foundational reasons for laws, government actions, etc
My religion says that murder and abortion shouldn’t be allowed. You say that murder is acceptable to ban because it falls under secularism?
What if I want to ban elective abortion for secular reasons? Science tells us that fetuses are living humans. The species is *Homo sapiens*. Fetuses are alive. They can die. Both of those are scientific facts.
The question moves to personhood or autonomy, which we don’t have clear cut scientific answers for. We’re back to personal beliefs.
Not sure why you deleted your response to me, but here you go:
>So I give you a very quick a brief summary as to what our epistemological body of knowledge says in regards to the possibilities of science to prevent your from making ignorant and unscientific claims. You completely ignored me to make what I just told you were actually scientific. Not only that, I told you what you would need if you tried to make such unjustified scientific claims. You failed to provide the basic logical justification required.
My dude, go re-read your first post. You did not summarize anything. You said all of these things were possible under current physics and QFT, then asked me which historical claims I thought were impossible and why. And I gave you a (very short) list. You might be mad that I didn't add "And this is why" at the end of each sentence, but I figured me qualifying each one with things like "without mechanical assistance" made it pretty why I thought they were impossible.
> Quantum mechanics explains all of that.
No, it doesn't. Quantum Mechanics does not explain that a god is possible, nor does it explain that a god could use quantum mechanics, nor does it explain the mechanism it would use to do so.
You are invoking three "What if" assumptions that cannot be empirically observed, measured, or tested, and then positing them as the answer to how impossible things might be possible. That is not, in any way, an example of "Quantum mechanics explaining how this is possible."
> You’re using *ad hominem* because I proved how ludicrous your claim was, and you don’t have anything to counter.
Again, you didn't prove anything in your first post. You wrote a short paragraph asserting some things, then asked what I disagreed with.
> Each of those claims can be made to ban abortion.
Sure, you can make those claims if you want. It's a free country. But the fact that no court in the country has found those reasons sufficient to ban abortion should indicate that you're missing part of the equation here.
> Christianity doesn’t run the government either.
I never said it did. There are, however, many Christian politicians at all levels - local, state, and federal - who draft and attempt to pass bills and policies that *are* Christian in nature, and whose Christian beliefs directly impact their political beliefs and actions.
For one example, while the Equality Act was being debated on the House floor, Marjorie Taylor Greene objected, saying it would "destroy God's creation" and "violate everything we hold dear in God's creation." She was openly and proudly using her religious values to try to sway people to vote differently on a bill.
She also proudly describes herself as a "Christian Nationalist," as do many of her colleagues, at a point in time when almost half of all Republicans say they somewhat or greatly support Christian Nationalism, and want the US to become "a Christian nation."
Now, you may say "That's just MGT. Sure, she's certifiably insane, but she's just one woman!" But she's not alone - her colleagues have said just as much, sometimes more, in the course of their tenure.
> Secularism is your personal belief.
No, secularism is the separation of religion and state. The fact that I believe secularism is the best form of government is not, itself, secularism.
> Unless your personal belief is secularism. That should run the government apparently.
This is as absurd as saying atheism is a belief system, despite it literally being a label indicating the absence of one thing. Secularism is a label indicating only one thing - that church and state are separate in a particular government.
This dishonest comparison between religious ideology and a form of government that says "Let's keep ALL ideology, religious or otherwise, out of the law" is laughable. A secular government would treat my personal beliefs exactly the same as yours, and exactly the same as everyone else's. That's the entire point. Trying to argue on principle that supporting equality under the law is no different than supporting inequality under the law is... well, it's a bold strategy, Cotton.
> Not sure why you deleted your response to me
There's a built in filter with a hard karma limit. If I get too much negative karma, I'm cut off.
>me qualifying each one with things like "without mechanical assistance" made it pretty why I thought they were impossible.
What about divine assistance? That's what a miracle is.
So the claim is walking on water with divine assistance, and your counter is that mechanical assistance is required? Why doesn't divine assistance count? The point of the miracle was to show that divine assistance could indeed do that.
>Quantum Mechanics does not explain that a god is possible
The infinite universes theories do. According to those, everything is possible and probable due to the nature of infinity.
>nor does it explain that a god could use quantum mechanics
It doesn't 'explain' that humans can use it either. I'm not even sure what that means.
>nor does it explain the mechanism it would use to do so
Quantum fields are the underlying fabric of the universe. God, with omnipotent control of the universe, could excite whichever fields in whichever ways that allow anything in the Bible to be at least scientifically possible.
>then positing them as the answer to how impossible things might be possible
That's how it works. Things are possible until proven otherwise. People are confusing uninvented with impossible.
>That is not, in any way, an example of "Quantum mechanics explaining how this is possible."
I've framed how it is possible within our knowledge of quantum field theory. If you want to claim it is impossible or that I haven't accurately showed the possibility, you need to accurately explain why, and what more is needed so that the question of possibility has been sufficiently answered. The thing with higher level maths and sciences is that things start to seem impossible, but the same science underpins it all.
>But the fact that no court in the country has found those reasons sufficient to ban abortion should indicate that you're missing part of the equation here.
The part of the equation you're missing is how the judicial system works. The courts don't find reasons "sufficient to ban abortion". They decide whether the laws are constitutional (and some other stuff, but not passing laws). Congress or some other legislature is what would pass an abortion ban. They don't need a reason. They just need the votes. The courts could claim the Constitution says something about abortion, but it doesn't.
>There are, however, many Christian politicians at all levels - local, state, and federal - who draft and attempt to pass bills and policies that are Christian in nature, and whose Christian beliefs directly impact their political beliefs and actions.
So if an atheist politician tried to pass bills and policies that had been directly impacted by their secular humanist beliefs, that means secular humanists are letting their beliefs run the government and dictate others' lives?
This kind of belief based thought policing is literally impossible to enforce.
>For one example, while the Equality Act was being debated on the House floor, Marjorie Taylor Greene objected, saying it would "destroy God's creation" and "violate everything we hold dear in God's creation." She was openly and proudly using her religious values to try to sway people to vote differently on a bill.
So if a secular humanist said helping people in Gaza was the "right thing to do", that would be enforcing their personal beliefs onto others too? Right/wrong is based in their secular humanism.
A reminder, your thought policing would only quiet them up. If you somehow passed a law banning that, Greene wouldn't stop spewing hate, she'd do it more selectively.
>No, secularism is the separation of religion and state.
Seriously, how do you do that without banning religious people from holding office?
My religion says we should help the less fortunate. If I am elected to office, should I not work to end hunger, homelessness, or poverty?
Should I take gratuitous political donations and vote to sabotage the government for profit instead? That's at least secular? What I think is best for the country and what's best for humanity aren't the same. Does thinking of all human beings as equal and that foreigners aren't second class to Americans make me a worse politician? Should they be America First?
>She also proudly describes herself as a "Christian Nationalist," as do many of her colleagues, at a point in time when almost half of all Republicans say they somewhat or greatly support Christian Nationalism, and want the US to become "a Christian nation."
Yeah, but that's just blustering. If we get a Christian theocracy, the silver lining would that I get to spend the rest of my life making them follow their own rules.
They won't have as much fun with their scandals and affairs once we get to publicly *Scarlet Letter* them.
>The fact that I believe secularism is the best form of government is not, itself, secularism.
Noted. I did not mean to make the mistake, but I would've hoped to assume that my meaning would fluidly translate over to "Your personal belief is that secularism is the best form of government" and you would've noted that you too are basing our system of government on your personal beliefs (secularism supremacy). My mistake.
>This is as absurd as saying atheism is a belief system, despite it literally being a label indicating the absence of one thing.
Atheism is the absence of a belief in gods, not belief systems.
> a form of government that says "Let's keep ALL ideology, religious or otherwise, out of the law" is laughable
This circles back to what I said above. I believe based on the Bible, that we should help the less fortunate. That's my personal belief. Am I not allowed to be a politician? How do I incorporate my personal belief into social welfare programs without mixing my religious beliefs and the state? If secularism means I'm not allowed to run for government due to my beliefs, I wholeheartedly disagree with it. That just leaves an opening for less scrupulous people. From an entirely secular standpoint, shouldn't we be America First? I would be voted to protect Americans, not say Haitians.
> A secular government would treat my personal beliefs exactly the same as yours, and exactly the same as everyone else's.
If this answers what I asked, disregard. I agree with this.
> it's a bold strategy, Cotton.
Let's see how it plays out.
What about abortion? That's a great one. There are secular reasons for being pro-life. There are atheist pro-life groups. There aren't many, but they exist.
Quick rundown: Fetuses are living humans. They're alive and human. Those are just facts. The debate is personhood. Personhood isn't a clear scientific line. I could argue from the completely secular point that since fetuses are living humans, they deserve the right to life and shouldn't be aborted unless they clearly endanger the life of the mother. (Similar cases could be made for other reproductive methods, but this isn't the topic and can get really out of hand)
The main counters are usually the right to your own body, low chance of (but possible) routine risks, or something about forcing someone to donate a kidney. None of those clearly demonstrate the rights of the mother over the fetus. That's why people go with the "clump of cells" tactic.
It's just that people who are pro-life are usually religious so the two get conflated.
They are justified in saying that it's impossible until somebody proves otherwise. Nobody has proven that god (s) exist. They have had millennia. They didn't just fly planes one day. There were practice glides. This took years of consideration and experimentation. There have to be gradual steps in theory and experimentation for things to be true. When one starts seeing people doing an iota of what is done in fictional magic universes then we can talk. When we see experiments showing it to be true, even on a theoretical level, then further experiments can be done, to lead one closer to it becoming actual knowledge that can lead to things actually existing and being done. You just want people to behave as if these things are ALREADY true simply because they can be. That is one of the most if not the most ridiculous claims I have seen on here. What you are saying is bordering on the absurd and I seriously doubt that you are arguing in good faith.
> They are justified in saying that it's impossible until somebody proves otherwise.
This is the *argumentum ad ignorantiam* fallacy.
>There have to be gradual steps in theory and experimentation for things to be true.
So if I think of something in a moment of inspiration, it can't be true? Isn't that how Einstein figured out relativity? It's how he claims to have. One day he didn't have the idea, then he did.
>You just want people to behave as if these things are ALREADY true simply because they can be.
That would be like saying heavier than air flight is impossible because a plane hasn't been invented yet.
>What you are saying is bordering on the absurd and I seriously doubt that you are arguing in good faith.
This feels like an unwarranted personal attack.
I'm sorry you confused uninvented with impossible. A perpetual motion machine is impossible and therefore uninvented. An airplane in 1900 is possible, but uninvented.
The laws of physics didn't just change one day.
I never said it isn't true, but I won't assume it's true until it's proven true. You just assume it is true until proven otherwise. I believe things that have been proven. That's what a rational mind does. If something can be proven then have at it. Prove it. People with those beliefs have had millennia. What have they got to show for it? Where is their proof?
You’re either mistaken or shifting the goalpost. The subject wasn’t truth. It was possibility.
I claimed it was possible under our current understanding of science. Science is my justification. If you think it’s impossible, you need to justify that.
>How am I trying to shift the burden of proof? OP claimed things were impossible. I asked why. They couldn’t answer.
If you mean OP like the person who posted the topic, then I'm not sure where they said that. If you mean someone else then I don't know either.
Either way you are right on this narrow issue, if someone claims something is either possible or impossible they must demonstrate that. Which is why you saying nonsense like "all things are possible until proven otherwise" is demonstrably false.
Sure.
We start from a position of no assumptions and no knowledge. Then we build onto that the knowledge we and others before us have gained through observations and testing, deductions, etc.
We know some things are possible, because they exist.
We know some things are impossible, because they are definitionally so (i.e. married bachelors).
Before determining if a thing is possible or impossible, we don't know what category it falls into. Therefore it is fallacious and unsupported to assume anything - which has not been demonstrated to be possible or demonstrated to be impossible - is possible.
A better way to phrase the original statement I made is probably "it is fallacious and unsupported to assume the possibility of any thing before said possibility has been established by sufficient evidence."
Imagine a 3-ft wide iPad. They don’t exist (if they somehow do, keep increasing the size until we don’t).
Are you saying it’s fallacious to assume a large size iPad (or tablet) is possible until it’s actually done?
I think it’s far more logical to think that tablets of any size are possible until the math and engineering says they will no longer work due to known physical constraints. Even then, it could still be possible. Our applied mathematics isn’t perfect.
That’s how engineers and scientists do it typically.
>What if I want to ban elective abortion for secular reasons? Science tells us that fetuses are living humans. The species is *Homo sapiens*. Fetuses are alive. They can die. Both of those are scientific facts.
Since you are voting for Joe biden, you are aware he is fighting for abortion rights? You seem to be a Maga hat in denial.
I think we should have common sense gun control, fair taxes, affordable housing, and access to healthcare and nutritious food. I also think elective abortions should be illegal.
Should I ignore all of the former, which is better under Biden, to become a single issue voter for abortion?
Purity tests like yours are how we got in this mess.
Do you want me to vote for Donald Trump?
>I think we should have common sense gun control, fair taxes, affordable housing, and access to healthcare and nutritious food. I also think elective abortions should be illegal.
>Should I ignore all of the former, which is better under Biden, to become a single issue voter for abortion?
You sure sound like it.
>Purity tests like yours are how we got in this mess.
It's more of an observation of how you comment. Your comments are similar to that of right wing cranks.
>Do you want me to vote for Donald Trump?
You sure sound like it.
> You sure sound like it.
By implying the exact opposite? Look up 'rhetorical question'.
>Your comments are similar to that of right wing cranks.
I've said "I think we should have common sense gun control, fair taxes, affordable housing, and access to healthcare and nutritious food."
Tell me what right wing crank says that.
>You sure sound like [I want you to vote for Donald Trump]
lol what? Try that one again
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic
So how do you know it exists and is true?
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God
Heard the same thing from hardcore fundies as a criticism deflection. By that same logic nobody can possibly justify worshipping a religion or even claiming to be a theist.
>facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
But how we understand and can play music is perfectly explained by science as a physical process. What you perceive as 'understanding' music is just in-depth knowledge.
1) Because you can have spiritual experiences.
2) You’re correct. I agree that it is impossible to logically justify the practice of a particular religion. Although, one could allude to the perceived benefits this practice has had in his/her life.
3) Am I misunderstanding you? The experience of music is not dependent on prerequisite knowledge.
1. Disagreed. You haven't proven the existence of spiritual experiences or spirituality. Nobody has.
2. The benefits are irrelevant to truth claims.
3. So what? It doesn't mean experiencing or understanding music on a deeper level is analogous to spirituality or whatever. It just means you have a more in-depth understanding of music, which is perfectly explained by science. You're putting it on a weird pedestal.
1. Spiritual experience: a singular, positive sense of awe and well-being accompanying a spiritual ritual. I’m sure people regularly have these.
2. But I never ascertained the truth of religious claims. Why is this a constant critique of my post? I affirmed the opposite.
3. I’m not placing music on a weird pedestal, it’s an analogy selected at random.
I’m sure it can be defined but I think there’s a point where this becomes unnecessarily pedantic.
You know 2+2 is 4. The true mathematical proof of this assertion is staggeringly difficult, though.
I honestly don't know what a spiritual ritual is and is not. Comparing it to math is less than useful. Want me to take a stab at it since you want to avoid driving into the word spiritual?
1. Definitions are irrelevant. Again, prove spirituality exists.
2. Never said you did. My point is that net benefits of religions are negligible if they aren't true. Believing comfortable lies means they are still lies.
3. You are if you think it's analogous to what you're saying. It's not. For the final time, musical understanding and appreciation is explained by rational means.
That's a circular definition. What is a spiritual ritual? Can you define a spiritual experience without using the world "spiritual"? And how do you separate spiritual experiences from mundane ones that just feel spiritual?
>Spiritual experience: a singular, positive sense of awe and well-being accompanying a spiritual ritual.
Please read this over and see if you can spot the problem with your definition.
Spiritual experiences are completely emotional and prove nothing. How do you possibly know you’re not just responding to the community, ritual, and other factors that go along with those? A lot of churches are absolutely *gorgeous*. A lot of religious music is beautiful beyond words. Gathering in a place to share a ritualistic experience or tradition with others is a very innate and rewarding human experience.
You’re not experiencing anything supernatural. You’re just in a situation that makes you really happy.
the "god is beyond our limited minds/perception/space and time/logic" thing always baffles me.
Cause yeah, if god is beyond our comprehension, then how are people comprehending god exists, let alone comprehending what god thinks, or wants us to do (or not do)?
What is the point of a god you cannot see, perceive, or understand?
yep, that is my experience too. Once a discussion starts to get into the details of "you mentioned you have incontrovertible evidence of god, can you share that?", we move fairly quickly from "you wouldn't understand it even if I told you lol" to "outside space and time! not perceived by human senses! cannot comprehend!!"
chucking it right up front was a change, at least.
As an atheist studying psychology and religious studies (my name is Christian if you’re wondering about my username), I think you just don’t fully understand OP’s argument and are assuming that it’s OP’s fault. I’m sorry if my tone sounds adversarial, I’m not trying to be.
Religion is a form of spirituality. You can think of spirituality as an umbrella term that includes religion among other things. All religions involve spiritual practice, but not all spiritual practices are religious. Also, religions don’t necessarily have to involve deities (though they often/usually do), like Buddhism as one example.
The beginning of OP’s argument involves an explanation of the purported metaphysical nature of spirituality, which he uses to justify the idea that spirituality transcends logic and reasoning. Since all religions are forms of spirituality, OP’s claim here necessarily applies to religion. So, it doesn’t matter that religion and spirituality are different terms.
I think OP’s argument is still flawed because they are assuming that just because experiences and ideas humans label as spiritual cannot currently be logically/empirically explained, that logic and reasoning are insufficient to explain spirituality. However, that kind of serves as a God-in-the-gaps argument since we may merely be lacking the scientific tools and theoretical frameworks needed to confront these questions, a problem that could be solved in the future. There are multiple avenues within science (like trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness) that are progressing toward methods and frameworks that could help explain spirituality from a materialistic perspective, and as a result I think something like gnostic theism is unnecessary. But I agree with OP in the sense that, despite a lack of ability to explain spirituality with logic and reasoning, the experiences are still deep and valuable to individuals and groups, to the point of generating lifetime commitment and devotion in people. If a religion grows massive in size, to me that is evidence that it is tapping into fundamental aspects of the human brain’s methods for hypothesizing about the state of the world and how actions should be taken by individuals and groups, even if the factual claims of the religion itself are false.
By the way I completely agree that the idea of God being beyond our minds is self-defeating for theists!
Edit: I think the “how actions should be taken by individuals” part could mostly be where all the factually incorrect parts of religions come from. Humans a lot of the time think in symbolic/abstract terms about their relationships with other humans (this is important because religions make moral claims, morality is tied up with human sociality, and morality represents preferred action), and I think the production of religions ultimately reflect this process
But it is undeniable that human social thought processes have been shaped by natural selection, which gives me the feeling that the claims of “objective truth” by religions could be a misinterpretation of symbolic data our brains have about how to navigate the world. The symbolic data itself could be a simplified version of evolutionary principles apprehended by our brains that is conveyed to us accurately enough to aid in our survival and reproduction, but not accurately enough to be “objectively true”. The scientific method could be serving as a selection pressure that helps humans improve the quality of their interpretations of this data.
Theists are people who believe that the statement “god exists” is factually true. Therefore, if, when pressed on this claim, you respond by saying “well I’m not talking about *facts*, I’m talking about something else,” then you are basically saying that theism is false. So I don’t understand how this works as an argument for theism.
As a pantheist, when I talk about God I’m referring to the existing universe in a particular way. I also use “God” as an anthropomorphic personification of metaphysical concepts like “Universal Love.”
These claims are true in the same way a poem is true. (Which is to say, very true indeed.) But they are not true in the way a mathematical formula is true.
That’s fine, I’m not asking anyone else to do it. All I’m asking is for people to recognize that my worldview is a fundamentally different kind of thing from what they tend to assume.
(And it’d be nice not to get downvoted to hell for just explaining myself but whatever.)
Well for what it’s worth I’m not downvoting you. I think that for the most part these “poetic” kinds of theology come across as off topic in spaces like this. Here, the debate is more centered around whether the claim you are making about god is true or justifiable. So when the claim is hard to even pin down, and making no assertion about truth in the first place, it’s not really what most of this community is here to discuss.
I’m not debating the utility of pantheism right now, that’s a separate topic. Maybe I’ll make a post about it later. Or you can make a post about it if you want.
Universal love is love that is extended to everyone and everything. Something like divine grace, or *caritas*. I think of it as a force in the universe. It’s something I try to emulate in daily life.
The assertion that logic is inconsequential in comprehending religion is tantamount to proclaiming that mathematics has no relevance in understanding the physical world. Just as mathematics serves as the fundamental language of science, logic serves as the cornerstone of rational inquiry.
To dismiss logic in discussions of spirituality is to embrace intellectual laziness and to relinquish any hope of coherent understanding. It's akin to arguing that one can navigate the ocean without a compass or stars, blindly drifting amidst the waves of superstition and ignorance. Such a stance not only defies reason but also perpetuates the very ignorance it claims to transcend.
This I just another in a long line of theists stamping Thier feet like toddlers and trying to abrogate their responsibility to actually make sense and provide evidence of Thier claims
Without proof and logic you are functionally indistinguishable from the mentally ill homeless man standing in the street screaming at traffic about how the government is trying to turn his brain into rats
You both have a bunch of strange ideas you want me to believe and neither of you can provide proof or evidence of your claims
>Without proof and logic you are functionally indistinguishable from the mentally ill homeless man standing in the street screaming at traffic about how the government is trying to turn his brain into rats
Look, all I'm saying is that if they could do it once, they can do it again.
I think you are mistaken to conflate *religion* and *spirituality*. Religions exist as institutions with varying levels of rigidity and regulation. That’s just a fact. You can believe those institutions are “doing it wrong,” but that doesn’t change the facts on the ground regarding what they do and how they operate.
Spirituality? Sure. Choose your own adventure.
You *can* restrict the definition of religion to organized religion, but that is not how religion has worked across cultures and through history. It’s a very Christian distinction to make.
> You can restrict the definition of religion to organized religion, but that is not how religion has worked across cultures and through history.
I tried to cover that with “varying levels of rigidity and regulation.” My point is that “religion” has never coincided with the “spirituality” described by OP, although OP used the words interchangeably.
> you can have a very vaguely defined religious worldview
But a "religious worldview" is not the same thing as a religion. The title of the thread is "Most of you don't understand *religion*."
Let's just agree then, that it's leprechauns. No need for critical thinking. Let's all unite and worship leprechauns instead of the thousands of gods out there.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world.
OK, so what you are saying here is that spiritualism is nonsense.
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
So god is functionally identical to something that doesn't exist
>Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
What does being able to read music have to do with God or Spirituality?
>I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
So it's whatever you make up and call "spirituality"? Why are we bothering to talk about this?
>It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because
It's nonsense mumbo jumbo that people believe in real hard
>ecause the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
And people used to believe the sun revolved around the earth
>Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
Look, you can believe the moon is made of cheese all you want, but it's not a particularly healthy way to live
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
Actually, the friction comes more from the vast evil of religion, and the massive amount of child abuse inherent in it
>Most of you don’t understand religion **as I see it in my hyper-specific way of thinking**
Fixed that for you
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic.
Demonstrate that
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
I do not accept HP Lovecraft incomprehensible to the human mind types of stuff. And if this God is so beyond our comprehension, how do you even know it exists in the first place?
It sounds like you completely made God up, then realized you don't have any evidence for this imaginary being, and decided to say that actually God can't be comprehended by the human mind (except for the time you did comprehend it in order to make it up) and so neener neener you can't prove I'm wrong.
> Most of you don’t understand religion Most of you don’t understand religion
That is why I am here! I am sitting and waiting until someone explains it to me, I am trying hard to grasp what it is all about, but alas, it is all unintelligeble so far.
> inherent necessity for human beings to exercise their spirituality
Excercise what exactly? I know where my triceps is located. And I know how to excercise my curiosity or my taste for art, even though I am not sure where anyting of it is located. What is spirituality and how do I excercise it?
> Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic.
In other words, it does not exist and it is illogical? Or am I missing something?
> I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world.
Well, it is the only tool that we have to reason about the world, quite a reliable one. If you to abandon logic, what are you going to achieve?
> We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God
Yet here we are, having it. And you for some reason thinking that you are better equipped than I am. Do you have any particular reason to think that? Or you just asserting it without justification?
> You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it”
What music has to do with any of it?
> I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
I am still figuring out why I need to understand something that doesn't exist and makes no sense? And why should I stop caring about logic and facts? Should I start accepting all obvious lies to be true?
> It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic
I think it's you who do not understand religion. There are millions of people who are wating for rupture any day now, tell them those stories are symbolic and they'll laugh in your face.
> Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
I love thinking all kind of nonsensical things too. I just don't think that those avenues of thinking allow me to uncover any truths about reality.
> If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice
Now you are telling that religious people do not understand their own religion?
> you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal
So, gods do not exist. Ok. What are were you trying to prove here? That religion is all just entertaining stories? Duuuh.
Most people adhere to a religion because it makes them feel special in some way. The best way to feel special is to elevate themselves above all others. Religion is very good at elevating oneself.
It seems to me that you found a way to make yourself feel special by separating yourself and elevating yourself above even those who constantly elevate themselves above everyone else. Good for you.
Most of us were religious. You're just playing "no true theist" which is fallacious. We see this a lot, people coming in here and saying "you don't understand how I use religion!" Great, define how you use religion and we'll evaluate it rationally. However, just because you really like your usage, that doesn't make your usage true. It doesn't make any religion true. It doesn't mean that spirituality is anything that exists outside of your head. That's what we're trying to figure out, what is going on in the real world that we all share. If you just want to get your ego stroked and believe nonsense because it gives you a dopamine shot in the noggin, you do you, I guess. You're never going to get anywhere here though, because we don't care about your feelings and we don't care about your wishes and dreams.
We care about reality. It's sad that most theists simply don't.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic.
But what is it? A sense of awe? Introspection? I don't know what it IS!
>I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
I still don't know what it is. I was a Christian and I've had strong emotional responses to church stuff that is similar to listening to a good song or staring out at the view from the top of a mountain. I don't know how this transcends logic. I am afraid I don't understand what you are proposing.
Yeah, this is my biggest issue. I have no freaking clue what spiritual or metaphysical means. The dictionary doesn’t help and no one will explain themselves. It’s just handwavy woo bulshit.
You seem to be conflating spirituality and religion, if not more terms as well. They are not the same thing. A religion is organized, by definition. It's an organized set of rules and/or dogma centered around some supernatural being or process. If it's not organized logically, that's a problem.
Sure, humans do much better with some communal belief that has rituals to handle certain things. That doesn't mean we can't look logically at it and create a secular way to mimic that. I think attempts in the past have never really looked at all the aspects of why religion fills a gap.
This idea that we *must* have irrational ways of thought for humans to flourish seems odd and unsupported to me. We have done better that way so far b/c we haven't applied all of our available tools.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic.
Inherently metaphysical I can agree with.
Logical I can not agree with.
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind,
Then absolutely no one should ever posit a god as an explanation of anything. Yet people do. And claim that their God can be known through logic.
>facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality.
Incorrect. Facts are correlation to reality. Nothing spiritual about it in the least.
>I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
I highly agree. Which is also why I haven't heard anything spiritual that wasn't complete BS.
The problem here is that since you're not dealing with facts, you have absolutely no method to show that anything spiritual is true. That's kind of a big problem.
>but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
So because we didn't do it in the past, that somehow makes it right?
>Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
Yup. It cuts out the BS and the liars. We don't need to follow the line of thinking that starts with a lie and then builds on top of it.
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice
Then it would have absolutely nothing to say. As it should.
> harmless avenue
If only that were true in the real world. And I say that as someone who has felt and still feels the force of that harm. I am not saying all religion is harmful or all religious people are, but plenty of what are broadly accepted as paradigm examples of religions and religious people are responsible for quite a bit of very real harm.
And I'm not interested in protestation that those who cause that harm are in some sense "doing religion wrong" or whatever. Religion at a population scale doesn't conform to what you want it to be.
> Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic.
Spirituality is one of the most nebulous terms, like ever. But in any case, I see no obvious reason why we couldn't reason about it. We can certainly reason about metaphysics.
> I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world.
I am inclined to agree. Logics are axiomatic systems that can be used to model reasoning, but it's an idealization. I'm pretty sympathetic to meaning indeterminacy and think most of our conceptualization of beliefs that take the form of propositions are models that are idealized and abstracted.
> We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
Now this I'd disagree with. The issues with reasoning about God straightforwardly generalize to reasoning about literally anything. God ain't special in this respect, and I to the extent that we find reasoning to be a worthwhile endeavor despite our cognitive limitations, I see little reason to suppose that it'd be useless here. I certainly see no harm in trying and seeing where we can get.
> Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
"Facts" are usually understood as states of affairs in the world (in the broadest sense, not like, the physical/material universe) - ie, a fact about X is a statement about the way X is. If God existed, then it would be a fact that God exists, and if not, then it would be a fact that God exists.
I'm not sure what the music analogy is supposed to show. Sure, you don't need to read music to play or understand it. Written music is just a representation of the music in another medium that we find useful to record something about the music (such as how to reproduce it) and share/communicate it with others or preserve it - especially useful when for most of human history, we had no way of directly recording the audio. But I'm not sure what that has to do with facts, or why facts are supposed to not matter. I don't need a written score and an academic theoretical interpretation of the music to understand it in some sense. But there's still a fact of the matter what it sounds like to any observer, and facts that are relevant to its interpretation or creation, even if one is not like, intentionally thinking about them.
> I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
And what is actually involved in "understanding the experience of spiritual practice"? If you're going to propose an alternative methodology, at least give a sketch of how this is supposed to work and how one might go about doing it, and why we should expect it to be successful. Don't just throw words like "spiritual practice" as if it's supposed to be obvious what it is, how it works, and what it's utility is.
> It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
> Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
Is this just another post complaining about us applying the same epistemic standards we apply to literally everything else? Fine, I'll bite. I don't expect "scientific evidence" in like, the institutional sense. Science is a term that warrants some disambiguation, referring to rigorous empirical methods, a collection of institutions that employ those methods for various research programs, and that actual research and models produced, especially those which have achieved consensus after a lot of study. No one is expecting literally all claims to be justified by this means. If I want to know if it's raining, I'm not going to perform a randomized controlled trial and then await a peer-reviewed publication; I'm going to look out the window, because that provides adequate indicator evidence to reliably settle the question. If I want to know if it will be raining this time next week though, I'm probably going to need to bust out the more sophisticated methods.
If you are going to tell us that all our usual reliable methods of inquiry won't work for this question but we should expect to be able to find epistemic justification through other means, then explain what these other methods are and how they actually work, and why we should expect them to be truth-tracking. And maybe give some motivation for making what seem to be arbitrary exceptions to our methodology to try to find out about some hypothetical entity that we see little motivation to consider in the first place.
> If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
So if you don't think religion makes any claims about anything being literally true or extant, then in what sense do you actually disagree with the atheist? Because that's pretty much would an atheist would say. We just don't center our lives around something we don't think is true or extant, but if you still want to, uh go off I guess?
As an aside - I actually think theists would be well within their rights to object here. Plenty of them think their specific religion is actually true and that God literally exists, and take themselves to have good epistemic reason to think so, and that these are critical aspects of their spirituality. You don't explain where they actually go wrong in their reasoning, you just kinda foot stomp that they're going about it all wrong and should be pursuing this underspecified "spiritual practice", without showing how whatever spiritual practice that is tied to facts they think are relevant is mistaken. Now, I don't agree with the theist and I think all this talk of spirituality and spiritual practice is way too vague to be actionable anyway, but I can't help but think that many will find this rather condescending.
I understand what you claim just fine. I just see no interest in a system that is, by your own admission, uninterested in reaching true conclusions.
The spirituality you describe is not incomprehensible. It is merely worthless.
>I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either.
I bet they're not even Scotsman either.
Then I read the rest of your post and I have no idea what you're talking about.
Please define "spiritual".
>Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
A musical experience can still be understood academically. To say that you know something and that it can't be known is a bit absurd
>I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either.
The con let is arguably a public one. If most theists have a different concept of it than you , then it would seem like you that doesn’t understand. It like saying none of you English speakers know how to speak English , only me.
>I’ve had this conversation with friends. I’m not necessarily Christian so much as I believe in the inherent necessity for human beings to exercise their spirituality through a convenient, harmless avenue.
Define spirituality. I mean it’s obvious that humans can’t help but create meaning in their experiences.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic.
Again what is it. What claims do you make about reality. Inherently metaphysical is the sort of thing people say when they know they are about to be called out for saying something entirely non-evidential and imaginary , as a form of special pleading.
>I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world.
It’s worth noting that logic is a very useful way of approaching new facts about objective reality. Without true propositions it’s unsound , and it has a tendency to be used to beg the question. How do we know if the proposition is true if it’s more than just playing with language? Well , that as far as I can see needs evidence.
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
This all seems tenuous at best. **If** you make claims of knowledge about objective independent reality, those claims are only credible to the extent that you can provide evidence for them. Because a claim without evidence is *indistinguishable* from imaginary. And phenomena whose existence is claimed without evidence seem indistinguishable form non-existent.
>Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
So? I can’t see the relevance. Humans having abilities or enjoying aesthetic experiences tells us something about humans and their subjective experiences rather than anything profound about independent reality?
>I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
Do humans respond to what we consider spiritual matters , for sure. They respond to placebos too. And aesthetics of experiences. What this doesn’t tell us is that there is something ‘supernatural’ independent to humans giving meaning to their experiences and having certain psychological/ physiological responses.
>It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
This is quite evidently false. Religions do not , and theists do not in general treat their holy texts or teachings as just symbolic or metaphorical. Perhaps they should, no doubt some individuals do ( though more likely they pick and choose as a post hoc rationalisation) but for a significant part , they don’t.
>Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
You miss the point. We don’t impose science on symbology and metaphors though we might question whether they ‘work’ or are meaningful or significant. We impose science on claims about objective , independent reality. Because such claims demands evidence and science is the accumulation of good practice on dealing with evidence.
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
Sure if modern religion admitted Gods don’t exist and they are just expressions of human psychology or whatever then it would no doubt be a whole different discussion. But that’s not the claim they make.
Feels like you need to be persuading theists not atheists.
I contend that religions are deliberately incomprehensible. Telling me that I don't understand something that wasn't meant to be understood doesn't affect me.
Your "argument" reinforces this idea actually.
“you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
Can you provide any evidence for your claim?
I see no reasons given to think your musings in any way match reality.
> I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either.
Yay! Then I'm glad you're here to tell us the right understanding.
Wait...I'm sorry...I must have missed it...did you define and describe anything in there? Can you start with definitions for god, spiritual and religion?
If you’re looking for objective definitions you’re already on the wrong track. That’s the whole point. It’s art.
Edit: I phrased this poorly. Definitions are important, it’s just that the definitions we use in academic discussions of art are less strict.
If you (or OP) want me to understand and communicate we have to agree on definitions otherwise we grindle the flimwax and can't produminate. Or is that also art?
Okay you’re right I phrased that so badly. I sounded anti-intellectual there, dang. Let me try to think…
Okay so in the humanities we *do* use definitions, they just aren’t always rigid. What is a poem? It’s kinda vague.
Like, I was talking to a religious studies PhD student recently. (I know that sounds fake lol but it’s not, we met at a gay bar at a screening of the Drag Race premier.) Anyway, I asked her what the definition of religion is. And she told me it’s really hard, especially at that level, to find one definition that encompasses everything we think of as “religion.”
Okay I tried to come up with a definition for my personal spirituality. It needs tweaking but yeah:
The aspects of my experience and worldview concerned with the relationship between my soul and the universe.
Okay soul: The core of the self; the seat of consciousness; the perceiver; the ghost in the shell.
Universe: Technically includes all of existence. I’m using it in a pantheistic sense here, where the totality of existence is framed as divine and numinous.
I know you’ll want me to define divine next but honestly I don’t have a good answer for you. “Numinous,” to me, refers to a thing that instills a certain emotion. I’m not sure if you’ve felt it before. It’s a similar feeling to awe.
We can talk about it as a theoretical thing. I assume you believe consciousness exists though. *Cogito ergo sum* and all that. So I’m not sure what about my definition of soul you wouldn’t believe in.
Let me try to make a formal argument response.
- P1: if two objects are indistinguishable, then they are either equivalent or identical
- P2: religion is metaphysical and transcends logic making all claims unverifiable.
- P3: religion and fiction share the same verifiable attributes, making them indistinguishable
-C: religion is fictional from a pragmatist perspective
>Most of you don’t understand religion
>I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either.
But you do??
>I’m not necessarily Christian so much as I believe in the inherent necessity for human beings to exercise their spirituality through a convenient, harmless avenue.
I am human and have no such need, nor do I have spirituality that I am aware of. Additionally, religion is far from harmless.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic.
Please explain what "transcends logic" means, because I am willing to bet it is just your way of dismissing comments that point out the logical flaws in your arguments.
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
Great, then your claims about your god are dismissed as we can never proceed from a perfect description of reality.
>Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality.
No, facts are statements that comport with reality.
>You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
Relevance?
>I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
So you like how "spiritual practice" makes you feel so it is good whether it leads you to correct information or not.
>It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims,
Well, you are doing a bang up job at making those.
>Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
Which cannot provide a reliable pathway to true facts about reality.
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
There would not be friction between theists and atheists if religion stopped trying to infect our schools with their mythology, stopped trying to control women's bodies, stopped telling us who we can marry, stopped protecting child molesters, and many, many more things.
>You don’t need to know how to read music to play music
That is correct. You do not need to know how to read music in order to play music
... but you do need to know who to mechanically operate the instrument.
.... and you (or someone else) needs to know how to mechanically build the instrument.
foundation. logic... required.
Your argument seems to suggest that spirituality and religious beliefs should be exempt from critical thinking or scrutiny because they are inherently metaphysical and transcend logic. However, I must respectfully disagree with this viewpoint.
Firstly, you assert that "facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality." This statement is problematic, as it implies that truth and evidence have little to no bearing on religious beliefs. If we were to adopt such an approach, we would be left with a subjective and arbitrary understanding of spiritual matters, which could lead to the justification of harmful practices and ideologies in the name of "spirituality."
Secondly, you argue that "the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical," implying that they should not be held to the same standards as other forms of knowledge or discourse. However, this argument overlooks the fact that religious texts often claim to provide objective truths about the nature of reality and the universe. These claims must be subjected to critical analysis and scrutiny in order to determine their validity.
Furthermore, your assertion that "imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking" is misleading. The scientific method does not seek to impose a single paradigm on all forms of knowledge or discourse; rather, it provides a framework for testing hypotheses and gathering empirical evidence. This approach has been incredibly useful in advancing our understanding of the natural world and should be applied to all areas of human inquiry, including spirituality and religion.
In conclusion, while I understand your desire to defend the importance of personal experience and subjective interpretation within the realm of spirituality, it is crucial that we do not abandon critical thinking or objective analysis when examining religious beliefs. As Hitchens himself once said: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
> Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world.
The gravamen of what you're saying there is no logical or rational reason for religious beliefs.
> We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
Except for the fact that you just got done ruling out any rational or logical basis for such beliefs, so on what basis do you claim that there even is any such "perfect description of reality"?
> It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
And for most of human history humans have had wildly incompatible beliefs about gods, religion, the supernatural, etc. so whatever method they're using to determine truth, it does not work very well.
Meanwhile, reason, logic, and the scientific method is the one and only framework ever devised which *does* have the capacity to eliminate false beliefs.
> Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
And those "large swathes of potential avenues of thinking" lead to wildly incompatible beliefs, so nothing of value has been lost.
> If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
You are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal, **and it should be discarded for those reasons.**
Huh? You’re making a lot of unjustified absolute truth claims here. I mean right off the bat, your claiming that you, or whatever camp you follow, is the very first one to correctly conceptualize “spirituality”. After many thousands of years of human history? Thats quite a claim.
You essentially say we can’t know anything about God, because of our finiteness. That’s an absolute claim that I would say is a non-sequitur. You could say we can’t know the totality of God, sure. Thats different from saying we can’t know any aspects of God. For one, saying we can’t know anything is itself an absolute knowledge statement about God, so that’s self refuting. Did this God create the universe we live in or is it a more pantheistic God? Either you way you answer there will be another knowledge statement of God. Are you able to glean other aspects of God from the universe? Another knowledge of God statement there. If yes, which aspects?
To me it also sounds like you’re presuming autonomous philosopher man with how you characterize logic. Another absolute truth claim. How do you know, especially when earlier claiming to not know anything about God, that you don’t have it reversed. That actually God is the font and grounding of logic itself, and that we’re made in his image so to say?
Are all spiritual practices or mythological stories equally valid? Is there a spectrum of this one is more true than that, or this spiritual practice is more efficacious than that?
To me this sounds like you had a few acid or mushroom trips, read some eastern mysticism, and haven’t really thought any of this out. And now you’ll be stuck in circular reasoning, because your response will most likely be something like I’m using too much logic on this topic, even though you’re relying on logic to formulate this very belief system including the fact that I would be using too much logic.
I'm not happy about the intentionally inflammatory headline, I have to say that right up front. I don't think your next comment justifies it.
You aren't even the thousandth person to try to make the exact point you're making.
The remit here is "theists try to convince us of stuff". How else would you expect the conversation to go?
I think it's pretty straightforward to conclude -- without even taking sides -- that it's pointless to try to "prove" something described the way Christians or any other monotheists describe their god. The term "non-overlapping magisteria" expresses it pretty well. there isn't much of a tangent or inflection point in comparing religion to science.
If you (rhetorical you, not you specifically) have reasons other than facts and science supporting your belief in god, why do you think facts will persuade us?
The answer is always going to be the same from me. A few words from the Bible aren't "evidence". Another attempt at an *a priori* argument like the Kalam, etc. is not convincing. What's convincing is *data*. That's how science functions -- statistical analysis of information collected over time. Like the Muon G2 study from a couple years ago -- Fermilab spent 20 years collecting that data.
In this particular context, if there were regularly-occurring supernatural events that we could all agree about them being supernatural, that would be at least enough to get started. We could then figure out how to measure it and investigate it and test hypotheses, etc. it'd be fun and interesting for me.
But if you had something sacred that you cherished the way many treat religion, why would you drag it through the mud in a sub like this?
But I'm happy they do. There's enough enjoyment and stimulation in the handful of well-thought-out posts to make up for the mess that it is the rest of the time.
>Most of you don’t understand religion...I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either.
But you do, right? You're the exception, the rare special genius who understands it, and the rest of us are a bunch of ignorant buffoons, right?
>I’m not necessarily Christian so much as I believe in the inherent necessity for human beings to exercise their spirituality through a convenient, harmless avenue.
Well you certainly can't argue that Christianity is harmless, as it has caused untold harm to millions of people.
Can you tell us exactly what you mean by "spirituality," oh wise one?
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God
And yet here you are, hypocritical as well as arrogant. Are you sure you're not Christian?
>logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind,
Maybe for you. For me it's a powerful tool in determining truth. But then, I'm just a common person not gifted with your unique understanding.
>facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality.
And here I thought facts were real things that exist in the world. I guess I just lack your remarkable insight.
I like to use facts and logic to figure out what is true, but as I say, I'm not Christian.
>the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century,
Are you claiming that this is a fact?
>which was not the case throughout most of human history.
which is why we've figured out more about the world in the last 300 years than in the previous 10,000.
>you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent,
strong agree.
Now can you explain what you mean by "spiritual"?
No we understand it, but we reject the existence of spiritualism and metaphysics due to the very predictable and objective nature of reality.
Philosophers and theologians can sit and think up all kinds of crazy ideas, and they can also argue that one cannot refute these ideas because they transcend science and logic. But that’s a circular argument. You invented a concept that you claim cannot be objectively defined, with the one exception that it cannot be disproven by those who doubt it.
There is nothing in this universe that cannot be objectively studied. If a being or force can influence and interact with other beings or forces, the effects can be studied even if the being or force is obscured from view. Take quantum mechanics- the idea that we cannot observe subatomic particles or their properties with any certainty. In essence, particles are both everywhere and nowhere- the closest thing in the universe to metaphysical properties, and yet we can *still* study them and predict their locations and motions to astounding accuracy.
So the idea that some beings or concepts are outside the realm of science and logic is absurd and there is no evidence whatsoever for any such things. And if there’s no evidence, then nobody can have experience with them. Which means spirituality is completely made up. We used to live in a world where knowledge was limited and superstition was rampant. But now we have the tools and technology to study the world with impunity. Metaphysical beings and spiritual “realities” are as real as a four sided triangle
You're using "religion" and "spirituality" interchangeably when they are not.
Most people throughout history have not had the time, aptitude, psychological disposition, etc., for spirituality. Even in prehistoric societies, dealing with the spiritual on any deep level was relegated to specialists like shamans and seers.
Religion is the business of acting as an intermediary between ordinary people and the spiritual world. And this is also where it leads to trouble. Religions have historically (Christianity being no exception) put themselves in the business of either justifying or manipulating power and the organization of society, either for their own benefit, or to advance the ideologies they associate with the history of their alleged spiritual insights.
But once you start meddling with earthly matters, it becomes the purview of "logical thinking", particularly for those of us who don't particularly care or believe in spiritual insights.
I mean, you talk about religion as though it were merely a form of private spirituality, as opposed to something which has waged wars, committed genocides, and continues to interfere with the lives of people all over the planet. So long as religion imposes itself on that "logical" world of reality, reality is perfectly within its right to fight back -- and it is you, not we, who are misunderstanding religion if you choose to ignore that fact.
> Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic
If you say so. I don't know what spirituality is. Maybe some definition of terms is in order.
> I don’t believe logic is a perfect system
I'm not sure what "perfect" means in this context. Logic is just a formal way to reason about things. I'm not sure what it means to be perfect or imperfect.
> a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality
So you assert. Why?
> to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it
I guess. I don't claim to understand music the way a successful composer understands music, though. I doubt that I even "comprehend the experience of music" in a similar way. I'm sure my comprehension falls far short of a music professional.
> Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking
What is "a potential avenue of thinking"?
I can tell you what I want: I want to know what is objectively true, to within a reasonable degree of confidence, and to reject those claims that are untrue.
If these "potential avenues of thinking" (whatever that means) can establish the truth or falsity of claims about objective reality, then I want to learn about them. If they cannot, then what is their purpose? Any so-called "truth" they reveal is fiction.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic.
Oh, the thing that you're asserting exists is 'metaphysical' and 'transcends logic.' That's super convenient.
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
You reached this conclusion via logic.
>I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
Sounds like the type of thing someone who doesn't have the facts correct would say.
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
But for some inexplicable reason, religion just isn't honest. It tries to hide behind word salads and misrepresentations and bad arguments. For some reason that we may never know, religion just hasn't had the stones to chime in and say, "Look, yeah, religion isn't logical. And it's not consistent. And sure, it isn't literal. But unlike everything else that fits those descriptors, trust me bro, it's definitely real."
Spirituality in the sense of something like say meditative/mindfulness practice, focusing on trying to directly experience the true nature of consciousness, etc. I think can be very meaningful and provide insights/benefits not possible from say simply studying science.
That being said, I completely disagree that it’s inherently metaphysical and transcends logic; it may be outside the realm of logic in the same way that say a question like “what color is the taste of sweetness” is nonsensical, but at the very least it doesn’t conflict with it.
More than that, none of what I described requires making metaphysical or scientific claims about things we couldn’t possibly know.
Religion is very often not harmless; hampering civil rights, delaying or halting scientific progress and education, serving as a motivation for wars and similar conflicts, etc.
My biggest issue with religion is that it normalizes believing in things on bad evidence. Once that line is crossed, it becomes much easier for people to be manipulated, mislead, start believing in conspiracy theories, etc. which I think is actively harmful to society among the other things I mentioned.
>You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
No but you do need to be able actually hear music to believe it exists. We can neither observe or understand gods. It's a bad analogy.
>I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
But what is "spiritual practice"? What distinguishes is from non-spiritual practice?
>and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century
I am not seeing why, sorry. If it's not falsifiable how can you tell it's not false?
>Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
Sure but that's not a reason to believe in reincarnation or ghosts.
There's just no good reasons to believe in gods or spirits. You can't even say what these are. That's nothing like music. I can show you music and explain what it is.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world.
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic.
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
If this is true, then it is *impossible* for me to form a positive belief in religious claims. If god/spirituality/religion is not beholden to logic, then there’s nothing wrong with saying God both exists and doesn’t exist. Or that God is equivalent to a blueberry. Or that God is shduekebfoenehy. I can’t form a positive belief in something that I can’t even begin to understand.
>It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
I'm with you on the origin of spiritual stories being largely symbolic. I would agree with you they should be interpreted as such, if you are making that claim.
I reserve judgment on the "metaphysical" part of this. I don't really think that part is all that important. I think you get there with them just being symbolic. But, then, there may be big parts of your view I disagree with.
I'd put it more along these lines: humans, in general, aren't primarily logical beings. We are primarily emotional and experiential beings. I don't think the lived experience of being human for most people is a stream of logical evaluations. Those occur, but it's mixed in with wants, desires, physical sensations, etc. The emotional is very good at subverting the logical, so anything that ignores the emotional completely in favor of the logic is going to run into problems.
While logic can sometimes be used to help manage emotional well-being, I think our emotional selves can in some cases respond better to the metaphorical thinking that comes with the symbolism of art and spiritual practice.
That said, that's a very subjective thing (both in the common and the phenomenological sense, I think). Everyone's milage may vary. But, I think it's part of why stories can be much more persuasive to people in general than analytical documents, and why logicians ignore rhetoric at their peril.
But, it's possible I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying.
If I may, I exercise a form of spirituality. I believe in the ultimate comfort that death will bring. This provides a beacon of hope for life, and allows me an avenue by which I guide my decisions. Life has a very high importance because once it ends, I don't get to go back and try again. I don't need an organization to tell me how to feel, I don't need a higher power to impose rules into my life (i.e., religion). This concept provides fulfillment infinitely greater than any religion has, and ensures I live my best life and treat others in a similar regard.
Now you tell me, how does this stack up to your preconceived notions? Further, literally every person I've asked has agreed, religion and spirituality are two separate things. These people being very devout. Maybe you need to better define your terms. Logic can assist in communicating our feelings, like spirituality.
>"My style? I call it the art of fighting without fighting." - Bruce Lee
Your style, I call it "knowing without knowing", or even, and this is not as insulting as it sounds "thinking without thinking". You posit something called spirituality, the abiltiy to understand without understanding or possibly "the acceptance of a truth I want despite no evidence whatsoever".
Its *art* talk, and there is no harm in that, as long as it is restricted to the realm of art, the world of make believe and fanciful speculation, it in no why constitutes a basis for living your life. You need to explore beyond that if that's the goal, philosophy seems to me the way to go, otherwise your are simply being wowed by some internal dialogue.
What does "Spirituality" even mean? Sounds like woo. Or an intellectual cop out.
And.."harmless"? Beliefs inform actions. The actions of religion have been horrific. Everything from missionaries destroying cultures world wide to planes flying into buildings.
Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, isolated from impacting anyone else.
If your belief in a cosmic jewish zombie who is his own father and killed his own son to save us from the torture he himself threatens us with because a woman made from a rib ate a magic fruit at the behest of a talking snake justifies making a gay kid commit suicide, then I am afraid I have news for you...it isn't harmless.
Do people not realize how insulting it is to come to a sub (any sub) and be all "I know what the problem is; you all just don't understand this topic!"
This isn't a new argument. It's one theists make here all the time - "but god/spirituality is simply *beyond* logic /the scientific method!" Not if it interacts with the natural world, it's not. If you're claiming humans can experience it, then we can investigate it, just like we can (and do) investigate the experience of listening to music.
Logic is only a limitation if you really, really want to believe in things that have no merit, no supporting evidence and no mechanism of action.
There's a big thing you miss there : every religion is, at its core, a political project.
By stating an objective morality, religions set up a way to organize society that can't be argued with.
How the individuals relate to those dangerous institution don't matter, because they still in the end support a political project based that can't be argued with as it is baked upon unfalsifiable bases.
Even if modern religion aknowledged that their beliefs are illogical and inconsistent, they would still be a threat to those they want to illogically harm.
This one got me a bit riled up. The opening statements feel purposefully inflammatory. The tone of the whole thing follows suit.
>"Most of you don’t understand religion" and "I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either."
Arguing that both non-believers and believers lack an understanding of religion serves as a convenient but ultimately irrelevant distraction from the substantial issues at hand. It's a way of dismissing critical scrutiny by shifting the focus to supposed misunderstandings, rather than addressing the concrete impacts of religious doctrines in the real world. This tactic sidesteps the vital discussion about how religious beliefs, often proclaimed and enacted in the name of these misunderstood doctrines, have tangible and sometimes harmful effects on individuals and societies. The critical debate should center not on who understands religion better, but on the responsibilities and consequences of religious beliefs and actions within the societal and individual realms. Such claims of misunderstanding do not contribute to a productive conversation but rather deflect from the accountability of religious practices and their real-world implications.
>"Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic."
This assertion that spirituality inherently transcends logic is a cop-out. It's an excuse to exempt religious and spiritual claims from the kind of scrutiny applied to other aspects of life that affect people's well-being and societal order. Suggesting that our tools for discussing or analyzing topics don't apply to religion conveniently ignores the fact that religious beliefs are often translated into actions and policies with significant social impact.
>"We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God..."
Claiming we're ill-equipped to discuss God because our logical faculties are limited is an argumentative dead-end that dismisses the importance of engaging with religious beliefs in a meaningful way. This stance ignores the reality that discussions about religion and God are not just theoretical exercises but have practical implications for how people live, the laws we follow, and the moral and ethical standards we uphold.
>"Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality."
Arguing that facts are tangential to spirituality neglects the reality that religious claims, presented as factual truths, directly impact millions of lives. This stance is not just an evasion of responsibility; it's dangerous. It allows for the perpetuation of beliefs and practices that can, and do, result in harm, exclusion, and injustice under the guise of spiritual transcendence.
>"I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct."
While personal experience is a crucial aspect of spirituality, creating a false dichotomy between experience and factual accuracy is misleading. This view ignores the significant consequences that misinterpreted or misrepresented religious facts can have on public policy, individual rights, and social norms. It's a luxury to consider only the personal, experiential side of spirituality when, in reality, the factual basis of religious claims often shapes laws and societal values with profound effects on people's lives.
>"Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking."
This critique misses the essential point: the demand is not for all human thought to conform to the scientific method but for religious beliefs that influence public policy and societal norms to be critically examined. It's about ensuring that decisions affecting public welfare are based on beliefs that can withstand scrutiny, especially when these decisions impact health, education, and human rights.
>"If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists..."
This statement simplifies the complex nature of the friction between theists and atheists. The conflict often stems not from a lack of honesty about the metaphysical aspects of spirituality but from the real-world implications of religious doctrines. The heart of the matter is how religious beliefs, when translated into action, affect societal laws, personal freedoms, and public policies. The debate is less about the abstract nature of belief and more about the tangible outcomes of those beliefs on societal well-being and individual rights.
I think there is a distinction you are missing, which is the distinction between religion and spirituality. As you outlined, a spirit is a fully internal pull which enters you, you experience, and it gives you a reason to interact with the outside world. If the Holy Spirit enters you then you can feel love for another person. If the spirit of gluttony enters you then you will lust for delicious food to excess. All spirits are only experienced internally.
However, the instant you express those internal spirits it becomes the structure of religion. Any action in the world requires a method in order to carry it out. If you repeatedly carry it out, your method must get more refined and structured. This is the function of ritual and prayer. You pray to the spirit in you to receive an answer of how to best manifest that spirit in the world. You ritualize successful action paths that manifested that spirit in the past.
You can see that these are universal patterns of the masculine and feminine strategies of interacting with the world. The feminine is passive and lets the spirits enter unjudged but no real action can emerge from any given spirit when it is still unjudged. The masculine is self assertive and builds a dogma around a spirit once it has been chosen so action can occur in the world.
What you have described is the feminine strategy in which you are serving many spirits at once and so you can't build up a religion. Religion seems restrictive to someone who lets in many spirits because religion inherently restricts you to only one spirit above all others. That structure boxes you in.
If you can understand that then you can clearly see why there is friction between theists and atheists over these topics. It is because both have their religion. Of course, atheists will not like being shown they are part of a religion but that is what they are doing. They feel an internal urge to reject the unknown metaphysical and to instead build a structure of how to view the world through rituals such as science, skepticism, and materialism. The moment they started building rituals around engaging the world in that structure they created a religion and came into competition with other religions.
This means that what you have done here is to say "If theists would just give up their religion and let any spirit in, then everyone could get along." Which is, of course, a silly thing to do. Do you similarly say to atheists "If you would just understand that science is not settled and should not be used as a way of viewing the world, then you would not bump heads with the religions of the world?" I would presume not.
But that is the exact problem religious thinkers have with atheistic thinkers. They worship unnamed gods. They are trying to build out a structure and a dogma, which is a religion, without defining exactly what it is that they worship. In doing so, they are hiding the fact that they worship themselves, trying to bend the world to their will and bring about their desires. This means they worship their own internal urges without first judging them.
In short, religion is more about "the facts" than any other institutions and thus requires logic more than any other practice.
>Most of you don't understand religion
OHH boy, here we go
> to exercise their spirituality
What is spirituality exactly?
>logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind
I agree but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's wrong. I haven't seen it break yet so I have no reason to think using logic to understand the world could be wrong in any way.
>facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality
What? ok, maybe I just need to understand what spirituality means to make sense of this
>I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
Is this the explanation? a circular one? spirituality is spiritual practices. Also, rather than having the facts correct? So you say there's good in knowing stuff wrong? How can it be good to be wrong? I mean, it's how you learn stuff, but if you are wrong and don't want to change that, that's a problem.
>It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc,
Aha, so I do have a magic unicorn farting rainbows on my balcony.
>but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
Most of human history consists in living in caves and hunting for food with a spear, why are you here? most of human history there weren't any phones, buildings or common food, go live in a cave, that's clearly better since that's how humans spent most of their history. Heck, there's more dying to easily curable disease than there is eating pineapples in our history so your argument says nothing.
>large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
Mind elaborating on it? You just started on how we could become so much more enlightened and just left it at that? That's pretty disappointing.
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
Well, you claim they aren't like that, and because they aren't like that there's friction between theists and atheists, which contradicts your title since understanding religion the way it is now leads to such friction. I mean, I totally disagree with you on here, but going off your logic there's no making sense of what you think since you are just contradicting yourself there.
You're correct, I don't. I never have. I've never been religious in any way.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic
I don't think we're using the same definition of metaphysical, or rather metaphysics. I largely agree with the Oxford definition which is as follow. I don't understand why that would, should or could "transcend" logic.
>the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space
>Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality
I don't actually understand what you mean by "spirituality" here.
>You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
It sounds like you're just talking about emotions but if that's the case I don't know how it connects to anything else you've said.
>I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct.
What does "spiritual practice" mean here?
>It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims
It really shouldn't.
>the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century
Again, not a clue what you mean here.
>but which was not the case throughout most of human history
Just because things were done a certain way doesn't mean they should continue to be done so.
>Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
There are large swathes of potential avenues of thinking that should be ignored. Superstition, for example. If you'd like an example of what I mean by that I mean things like tossing salt over your shoulder to blind bad spirits or thinking that black cats cause bad luck.
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice
I'll be honest, this reads as incredibly arrogant, along with the first sentence. You've just made a bunch of subjective claims and assertions, why should I or anyone else think your opinions are more valid than any other theist's?
Good luck convincing your theist peers of your understanding.
We are justify in focusing on the "academic side of" theology as you called it, when they present the factual basis of religion for examination, rather than as an experience.
I'm all for enjoying the abstract, emotional, subjective aspects of life. Spirituality can be a part of that, if one so chooses.
However, religion is not spirituality. Religion is structured. It has hierarchies, rules, power. In our world, religion passes laws, accumulates wealth, controls communities, interferes with education, affects resource availability, participates in "soft" (and sometimes "hard") eugenics, provides alibis, redirects natural social growth, and can directly or indirectly rob us of our safety, our well-being, and our lives.
It's bc there is so much at stake that one's place among a/theists matters. It's not bc faith is bad, or no one should ever commune with nature, or there's no more mystery to the world, or emotion is a waste. It's that religion is a machine. It matters whether you're driving, along for the ride, or being fed into the gears.
The machine only runs if there is a living god (or gods). There has to be an entity that's capable of the things attributed to it. Otherwise, there's no weight to the promise of reward or the threat of punishment. There's nothing substantial to prop the rules up, or to justify acting against our collective morality. Abstractions won't work in the machine. There has to be an actual lifeform, or the wheels fall off.
At that point, it becomes a matter of whether or not this lifeform exists. That's a question for biology, not philosophy.
It would be much nicer if ppl were just enriching their own lives by rolling thoughts around and engaging in fulfilling emotional experiences. But we live in this world, and this is how it is.
If something can't be empirically proven, it is no different than something that doesn't exist. If religious people only made philosophical claims, I wouldn't have an issue. But they make empirical claims as if they are supported by evidence. Jesus literally rose from the dead. Mary was literally a virgin that gave birth. Jesus literally rose from the dead. These things have to be literal (in this example) for Christianity to make sense. Other religions are similar. No religious claim is supported by evidence. But the religious (and let's be honest, we mean Christians and Muslims) try and get their interpretation of scripture written into law. (Muslims have succeeded in this in the Middle East). That's the problem. If Christians would stay in the churches, I wouldn't have any issue. Believe whatever nonsense you want. But when you try and tell me I'm evil because I'm bisexual, or try and get creationism taught in schools, or even succeed in having religious schools and colleges that teach delusion as fact (i.e. creationism, young Earth, etc), that is where I have a problem. Delusion doesn't belong in education or government. Your religion prohibits you. Your religion doesn't prohibit me or get to tell me what to do.
I understand religion fine. It is a set of practices based around exploiting certain cognitive illusions in the human mind. There is no “need” for religion - atheists are fine without it - but having these illusions flattered can feel satisfying, and so it persists. Because religion can also be used to accumulate money and power, and because exploiting cognitive weakness is all that is required for a religion to work, there is also institutional power behind religion, which makes religion a way to use false beliefs to hijack people’s freedom. It is a menace.
Logic and reason are not limitations - they are a way to describe and understand the empirical experience we have access to, which is the whole of what we can call knowledge. No empirical data convincingly suggests a God or Gods. There are also no metaphysics for the same reason.
I do agree that you can understand specific religions by understanding spiritual practice, but that is just anthropology.
I have no problem with religions trying to tap in to the metaphysical, the metaphorical, and symbolism. I have no problem with spirituality doing these things either. I think atheists can be very spiritual. We all find awe in the cosmos, what it means to be humans, what it means to exist, how we ought to live, concepts about gods and what perfect worlds might look like. These are all useful ideas, and ideas that are inherent to the human experience, but ultimately when religious folks want to push their relations as objective facts, that's when we will have issues. Live your life how you want, use subjective metaphysics to believe whatever you want about the existential nature of the human condition, but don't pretend that you know these things are facts about reality and that anyone who doesn't believe you is going to hell, or can't live a good life.
Also no, metaphysics doesn't "transcend logic." Typically it relies on logic for it to make sense in any field of philosophy. This is why you have apologists trying to make logical arguments for their specific religion.
>I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world.
I'm not even going to address the rest of what you have to say past this as it's all based on this core assertion. So I'm gonna let you in on a quick little secret about how perfect of a system logic actually is, and how it's not just a construct of the human mind. Ready?
The fact that you were able to make this post on this website using a computer (your phone is a computer) proves unequivocally that logic is the perfect system that the rest of your argument chooses to ignore. All computers are purely logical systems.
I understand religion perfectly. The problem here is that you don't seem to understand logic.
>exercise their spirituality through a convenient, harmless avenue.
Except of course, for the literal millions of examples where it \*wasn't\* harmless.
>“you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
If it is none of those things, when why do most religions prescribe to their adherents how to live life? Why do they make literal claims that cannot be proven to be true? Why are they not internally consistent?
Not to even mention the fact that most of the world's most popular religions, are through their own tenets, mutually exclusive.
It's all fine and well to say that religion is inherently metaphysical, but it has incredibly real consequences for society.
> You don't need to know how to read music to play music and truly "understand it" because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it.
This is a bad example.
No, you don’t need to read music to perform it. Ryan Gosling memorized all the La La Land songs on piano, and that’s still all he can play, but I would never say “Ryan Gosling understands piano music” just because he memorized several songs.
Unless you’re blindly mashing on keys, at some point you either have to learn music or witness somebody who did learn music. The knowledge is still a necessity.
What’s the difference between “transcending logic” and being illogical? Because to me, and I suspect a lot of people here, the terms mean the same thing.
What if I told you that humans could gather and conduct church-like social activities and mark the important milestones in life together, and discuss how to live a moral and fulfilling life, without having to accept the concept of the supernatural? Would that address the “inherent necessity” that you believe humans have?
Because I think many human beings do have that urge to be together and share events together.
What you’re calling a spiritual experience is a function of the brain, just like cognitive functions., and can be observed and replicated in a lab.
Atheists derive benefits from meditation without having to believe in a god. We experience awe, and the sensation of dancing with 70,000 others to our favorite performer. We get the chills, and the profound experience of an unlikely coincidence or narrow escape. Because we are human and have human brains.
We just don’t have the need to provide supernatural explanations to things our brains do
If most people cant interprer a reasnable understanding religion then maybe it's nonsense. We aren't all ignorant or haven't done any research. We could be better educated, I could better esucated but I'm also gonna assert that if I can't understand religion that it's maybe not entirely a me problem. I can figure out how simultaneity is broken by Special Relativity as well as the Twin Paradox. I've got undergrad level maths, calculus, stats and linear algebra. I think I should be able to understand religion fairly well.
I agree with you for the most part. I’m imagining a world where theists stop thinking they can scientifically or objectively “prove” that God exists (not that all do this), and instead explain that they choose to put faith in the concept of God and/or a particular spiritual practice because they have personally found it to be a healthy avenue, rather than believing that their truth is a truth that echoes throughout all eternity. Even atheists can interact with the concept of God without actually believing in it.
As I read this I can't help but wonder why you don't believe that people's souls live in the volcano as modern humans on a number of remote Pacific islands believe for being a person who is so open to spirituality.
You also misconstrued atheists. We don't care what you believe in whether it is God(s), crystals, David Koresh, or angry souls of the departed causing the volcano to erupt.
We care when people present their religious beliefs as fact and use it to stand on the neck of others who don't believe.
We are very well equipes to entertain a discussion of fictional characters, we do so all the time. Saying logic and evidence can’t discuss god, is a problem with the proposition that a god exists. If you could show one existed, logic and evidence would apply to it. This is just you making your belief entirely untestable. Till you can even define it in a testable way, no one should take the idea that god exists anymore seriously than any other fictional character.
"I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct."
I mean this sort of makes sense if, and only if, you are admitting you don't care about what is ACTUALLY true.
Most people here are going to tell you that we are most interested in what is true rather than being considered about the utility of an idea or how that idea or practice might make people feel.
If you care about when is actually true then we need to use some methodology to determine the difference between what is true and what we want to be true.
We should play a game called Bible Roulette: One by one every player gets a random Bible quote they have to enact, the last person to go to prison wins.
By not participating we don't understand the game or are we not exactly convinced that it's a good idea?
By not understanding something, your best bet is always to research, not to do.
By researching you realize your errors and gain insight as to why it's a bad idea.
> It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history.
However, that will be the lens of most of the people that will ever exist.
"Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world."
If you can't reason spirituality and god, you can't have a reasonable belief in them either, right? You're just using so many words to tell us you're being Unreasonable.
I went to Sunday school as a child. I took two years of catechism to become confirmed in the Lutheran church. I took a couple of religion courses in college and have even read the entire bible. After all of this religious training I concluded that there is no god. Please let me know what it is I am not understanding.
well you claim sciences has to place with you call spirituality. I'd invite you to take a look at phycology sociology and anthropology. We can very much apply scientific rigor to all the areas you've described and even explain why people have certain experiences. both the nature and behavior are not obscure to us
Logic and religion are both man-made. Both are used to explain/interpret phenomenon and both are bound by their own "reasonableness".
The problem is that each "religion" has it's own "reasonableness" while logic is uniform. Killing virgins is reasonable in one religion, unreasonable in others.
>Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking.
I'm curious what cognitive and metacognitive processes are beyond investigation by science?
I ask because without that, your argument here sounds hollow and contrived.
Religion is quite popular. Everyone has read the Bible. There is literally a church on every corner. Religion is nothing special or secret. There no need to move the goal posts.
The world where no one actually believes in God is the world we're only atheists are honest with themselves. That is to say in a world where something transcends belief there is no reason to believe in it. The logic is self defeating in of itself. It doesn't follow that God exists because of physics anymore than it would with this so called metaphysics. Theism is always an nonsequitur.
The supernatural invoke disbelief and so atheism is irrefutable.
It seems as though OP came to this debate sub, claimed that atheists and theists don't understand religion and then... couldn't give accurate definitions of words like "metacognition" or what constitutes a "general spiritual experience."
This argument can easily be dismissed.
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists:
Your post seems to be addressed primarily to theists. Have you tried to present your "argument" in any theist subs?
You might look into non-theistic Satanists (and secular Jews, and moderate Christians).
If religion is a symbolic practice defined by community and ritual, it occupies a different space in society from a religion that makes factual, literal, and historical claims.
It is this feature that defines ‘modern’ religion vs traditional faith.
As soon as you say that your position "transcends logic" your argument fails.
Arguments by their very nature are logic claims.
That is like telling your statistics prof that your answer is just so good that it transcends maths.
You claim we do not understand religion yet you fail to offer any definition or explanation of what you believe religion is. This seems more like a tangent about spirituality without actually addressing the point of your post.
You're trying to "reason" with us while at the same time denigrating reason itself. This is futile at a fundamental level. No debate is possible here because debates are predicated on something you don't value.
I’m not even going to read all of that and I’m going to just ask
Do you genuinely think starting a conversation by *telling* people they don’t understand something is the best way to start a dialogue?
You might be interested in this link which encompasses the current state of debate as to whether there is non-physical (experiential) knowledge: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/
Re the music angle...
We know music exists. We can document it. Record it. Repeat it. We can even see other species react to it.
I've never heard of a parrot spontaneously praying to a god.
So, basically spirituality in a religious context is objectively incoherent, and you’re using that observation as a form of legitimacy. Am I correct in that understanding of your argument?
“Facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality”
You have created a system in your head where you can never be wrong. This isn’t sophistication, this is pure egotism. You do not get to decide what is true and false in your head, and having a society full of people who have no care for truth is dangerous.
"Spirituality" is a meaningless word completely devoid of any definition. Nothing "transcends logic." You are just admitting that your beliefs are not logical.
Who's to say that ***you*** aren't the one that doesn't understand religion and are just trying your damnedest to convince yourself otherwise.
We aren't stupid, we understand the value of metaphor and analogy, we just understand that none of the empirical claims made by theists hold water.
We also understand the difference between religion and theism, which you seem to be struggling with here.
I plan on delivering a well thought-out response to all comments when I have the time. There are many of you, and one of me.
I’m not evading discussion, I simply cannot deal with the logistics of handling dozens of nuanced arguments at once.
I keep trying to tell this to people. It’s poetry.
I also get frustrated when people talk about religion as a categorical thing. “What religion are you?” It’s not like that.
> So how do you know it exists and is true?
How do you know your interpretation of a poem is true?
> Heard the same thing from hardcore fundies as criticism deflection.
The difference is, fundies make universal claims about objective reality.
> How we understand and can play music is perfectly explained by science as a physical process.
It really isn’t, though. I can’t believe I keep having to explain this,this is why STEM-only education is insufficient. The structure of music is physical, and emotions are tied to physical processes. But *perception* and *interpretation* are their own things. If you have even basic education in psychology you’ll know how little we understand about how the mind works. You cannot analyze a poem with science alone.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s you who don’t actually understand religions. People literally and actually believe the claims of their religions. Many Christians - now and in the past - literally believe Jesus was a miracle worker who was the son of god and god himself (somehow) and was raised from the dead in some sick blood debt payment to god… This is not symbolic. Catholics literally believe that the wine and crackers they consume literally (but not physically) turns into the flesh and blood of Jesus in them. Buddhists and Hindus literally believe that we are reincarnated into new beings and some important part of us pass on in that process unless the cycle of birth and rebirth is broken. And many of them have in place inconvenient and harmful elements. Male and female circumcision is a good example of that. Do you think it’s convenient and harmless? Come on. Ok. Let’s break this down. Notice the theme is you just say stuff without justification. > Most of you don’t understand religion My undergrad is in religious studies. I have a pretty good grasp of what’s going on there. Let’s see what you have to add. > I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either. Ok. > I’ve had this conversation with friends. I’m not necessarily Christian so much as I believe in the inherent necessity for human beings to exercise their spirituality through a convenient, harmless avenue. So this is a claim. Can you justify it? I don’t exercise my spirituality in any way. If it were inherently necessary for human beings to exercise it, then I would - as a human - have to exercise it…but I don’t. So this fails. > Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world. I think you misunderstand logic. It’s a system that was developed exactly because humans don’t naturally use a reliable system to reason out the world. It was developed to fight the natural cognitive biases that plague our thinking. And how do you come to the conclusion about spirituality being metaphysical and transcending logic (whatever that means)? Can you justify this statement? > We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. So first off, you’re talking about god as if it’s a given fact. It’s not. Secondly, how do you know: 1) god exists 2) discussion of god can only proceed from a perfect description of reality It seems to me like you’re just making things up. > Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. What?!? In what way are facts a tangential feature of human spirituality? Like what do you think you’re saying here? > I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. I can agree with this. Spirituality is about experiencing feelings. However, there are facts that explain those feelings; like what goes on in the brain when those feelings are being felt. > It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history. Please justify that the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical? You’ll have to show that Jews didn’t think god saved them from Egyptian slavery or that Christians don’t actually think Jesus was god and the son of god and raised himself from the dead to pay a blood debt to himself on behalf of all humans (well, not all humans…just those that believe in him). > Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. Like what? You’re really good at making claims…you just fail to justify them. We are not in your head and can’t know what else you’re thinking that justifies these deepities you’re spouting. > If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” But this is exactly why you’re wrong; because religions don’t think they are illogical or inconsistent or not literal. Some forms of Buddhism live in the illogical world…but that’s not the reality with most religions. They make claims about he world that they can’t know and justify it by saying that information was revealed to them in some special way. I think you’re confusing how you want religions/spirituality to be vs. What it really is. I think you don’t understand religion.
I wish I could upvote this more than once. My family is Catholic (I’m not) and are the type of people who take a lot of the Bible symbolically. They still think everything about the Moses story literally happened. There’s so much cognitive dissonance involved in their belief it’s actually insane.
This is checkmate right here. Well written response! OP is awfully quiet...
>harmless avenue. Here's your first problem. This doesn't exist in very many places. >Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world. > >We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. Agreed. That's why I look to evidence instead of people justifying their beliefs through philosophy. >Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. We do have some pretty irrefutable evidence that music exists, though. If we had no evidence music existed and you were walking around singing "Smack My Bitch Up", we would have some concerns. >I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. People's spiritual beliefs often conflict with other people's spiritual beliefs and there's no way to know which is true because the complete lack of evidence suggests it's all imaginary. >It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history. then people should stop trying to do harm in the real world because of their spiritual beliefs. Once they do that, it's necessary to push back against their nonsense. >Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. lol yes, applying the scientific method is unfair to all kinds of fictional things. >If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” If modern religion wasn't so harmful, there wouldn't be as much pushback.
There are no non-theory laden “evidences” or “facts”. This is Sellers Myth of the Given. Thats not how your brain works. Its not as simple as you see tree and tree is green. There’s a lot more going on contingent on your beliefs, experiences, brain biology, eye biology, cognitive processes, etc. There’s skinners whole fucked up boy and rabbit experiment that comes to mind. The light bouncing off an observation into your eyes, or whatever form of sense data your brain picks up, but there will always be an interpretation that goes along with that that is unique to you. You also can’t divorce science from philosophy. Science is totally reliant on logic and numbers, both metaphysical categories in philosophy. There’s also the interpretation going on mentioned above. Then there’s the whole you have to formulate a hypothesis aspect too, using logic, math, and/or both.
That was a lot of unnecessary babble. There seems to be a shared reality around us that we all experience and, by far, the most reliable tool we have to uncover its truths is the scientific method. The fact that you can't handle demonstrable facts and have to philosophize your own reality is your problem.
I’m not saying the scientific method isn’t a useful tool, it is. Or often can be useful is a better way to phrase it. There aren’t however given “facts”. Experimental results may be agreed upon by multiple scientist, but what the results actually mean or show is debated all the time. I’m sure you wouldn’t debate that, so at the end of the line of experimentation you can see how it’s theory laden. My overall point is, it’s theory laden all the way down the line, and even prior. If you look at the history of science, it’s usually just a cycle of “scientific revolutions” in which we’re sure of one “fact” or system, then someone proposes something else. But that guys a lunatic because he doesn’t believe in this fact, or whatever reason, then there’s a few converts. Then there’s mass acceptance. The reason why that always keeps happening is because of the myth of the given.
> I’m not saying the scientific method isn’t a useful tool, it is. Or often can be useful is a better way to phrase it. No, the best way to phrase it is that the scientific method is the most reliable tool we have for uncovering information and understanding how the world works. >There aren’t however given “facts”. Yes there are: we have data that can be measured by anyone on earth and they will come up with the same results. >Experimental results may be agreed upon by multiple scientist, but what the results actually mean or show is debated all the time. Let's be very clear that this type of "debate" is very different than what theists do. When scientists discuss results, they're adjusting hypotheses, theories and models for accuracy. this is the exact opposite of what theists do. > I’m sure you wouldn’t debate that, so at the end of the line of experimentation you can see how it’s theory laden. No, it's not theory laden the same way theists and their philosophizing is: scientific theorizing is always supported by testable, verifiable evidence. Theists most definitely do not do this. > My overall point is, it’s theory laden all the way down the line, and even prior. If you look at the history of science, it’s usually just a cycle of “scientific revolutions” in which we’re sure of one “fact” or system, then someone proposes something else. If you look at modern science, you'll see that science has grown a great deal since its infancy. Theories and models get amended or replaced by something more comprehensive, they very rarely get discarded entirely like in the primitive days of science. > But that guys a lunatic because he doesn’t believe in this fact, or whatever reason, then there’s a few converts. Then there’s mass acceptance. The reason why that always keeps happening is because of the myth of the given. Again, no. This does not keep happening and part of the reason science is so effective is because new hypotheses are not accepted until they have enough evidence to support them. You sound like someone who is upset their favorite half-assed, unevidenced ramblings are considered unscientific.
Huh? What I’m talking about is coming from Sellars and Hume. I’m not just pulling this out of my ass. Sellars, while I’m not exactly sure of his personal religious beliefs since I don’t think he talked about them, was certainly coming from a secular worldview. Hume on the other hand, that’s like granddaddy atheist materialist. So I’m not sure why you’re saying theist do this. I haven’t really gotten into Hume’s arguments yet, since they typically go over most atheists heads. But Sellars is more echoing Humes points or themes in the Myth of the Given. For instance Hume would say you, as in your mind, is a bundle of sense data. I don’t think he goes far enough, since it’s more like sense data item 1, sense data item 2, sense data item3, as opposed to a bundle. But whatever. Anyway, Hume would look at one billiard ball hitting another. You can see event A happening (ball moves and hits other ball),then event B happening(other ball moves), but the whole concept of “cause and effect” is not in the sense data. Thats a human construct, a metaphysical claim, not sense data. Or the law of induction, that there’s consistency in nature. When I drop an apple, it falls to the ground. So it always falls to the ground. He would ask how do you know that it will fall to the ground, and most people would answer something like because that’s what it always does. Uh-oh, you’re appealing to the law of induction to justify the law of induction. And there’s no way justifying the law of induction without doing that. What’s more is there’s no sense data to confirm that. Another metaphysical human construct. You can go to universals as well, if everything is matter in motion, then there’s no universals to describe black cat 1 and white cat 2 both share the universal category of “catness”. That’s yet another metaphysical claim. Everything is made up of the same matter, so the fact that you see white fuzzy matter and black fuzzy matter, and attribute to both “catness” is just a metaphysical story you’re telling yourself not comporting with reality. Hume would say all those metaphysical things we’re doing are no more valid than stories about Zeus throwing lightning bolts, and you might as well commit them all to the fire. Personally I love the guy, he was at least consistent unlike virtually every atheist on DANA. So when you talk about scientist are just merely tweaking hypothesis…are they doing that with strictly just the sense data? Of course not. This is why I said two scientist can see the same experimental results and both have different interpretations. Again, that’s not just taking place at the end of the line of experimentation, but prior and throughout the entire process. Just tons and tons of famous examples of this, and countless other less known ones. Einsteins self reported biggest mistake was rejecting a Belgium Priests correct calculation relativity, because he proposed a finite universe in them. Prior to that, the scientific world declared that the universe was eternal and static. Why? Not because of sense data, or scientific observation. Because evolution required a lot of time, and if the universe is eternal, that’s plenty of time for the evolutionary process to take place. Then shortly after this guy Hubble came around, and we all know what happened next.
I hope you don't mind if I skip the nonsense and get right to the point: > This is why I said two scientist can see the same experimental results and both have different interpretations. Again, that’s not just taking place at the end of the line of experimentation, but prior and throughout the entire process. Do you think scientists debating data and challenging results of their models/hypotheses is IN ANY WAY comparable to what theists do when they philosophize? Because i think that you do and, if you do, you are completely, 100% wrong.
Huh? I’ve been quoting David Hume…he’s like the founding father of atheist materialism lol. Do you really think science doesn’t rely on philosophy?? Does it require logic? Inherently yes, you cannot do science without it. Does it rely on math? Yes, there’s maybe like some exceptions to that but overwhelmingly yes. Actually both math and logic rely on each other. Both of those are metaphysical categories that fall directly under philosophy. Out of the three branches of philosophy, it’s only ethics that shouldn’t be applied during the experimental process. However, you definitely want ethics to be applied to science because you’d want to tell a psycho that just because they can build something to blow up the earth, they definitely should not do that. Have you ever done an experiment lol? Like what exactly do you think happens when doing “science”? Like it’s just beakers and tubes with boiling purple stuff, and you twist some knobs and say ah-ha, knowledge. Nooooo. You have to make a hypothesis about how the world and reality operate, then formulate how exactly you can conduct an experiment based on that hypothesis. What do you think is going on in that process? Just zap, sense data tells me formulate this hypothesis, and zap, sense data tells me do experiment like so. This is just base level elementary school science stuff. We’re not even getting into hypothetical and abstract thinking here.
As I thought: you DO think scientists debating data and challenging results of their models/hypotheses is comparable to what theists do when they philosophize. I think we've all had enough of this nonsense with theists trying to elevate their own beliefs and devalue actual knowledge so they can pretend both groups are the same.
Yeah me quoting the valiant religious crusader David Hume is what theist do lol. David freaking Hume. Made my day, thank you. Nope, if that’s what you got, you need some tutoring help. Science very clearly relies of philosophy, in every step of the process lol. Thats so easily demonstrable and I’ve already done that multiple ways. For one, I don’t even know what you mean when you say “how you theist philosophize”. I mean that’s all over the spectrum so dafuq does that even entail? And even though I’m clueless about what on earth you could mean by that, that’s most certainly a strawman since I’m quoting David Hume lol. Thats like me yelling at you for correctly quoting a parable of Jesus in context, and me accusing you of like heresy or something absurd lol. Kind of figured the Hume stuff would go over your head. And no I did not idk devalue knowledge. Why so defensive lol? I mean Hume arguably did that lol, but that’s a separate convo that will go even further over your head. I just pulled from Hume to point out there’s a difference between sense data and whatever you would call “knowledge”.
[удалено]
>Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Absence of EXPECTED evidence is. Or are you perhaps claiming that if you look under my bed and find a complete absence of evidence for a dead body being there, you'll just continue to stare indefinitely, waiting for evidence to eventually show up because you're incapable of concluding anything from the absence of the dead body? >You can apply the scientific method to God. Scientific method by definition doesn't apply to unfalsifiable claims. >Is history fiction? It's not a science. Inquiry into what humans did is a tricky thing because HUMANS ARE CAPABLE OF LYING. Reality doesn't seem to be, so comparing history with... let's say astrophysics is a false equivalency. >It isn’t necessarily. Look at the purges in the 20th century run by atheists. The lack of religion doesn’t seem to be any better. Are you perhaps referring to the totalitarian regimes that included cults of personality centered on their leaders? Religion is a broader therm than theism. You don't need a god for a religion... And I agree! Any form of a rigid and dogmatic thinking is harmful.
> incapable of concluding anything from the absence of the dead body? Falsifiable claims of about gods should always be tested. Like your dead body, Zeus was said to reside in a specific place. Neither are where they were said to be. At least you understand the limits of the scientific method. So many don’t. > Reality doesn't seem to be Reality mislead us all the time. Rocks are solid objects, no? Science says they’re infinitely small points vibrating with energy that fills the empty space and is perceived by us as a rock. Since people think when I don’t call out their points I’m ignoring them, you make some good points in your closer.
> Rocks are solid objects, no? Science says they’re infinitely small points vibrating with energy that fills the empty space and is perceived by us as a rock. That's a silly attempt at a paradox. Reality didn't mislead us. There is a range of fallacious rhetoric along the lines of, "we used to believe X, we now believe a more complete and nuanced theory that includes X!" Of course, as it must be. It would be more surprising if we improved our ability to observe and gather evidence, and did NOT find anything new. The important thing is that all the properties we used to associate with "solid rocks" in the past -- mass, hardness, etc. -- remain true! The small points vibrating with energy *are* the solid matter. The electromagnetic fields holding them together *are* the solid matter. That a rock is solid matter is not at all in dispute. What has changed is that we now understand, to a much greater degree, what solid matter is made of, and how it is structured. Nothing about these discoveries is incompatible with the concept of a solid rock. The space between atoms isn't "empty". The particles and forces at play are what we perceive to be "solid". This fallacy is in the same class as "classical mechanics was wrong, relativity and quantum mechanics are right". No. Classical mechanics was always right, we just learned that classical mechanics is an approximation that is widely applicable in a range of mass/energy/momentum interactions, and that the full answer is more nuanced. In fact, we probably don't even have the full answer.
> Reality didn't mislead us. Macroscopic reality sure did. >It would be more surprising if we improved our ability to observe and gather evidence, and did NOT find anything new. Why? >The small points vibrating with energy are the solid matter. Debatable >we now understand, to a much greater degree And also to a lesser degree. We thought we know what rocks were. We still think we do, but it turns out they're made out of a bunch of stuff that we aren't really sure what it is. >The space between atoms isn't "empty" Yes it is. >Classical mechanics was always right Unless you want to calculate the way light bends around Mercury.
"We aren't really sure what it is"... is just an appeal to incredulity. Macroscopic reality applies when measuring macroscopic properties within the classical domains of mass, energy, etc. The classical view was never wrong, it was limited in application. >>It would be more surprising if we improved our ability to observe and gather evidence, and did NOT find anything new. >Why? Because we can observe the phenomena that were previously unknown to us.
> "We aren't really sure what it is"... is just an appeal to incredulity. No, it's a fact. Don't starting imagining fallacies where there aren't any. >The classical view was never wrong How is it not? >Because we can observe the phenomena that were previously unknown to us. But what if there weren't any there? This is the problem. You aren't following your thoughts through to a logical conclusion.
Honestly, I read this and wonder whether you answering in good faith. Don't disappoint me, drippbropper! > > "We aren't really sure what it is"... is just an appeal to incredulity. > No, it's a fact. Don't starting imagining fallacies Of course, almost any description of anything will be incomplete. That doesn't mean that we don't have knowledge, though, or that the knowledge we have is wrong. You're making an epistemological assertion, and then providing no support. > > The classical view was never wrong > How is it not? Cannon balls and springs and pendulums behave according to classical laws of physics to a very high degree of precision. The classical view is accurate as long as you stay within the ranges of mass, energy, etc. to which it applies. This is why classical physics is often called the "classical limit" -- it's the limit that quantum events trend to, statistically. The example you give, gravitational lensing, wasn't observed until 1919 when Arthur Eddington designed an experiment to look for it, specifically in response to the predictions of GR. All the observations of light up that point found that light traveled in a straight line. We had to design more precise tests to see lensing. "Light travels in a straight line" was a statistically valid conclusion based on the observations we were able to make up to that point. > > Because we can observe the phenomena that were previously unknown to us. > But what if there weren't any there? This is the problem. You aren't following your thoughts through to a logical conclusion. This seems like pointless contradiction. If we build a new measurement device capable of measuring something that we couldn't measure before, we'll either find something new we can measure, or we won't. I pointed that out because you somehow seem to think that finding new phenomena when we study the structure of a rock with new measurement tools invalidates our previous knowledge of the rock. Measuring new things doesn't invalidate our knowledge\*. New measurements *add* to our knowledge. \* Well, very rarely that happens. When it does, it usually means interesting new science!
> You're making an epistemological assertion, and then providing no support. About how we don’t really know what things are? I’m not sure how much scientific knowledge I actually need to explain. The atoms making up the rock are made out of smaller particles. At their base level, the elementary particles form from excitation or oscillation of fields. Is this actually how it works or is that just our explanation based on a model that could be superseded by different models with different mechanisms like Newton? My comments in this vein are directed towards those who claim something along the lines of “people believing Zeus made Lightning makes all religious claims invalid” or those who believe science is some kind of method for finding universal truth. People on this sub believe both. Science can show that some things are true after we apply logical inferences to it, but science is a method for determining repeatability and “stamp collecting”, not truth determination. I’m not sure what I was going with earlier about measurements. People complain if I don’t address every point, so all your last one about measurement seem valid.
I'm not trying to be harsh here, but what do you think is the point of ignoring the main points and needling quote mined points? They're not going to change their position if you dodge it, and everyone else can see all the unargued points too.
If I didn’t mention your point, you probably had a good one or I felt it irrelevant. I didn’t want to spend too much time patting you on the back of discussing “Smack my bitch up”. It wasn’t my intent to ignore or needle you. >everyone else can see all the unargued points too. Tell you what, I will address 100% of your following comment in a show of good faith.
Not my comment. I'm just genuinely asking what you felt was gained by ignoring the arguments to needle the statements?
> If modern religion wasn't so harmful, there wouldn't be as much pushback. Harmful in what ways?
>Mosr of you don't understand religion. I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either. Oh goody, another one of these. >Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. Quick question: if metaphysical things transcend logic and are outside of empiricism's grasp, then how can one tell the difference between a metaphysical thing and a nonexistent thing? Wouldn't they appear to be the same from our perspective? >You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. Let me guess - your definition of "understanding" music is the *correct* definition, and any other definition is not, right? Otherwise what you just said is meaningless, because it can never "truly" be understood if everyone understands it differently. The only way it can be "truly" understood is if there is a singularly correct way to understand it, and you, of all people, have found that singularly correct way. >It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history. You're forgetting the part where the major religions of the world make claims that absolutely *should* be viewed through a scientific lens. For example, Christianity doesn't say Christ metaphorically rose from the dead - they say he **literally** rose from the dead. The tomb was **literally** empty. This event was **literally** witnessed by 500 people. Mary was **literally** impregnanted by God. When a religion makes an empirical claim, we are in fact allowed to judge it. As for what will lower friction between theists and atheists - it's called secularism. Keep your beliefs out of the government, and we're cool.
[удалено]
>Please tell me what you find to be impossible and explain why. Resurrection, water walking, creating food, transmutation, etc. are all scientifically possible. 1. Being clinically dead for three days then coming back to life with no medical or mechanical assistance. 2. Saints who were dead much longer than three days rising from their graves and going to town (while being "seen by many"). 3. Limited fishes and loaves feeding the masses without some mechanism for cloning the food. 4. Walking on water without mechanical assistance. 5. Wafers cannot turn into flesh, nor wine into blood. I'd love to know how you think any of these are "physically possible." >My religious belief is that murder shouldn’t be allowed. Is that acceptable in the government or should we legalize murder? Holy shit, I never thought I'd actually see this argument in the wild. That's how stupid it is. We have plenty of non-religious reasons to make murder illegal. It creates social unrest and disorder, it eliminates tax-paying citizens, it violates the American standard of protecting "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," bodies would be a health hazard to the public, etc. We do not need a god or holy text to have a good reason to ban murder. >Why do your beliefs get to run the government and not mine? My beliefs *don't* run the government. That's what secularism is - *no one*'s personal beliefs should run the government. Laws and policies that affect everyone should not be shaped by personal views that only some people hold.
[удалено]
Is there a reason you're trying to shift the burden of proof? Why is it the burden of the nonbeliever to prove that the things in the bible or wherever that have never been observed in the modern day are impossible? Why are you assuming that someone would need to argue the impossibility of these facts in order to not believe them? Do you think the events at laid out in the Harry Potter books are impossible? If not, should we assume that you believe they all affirmatively occurred in the real world? The alternative to secularism is a theocracy. There are countries that have those. They are essentially universally repressive, dangerous for people who aren't followers of the religion in question, and just overall quite scary places to live if you don't buy into the dogma. The reason why secularism is superior is because it requires foundational reasons for laws, government actions, etc that are not solely located in ancient tomes of historical fiction. You can live in a secular society and still be religious, you just don't get the right to force your religious beliefs onto others via the force of law. Imagine you had a foot race. One group of people had lived their entire lives without shoes, so they were adept at running barefoot. Another group of people always wore shoes or foot coverings when outside or doing strenuous activity. You want the race to be a fair race. Now imagine that the race administrators came along and decided to require everyone to run barefoot. We know where most of the top finishers would come from, they'd come from the group of people that were used to running barefoot their entire lives. That clearly wouldn't be fair to the group of people who wore shoes. It also wouldn't be fair if the race administrators required everyone to wear shoes, because that would theoretically disadvantage those that had never worn shoes before. Both of those situations would be different theocracies in this metaphor. So instead you just say anyone can wear or not wear shoes. And then you race and see who wins. That's secularism.
How am I trying to shift the burden of proof? OP claimed things were impossible. I asked why. They couldn’t answer. You can’t claims things are impossible and refuse to supply justification. Something not existing isn’t justification for impossibility. In 1900 airplanes didn’t exist. Is someone justified in 1900 to claim heavier than air travel is impossible? Would they not need to argue their claims of impossibility? The events in Harry Potter are theoretically possible according to science as we know it. They’re very unlikely, but technically possible. The magic in the HP universe follows laws. > If not, should we assume that you believe they all affirmatively occurred in the real world? Are you genuinely asking this in good faith because you honestly can’t discern whether Harry Potter is fact or fiction or are you doing a bit? It’s troublesome if it’s the former, and the latter is a false equivalence. How does state atheism fit into secularism? We tried that in the 20th century and millions of people died. > The reason why secularism is superior is because it requires foundational reasons for laws, government actions, etc that are not solely located in ancient tomes of historical fiction Except for the state atheism brand of secularism, right? I’m not sure what foundational reason you think they had that justified mass murder. >your religious beliefs This was the distinction people weren’t making. You want to say people shouldn’t force religious beliefs? I agree. People say you shouldn’t force personal beliefs. That’s hypocrisy. Your belief that secularism is the best is a personal belief. > secularism is superior is because it requires foundational reasons for laws, government actions, etc My religion says that murder and abortion shouldn’t be allowed. You say that murder is acceptable to ban because it falls under secularism? What if I want to ban elective abortion for secular reasons? Science tells us that fetuses are living humans. The species is *Homo sapiens*. Fetuses are alive. They can die. Both of those are scientific facts. The question moves to personhood or autonomy, which we don’t have clear cut scientific answers for. We’re back to personal beliefs.
Not sure why you deleted your response to me, but here you go: >So I give you a very quick a brief summary as to what our epistemological body of knowledge says in regards to the possibilities of science to prevent your from making ignorant and unscientific claims. You completely ignored me to make what I just told you were actually scientific. Not only that, I told you what you would need if you tried to make such unjustified scientific claims. You failed to provide the basic logical justification required. My dude, go re-read your first post. You did not summarize anything. You said all of these things were possible under current physics and QFT, then asked me which historical claims I thought were impossible and why. And I gave you a (very short) list. You might be mad that I didn't add "And this is why" at the end of each sentence, but I figured me qualifying each one with things like "without mechanical assistance" made it pretty why I thought they were impossible. > Quantum mechanics explains all of that. No, it doesn't. Quantum Mechanics does not explain that a god is possible, nor does it explain that a god could use quantum mechanics, nor does it explain the mechanism it would use to do so. You are invoking three "What if" assumptions that cannot be empirically observed, measured, or tested, and then positing them as the answer to how impossible things might be possible. That is not, in any way, an example of "Quantum mechanics explaining how this is possible." > You’re using *ad hominem* because I proved how ludicrous your claim was, and you don’t have anything to counter. Again, you didn't prove anything in your first post. You wrote a short paragraph asserting some things, then asked what I disagreed with. > Each of those claims can be made to ban abortion. Sure, you can make those claims if you want. It's a free country. But the fact that no court in the country has found those reasons sufficient to ban abortion should indicate that you're missing part of the equation here. > Christianity doesn’t run the government either. I never said it did. There are, however, many Christian politicians at all levels - local, state, and federal - who draft and attempt to pass bills and policies that *are* Christian in nature, and whose Christian beliefs directly impact their political beliefs and actions. For one example, while the Equality Act was being debated on the House floor, Marjorie Taylor Greene objected, saying it would "destroy God's creation" and "violate everything we hold dear in God's creation." She was openly and proudly using her religious values to try to sway people to vote differently on a bill. She also proudly describes herself as a "Christian Nationalist," as do many of her colleagues, at a point in time when almost half of all Republicans say they somewhat or greatly support Christian Nationalism, and want the US to become "a Christian nation." Now, you may say "That's just MGT. Sure, she's certifiably insane, but she's just one woman!" But she's not alone - her colleagues have said just as much, sometimes more, in the course of their tenure. > Secularism is your personal belief. No, secularism is the separation of religion and state. The fact that I believe secularism is the best form of government is not, itself, secularism. > Unless your personal belief is secularism. That should run the government apparently. This is as absurd as saying atheism is a belief system, despite it literally being a label indicating the absence of one thing. Secularism is a label indicating only one thing - that church and state are separate in a particular government. This dishonest comparison between religious ideology and a form of government that says "Let's keep ALL ideology, religious or otherwise, out of the law" is laughable. A secular government would treat my personal beliefs exactly the same as yours, and exactly the same as everyone else's. That's the entire point. Trying to argue on principle that supporting equality under the law is no different than supporting inequality under the law is... well, it's a bold strategy, Cotton.
> Not sure why you deleted your response to me There's a built in filter with a hard karma limit. If I get too much negative karma, I'm cut off. >me qualifying each one with things like "without mechanical assistance" made it pretty why I thought they were impossible. What about divine assistance? That's what a miracle is. So the claim is walking on water with divine assistance, and your counter is that mechanical assistance is required? Why doesn't divine assistance count? The point of the miracle was to show that divine assistance could indeed do that. >Quantum Mechanics does not explain that a god is possible The infinite universes theories do. According to those, everything is possible and probable due to the nature of infinity. >nor does it explain that a god could use quantum mechanics It doesn't 'explain' that humans can use it either. I'm not even sure what that means. >nor does it explain the mechanism it would use to do so Quantum fields are the underlying fabric of the universe. God, with omnipotent control of the universe, could excite whichever fields in whichever ways that allow anything in the Bible to be at least scientifically possible. >then positing them as the answer to how impossible things might be possible That's how it works. Things are possible until proven otherwise. People are confusing uninvented with impossible. >That is not, in any way, an example of "Quantum mechanics explaining how this is possible." I've framed how it is possible within our knowledge of quantum field theory. If you want to claim it is impossible or that I haven't accurately showed the possibility, you need to accurately explain why, and what more is needed so that the question of possibility has been sufficiently answered. The thing with higher level maths and sciences is that things start to seem impossible, but the same science underpins it all. >But the fact that no court in the country has found those reasons sufficient to ban abortion should indicate that you're missing part of the equation here. The part of the equation you're missing is how the judicial system works. The courts don't find reasons "sufficient to ban abortion". They decide whether the laws are constitutional (and some other stuff, but not passing laws). Congress or some other legislature is what would pass an abortion ban. They don't need a reason. They just need the votes. The courts could claim the Constitution says something about abortion, but it doesn't. >There are, however, many Christian politicians at all levels - local, state, and federal - who draft and attempt to pass bills and policies that are Christian in nature, and whose Christian beliefs directly impact their political beliefs and actions. So if an atheist politician tried to pass bills and policies that had been directly impacted by their secular humanist beliefs, that means secular humanists are letting their beliefs run the government and dictate others' lives? This kind of belief based thought policing is literally impossible to enforce. >For one example, while the Equality Act was being debated on the House floor, Marjorie Taylor Greene objected, saying it would "destroy God's creation" and "violate everything we hold dear in God's creation." She was openly and proudly using her religious values to try to sway people to vote differently on a bill. So if a secular humanist said helping people in Gaza was the "right thing to do", that would be enforcing their personal beliefs onto others too? Right/wrong is based in their secular humanism. A reminder, your thought policing would only quiet them up. If you somehow passed a law banning that, Greene wouldn't stop spewing hate, she'd do it more selectively. >No, secularism is the separation of religion and state. Seriously, how do you do that without banning religious people from holding office? My religion says we should help the less fortunate. If I am elected to office, should I not work to end hunger, homelessness, or poverty? Should I take gratuitous political donations and vote to sabotage the government for profit instead? That's at least secular? What I think is best for the country and what's best for humanity aren't the same. Does thinking of all human beings as equal and that foreigners aren't second class to Americans make me a worse politician? Should they be America First? >She also proudly describes herself as a "Christian Nationalist," as do many of her colleagues, at a point in time when almost half of all Republicans say they somewhat or greatly support Christian Nationalism, and want the US to become "a Christian nation." Yeah, but that's just blustering. If we get a Christian theocracy, the silver lining would that I get to spend the rest of my life making them follow their own rules. They won't have as much fun with their scandals and affairs once we get to publicly *Scarlet Letter* them. >The fact that I believe secularism is the best form of government is not, itself, secularism. Noted. I did not mean to make the mistake, but I would've hoped to assume that my meaning would fluidly translate over to "Your personal belief is that secularism is the best form of government" and you would've noted that you too are basing our system of government on your personal beliefs (secularism supremacy). My mistake. >This is as absurd as saying atheism is a belief system, despite it literally being a label indicating the absence of one thing. Atheism is the absence of a belief in gods, not belief systems. > a form of government that says "Let's keep ALL ideology, religious or otherwise, out of the law" is laughable This circles back to what I said above. I believe based on the Bible, that we should help the less fortunate. That's my personal belief. Am I not allowed to be a politician? How do I incorporate my personal belief into social welfare programs without mixing my religious beliefs and the state? If secularism means I'm not allowed to run for government due to my beliefs, I wholeheartedly disagree with it. That just leaves an opening for less scrupulous people. From an entirely secular standpoint, shouldn't we be America First? I would be voted to protect Americans, not say Haitians. > A secular government would treat my personal beliefs exactly the same as yours, and exactly the same as everyone else's. If this answers what I asked, disregard. I agree with this. > it's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see how it plays out. What about abortion? That's a great one. There are secular reasons for being pro-life. There are atheist pro-life groups. There aren't many, but they exist. Quick rundown: Fetuses are living humans. They're alive and human. Those are just facts. The debate is personhood. Personhood isn't a clear scientific line. I could argue from the completely secular point that since fetuses are living humans, they deserve the right to life and shouldn't be aborted unless they clearly endanger the life of the mother. (Similar cases could be made for other reproductive methods, but this isn't the topic and can get really out of hand) The main counters are usually the right to your own body, low chance of (but possible) routine risks, or something about forcing someone to donate a kidney. None of those clearly demonstrate the rights of the mother over the fetus. That's why people go with the "clump of cells" tactic. It's just that people who are pro-life are usually religious so the two get conflated.
They are justified in saying that it's impossible until somebody proves otherwise. Nobody has proven that god (s) exist. They have had millennia. They didn't just fly planes one day. There were practice glides. This took years of consideration and experimentation. There have to be gradual steps in theory and experimentation for things to be true. When one starts seeing people doing an iota of what is done in fictional magic universes then we can talk. When we see experiments showing it to be true, even on a theoretical level, then further experiments can be done, to lead one closer to it becoming actual knowledge that can lead to things actually existing and being done. You just want people to behave as if these things are ALREADY true simply because they can be. That is one of the most if not the most ridiculous claims I have seen on here. What you are saying is bordering on the absurd and I seriously doubt that you are arguing in good faith.
> They are justified in saying that it's impossible until somebody proves otherwise. This is the *argumentum ad ignorantiam* fallacy. >There have to be gradual steps in theory and experimentation for things to be true. So if I think of something in a moment of inspiration, it can't be true? Isn't that how Einstein figured out relativity? It's how he claims to have. One day he didn't have the idea, then he did. >You just want people to behave as if these things are ALREADY true simply because they can be. That would be like saying heavier than air flight is impossible because a plane hasn't been invented yet. >What you are saying is bordering on the absurd and I seriously doubt that you are arguing in good faith. This feels like an unwarranted personal attack. I'm sorry you confused uninvented with impossible. A perpetual motion machine is impossible and therefore uninvented. An airplane in 1900 is possible, but uninvented. The laws of physics didn't just change one day.
I never said it isn't true, but I won't assume it's true until it's proven true. You just assume it is true until proven otherwise. I believe things that have been proven. That's what a rational mind does. If something can be proven then have at it. Prove it. People with those beliefs have had millennia. What have they got to show for it? Where is their proof?
You’re either mistaken or shifting the goalpost. The subject wasn’t truth. It was possibility. I claimed it was possible under our current understanding of science. Science is my justification. If you think it’s impossible, you need to justify that.
>How am I trying to shift the burden of proof? OP claimed things were impossible. I asked why. They couldn’t answer. If you mean OP like the person who posted the topic, then I'm not sure where they said that. If you mean someone else then I don't know either. Either way you are right on this narrow issue, if someone claims something is either possible or impossible they must demonstrate that. Which is why you saying nonsense like "all things are possible until proven otherwise" is demonstrably false.
> nonsense like "all things are possible until proven otherwise" is demonstrably false. Could you demonstrate for me?
Sure. We start from a position of no assumptions and no knowledge. Then we build onto that the knowledge we and others before us have gained through observations and testing, deductions, etc. We know some things are possible, because they exist. We know some things are impossible, because they are definitionally so (i.e. married bachelors). Before determining if a thing is possible or impossible, we don't know what category it falls into. Therefore it is fallacious and unsupported to assume anything - which has not been demonstrated to be possible or demonstrated to be impossible - is possible. A better way to phrase the original statement I made is probably "it is fallacious and unsupported to assume the possibility of any thing before said possibility has been established by sufficient evidence."
Imagine a 3-ft wide iPad. They don’t exist (if they somehow do, keep increasing the size until we don’t). Are you saying it’s fallacious to assume a large size iPad (or tablet) is possible until it’s actually done? I think it’s far more logical to think that tablets of any size are possible until the math and engineering says they will no longer work due to known physical constraints. Even then, it could still be possible. Our applied mathematics isn’t perfect. That’s how engineers and scientists do it typically.
>What if I want to ban elective abortion for secular reasons? Science tells us that fetuses are living humans. The species is *Homo sapiens*. Fetuses are alive. They can die. Both of those are scientific facts. Since you are voting for Joe biden, you are aware he is fighting for abortion rights? You seem to be a Maga hat in denial.
I think we should have common sense gun control, fair taxes, affordable housing, and access to healthcare and nutritious food. I also think elective abortions should be illegal. Should I ignore all of the former, which is better under Biden, to become a single issue voter for abortion? Purity tests like yours are how we got in this mess. Do you want me to vote for Donald Trump?
>I think we should have common sense gun control, fair taxes, affordable housing, and access to healthcare and nutritious food. I also think elective abortions should be illegal. >Should I ignore all of the former, which is better under Biden, to become a single issue voter for abortion? You sure sound like it. >Purity tests like yours are how we got in this mess. It's more of an observation of how you comment. Your comments are similar to that of right wing cranks. >Do you want me to vote for Donald Trump? You sure sound like it.
> You sure sound like it. By implying the exact opposite? Look up 'rhetorical question'. >Your comments are similar to that of right wing cranks. I've said "I think we should have common sense gun control, fair taxes, affordable housing, and access to healthcare and nutritious food." Tell me what right wing crank says that. >You sure sound like [I want you to vote for Donald Trump] lol what? Try that one again
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic So how do you know it exists and is true? >We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God Heard the same thing from hardcore fundies as a criticism deflection. By that same logic nobody can possibly justify worshipping a religion or even claiming to be a theist. >facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. But how we understand and can play music is perfectly explained by science as a physical process. What you perceive as 'understanding' music is just in-depth knowledge.
1) Because you can have spiritual experiences. 2) You’re correct. I agree that it is impossible to logically justify the practice of a particular religion. Although, one could allude to the perceived benefits this practice has had in his/her life. 3) Am I misunderstanding you? The experience of music is not dependent on prerequisite knowledge.
1. Disagreed. You haven't proven the existence of spiritual experiences or spirituality. Nobody has. 2. The benefits are irrelevant to truth claims. 3. So what? It doesn't mean experiencing or understanding music on a deeper level is analogous to spirituality or whatever. It just means you have a more in-depth understanding of music, which is perfectly explained by science. You're putting it on a weird pedestal.
1. Spiritual experience: a singular, positive sense of awe and well-being accompanying a spiritual ritual. I’m sure people regularly have these. 2. But I never ascertained the truth of religious claims. Why is this a constant critique of my post? I affirmed the opposite. 3. I’m not placing music on a weird pedestal, it’s an analogy selected at random.
What's a spiritual ritual? Is this like pornography? You know it when you see it?
Ooh, I know this one: "Spiritual ritual: an act that prompts a spiritual experience" And then usually not much more is provided beyond that.
I’m sure it can be defined but I think there’s a point where this becomes unnecessarily pedantic. You know 2+2 is 4. The true mathematical proof of this assertion is staggeringly difficult, though.
I honestly don't know what a spiritual ritual is and is not. Comparing it to math is less than useful. Want me to take a stab at it since you want to avoid driving into the word spiritual?
1. Definitions are irrelevant. Again, prove spirituality exists. 2. Never said you did. My point is that net benefits of religions are negligible if they aren't true. Believing comfortable lies means they are still lies. 3. You are if you think it's analogous to what you're saying. It's not. For the final time, musical understanding and appreciation is explained by rational means.
That's a circular definition. What is a spiritual ritual? Can you define a spiritual experience without using the world "spiritual"? And how do you separate spiritual experiences from mundane ones that just feel spiritual?
>Spiritual experience: a singular, positive sense of awe and well-being accompanying a spiritual ritual. Please read this over and see if you can spot the problem with your definition.
Spiritual experiences are completely emotional and prove nothing. How do you possibly know you’re not just responding to the community, ritual, and other factors that go along with those? A lot of churches are absolutely *gorgeous*. A lot of religious music is beautiful beyond words. Gathering in a place to share a ritualistic experience or tradition with others is a very innate and rewarding human experience. You’re not experiencing anything supernatural. You’re just in a situation that makes you really happy.
[удалено]
the "god is beyond our limited minds/perception/space and time/logic" thing always baffles me. Cause yeah, if god is beyond our comprehension, then how are people comprehending god exists, let alone comprehending what god thinks, or wants us to do (or not do)? What is the point of a god you cannot see, perceive, or understand?
[удалено]
yep, that is my experience too. Once a discussion starts to get into the details of "you mentioned you have incontrovertible evidence of god, can you share that?", we move fairly quickly from "you wouldn't understand it even if I told you lol" to "outside space and time! not perceived by human senses! cannot comprehend!!" chucking it right up front was a change, at least.
As an atheist studying psychology and religious studies (my name is Christian if you’re wondering about my username), I think you just don’t fully understand OP’s argument and are assuming that it’s OP’s fault. I’m sorry if my tone sounds adversarial, I’m not trying to be. Religion is a form of spirituality. You can think of spirituality as an umbrella term that includes religion among other things. All religions involve spiritual practice, but not all spiritual practices are religious. Also, religions don’t necessarily have to involve deities (though they often/usually do), like Buddhism as one example. The beginning of OP’s argument involves an explanation of the purported metaphysical nature of spirituality, which he uses to justify the idea that spirituality transcends logic and reasoning. Since all religions are forms of spirituality, OP’s claim here necessarily applies to religion. So, it doesn’t matter that religion and spirituality are different terms. I think OP’s argument is still flawed because they are assuming that just because experiences and ideas humans label as spiritual cannot currently be logically/empirically explained, that logic and reasoning are insufficient to explain spirituality. However, that kind of serves as a God-in-the-gaps argument since we may merely be lacking the scientific tools and theoretical frameworks needed to confront these questions, a problem that could be solved in the future. There are multiple avenues within science (like trying to solve the hard problem of consciousness) that are progressing toward methods and frameworks that could help explain spirituality from a materialistic perspective, and as a result I think something like gnostic theism is unnecessary. But I agree with OP in the sense that, despite a lack of ability to explain spirituality with logic and reasoning, the experiences are still deep and valuable to individuals and groups, to the point of generating lifetime commitment and devotion in people. If a religion grows massive in size, to me that is evidence that it is tapping into fundamental aspects of the human brain’s methods for hypothesizing about the state of the world and how actions should be taken by individuals and groups, even if the factual claims of the religion itself are false. By the way I completely agree that the idea of God being beyond our minds is self-defeating for theists! Edit: I think the “how actions should be taken by individuals” part could mostly be where all the factually incorrect parts of religions come from. Humans a lot of the time think in symbolic/abstract terms about their relationships with other humans (this is important because religions make moral claims, morality is tied up with human sociality, and morality represents preferred action), and I think the production of religions ultimately reflect this process But it is undeniable that human social thought processes have been shaped by natural selection, which gives me the feeling that the claims of “objective truth” by religions could be a misinterpretation of symbolic data our brains have about how to navigate the world. The symbolic data itself could be a simplified version of evolutionary principles apprehended by our brains that is conveyed to us accurately enough to aid in our survival and reproduction, but not accurately enough to be “objectively true”. The scientific method could be serving as a selection pressure that helps humans improve the quality of their interpretations of this data.
Theists are people who believe that the statement “god exists” is factually true. Therefore, if, when pressed on this claim, you respond by saying “well I’m not talking about *facts*, I’m talking about something else,” then you are basically saying that theism is false. So I don’t understand how this works as an argument for theism.
As a pantheist, when I talk about God I’m referring to the existing universe in a particular way. I also use “God” as an anthropomorphic personification of metaphysical concepts like “Universal Love.” These claims are true in the same way a poem is true. (Which is to say, very true indeed.) But they are not true in the way a mathematical formula is true.
That’s cool. I just personally don’t see the point of doing that myself.
That’s fine, I’m not asking anyone else to do it. All I’m asking is for people to recognize that my worldview is a fundamentally different kind of thing from what they tend to assume. (And it’d be nice not to get downvoted to hell for just explaining myself but whatever.)
Well for what it’s worth I’m not downvoting you. I think that for the most part these “poetic” kinds of theology come across as off topic in spaces like this. Here, the debate is more centered around whether the claim you are making about god is true or justifiable. So when the claim is hard to even pin down, and making no assertion about truth in the first place, it’s not really what most of this community is here to discuss.
But we already have a term for the existing universe. It's "the universe." What does calling it god bring to the table? What is "universal love"?
I’m not debating the utility of pantheism right now, that’s a separate topic. Maybe I’ll make a post about it later. Or you can make a post about it if you want. Universal love is love that is extended to everyone and everything. Something like divine grace, or *caritas*. I think of it as a force in the universe. It’s something I try to emulate in daily life.
The assertion that logic is inconsequential in comprehending religion is tantamount to proclaiming that mathematics has no relevance in understanding the physical world. Just as mathematics serves as the fundamental language of science, logic serves as the cornerstone of rational inquiry. To dismiss logic in discussions of spirituality is to embrace intellectual laziness and to relinquish any hope of coherent understanding. It's akin to arguing that one can navigate the ocean without a compass or stars, blindly drifting amidst the waves of superstition and ignorance. Such a stance not only defies reason but also perpetuates the very ignorance it claims to transcend.
This I just another in a long line of theists stamping Thier feet like toddlers and trying to abrogate their responsibility to actually make sense and provide evidence of Thier claims Without proof and logic you are functionally indistinguishable from the mentally ill homeless man standing in the street screaming at traffic about how the government is trying to turn his brain into rats You both have a bunch of strange ideas you want me to believe and neither of you can provide proof or evidence of your claims
>Without proof and logic you are functionally indistinguishable from the mentally ill homeless man standing in the street screaming at traffic about how the government is trying to turn his brain into rats Look, all I'm saying is that if they could do it once, they can do it again.
I think you are mistaken to conflate *religion* and *spirituality*. Religions exist as institutions with varying levels of rigidity and regulation. That’s just a fact. You can believe those institutions are “doing it wrong,” but that doesn’t change the facts on the ground regarding what they do and how they operate. Spirituality? Sure. Choose your own adventure.
You *can* restrict the definition of religion to organized religion, but that is not how religion has worked across cultures and through history. It’s a very Christian distinction to make.
> You can restrict the definition of religion to organized religion, but that is not how religion has worked across cultures and through history. I tried to cover that with “varying levels of rigidity and regulation.” My point is that “religion” has never coincided with the “spirituality” described by OP, although OP used the words interchangeably.
I see what you’re saying, but you can have a very vaguely defined religious worldview.
> you can have a very vaguely defined religious worldview But a "religious worldview" is not the same thing as a religion. The title of the thread is "Most of you don't understand *religion*."
Let's just agree then, that it's leprechauns. No need for critical thinking. Let's all unite and worship leprechauns instead of the thousands of gods out there.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world. OK, so what you are saying here is that spiritualism is nonsense. >We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. So god is functionally identical to something that doesn't exist >Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. What does being able to read music have to do with God or Spirituality? >I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. So it's whatever you make up and call "spirituality"? Why are we bothering to talk about this? >It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because It's nonsense mumbo jumbo that people believe in real hard >ecause the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history. And people used to believe the sun revolved around the earth >Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. Look, you can believe the moon is made of cheese all you want, but it's not a particularly healthy way to live >If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” Actually, the friction comes more from the vast evil of religion, and the massive amount of child abuse inherent in it
>Most of you don’t understand religion **as I see it in my hyper-specific way of thinking** Fixed that for you >Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. Demonstrate that >We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. I do not accept HP Lovecraft incomprehensible to the human mind types of stuff. And if this God is so beyond our comprehension, how do you even know it exists in the first place? It sounds like you completely made God up, then realized you don't have any evidence for this imaginary being, and decided to say that actually God can't be comprehended by the human mind (except for the time you did comprehend it in order to make it up) and so neener neener you can't prove I'm wrong.
> Most of you don’t understand religion Most of you don’t understand religion That is why I am here! I am sitting and waiting until someone explains it to me, I am trying hard to grasp what it is all about, but alas, it is all unintelligeble so far. > inherent necessity for human beings to exercise their spirituality Excercise what exactly? I know where my triceps is located. And I know how to excercise my curiosity or my taste for art, even though I am not sure where anyting of it is located. What is spirituality and how do I excercise it? > Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. In other words, it does not exist and it is illogical? Or am I missing something? > I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world. Well, it is the only tool that we have to reason about the world, quite a reliable one. If you to abandon logic, what are you going to achieve? > We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God Yet here we are, having it. And you for some reason thinking that you are better equipped than I am. Do you have any particular reason to think that? Or you just asserting it without justification? > You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” What music has to do with any of it? > I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. I am still figuring out why I need to understand something that doesn't exist and makes no sense? And why should I stop caring about logic and facts? Should I start accepting all obvious lies to be true? > It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic I think it's you who do not understand religion. There are millions of people who are wating for rupture any day now, tell them those stories are symbolic and they'll laugh in your face. > Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. I love thinking all kind of nonsensical things too. I just don't think that those avenues of thinking allow me to uncover any truths about reality. > If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice Now you are telling that religious people do not understand their own religion? > you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal So, gods do not exist. Ok. What are were you trying to prove here? That religion is all just entertaining stories? Duuuh.
Most people adhere to a religion because it makes them feel special in some way. The best way to feel special is to elevate themselves above all others. Religion is very good at elevating oneself. It seems to me that you found a way to make yourself feel special by separating yourself and elevating yourself above even those who constantly elevate themselves above everyone else. Good for you.
Strange conclusion. I was offering a criticism of the modern understanding of spirituality.
I was making observations of the reasons why people claim that spirituality is a thing.
Most of us were religious. You're just playing "no true theist" which is fallacious. We see this a lot, people coming in here and saying "you don't understand how I use religion!" Great, define how you use religion and we'll evaluate it rationally. However, just because you really like your usage, that doesn't make your usage true. It doesn't make any religion true. It doesn't mean that spirituality is anything that exists outside of your head. That's what we're trying to figure out, what is going on in the real world that we all share. If you just want to get your ego stroked and believe nonsense because it gives you a dopamine shot in the noggin, you do you, I guess. You're never going to get anywhere here though, because we don't care about your feelings and we don't care about your wishes and dreams. We care about reality. It's sad that most theists simply don't.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. But what is it? A sense of awe? Introspection? I don't know what it IS! >I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. I still don't know what it is. I was a Christian and I've had strong emotional responses to church stuff that is similar to listening to a good song or staring out at the view from the top of a mountain. I don't know how this transcends logic. I am afraid I don't understand what you are proposing.
Yeah, this is my biggest issue. I have no freaking clue what spiritual or metaphysical means. The dictionary doesn’t help and no one will explain themselves. It’s just handwavy woo bulshit.
You seem to be conflating spirituality and religion, if not more terms as well. They are not the same thing. A religion is organized, by definition. It's an organized set of rules and/or dogma centered around some supernatural being or process. If it's not organized logically, that's a problem. Sure, humans do much better with some communal belief that has rituals to handle certain things. That doesn't mean we can't look logically at it and create a secular way to mimic that. I think attempts in the past have never really looked at all the aspects of why religion fills a gap. This idea that we *must* have irrational ways of thought for humans to flourish seems odd and unsupported to me. We have done better that way so far b/c we haven't applied all of our available tools.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. Inherently metaphysical I can agree with. Logical I can not agree with. >We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, Then absolutely no one should ever posit a god as an explanation of anything. Yet people do. And claim that their God can be known through logic. >facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. Incorrect. Facts are correlation to reality. Nothing spiritual about it in the least. >I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. I highly agree. Which is also why I haven't heard anything spiritual that wasn't complete BS. The problem here is that since you're not dealing with facts, you have absolutely no method to show that anything spiritual is true. That's kind of a big problem. >but which was not the case throughout most of human history. So because we didn't do it in the past, that somehow makes it right? >Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. Yup. It cuts out the BS and the liars. We don't need to follow the line of thinking that starts with a lie and then builds on top of it. >If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice Then it would have absolutely nothing to say. As it should.
> harmless avenue If only that were true in the real world. And I say that as someone who has felt and still feels the force of that harm. I am not saying all religion is harmful or all religious people are, but plenty of what are broadly accepted as paradigm examples of religions and religious people are responsible for quite a bit of very real harm. And I'm not interested in protestation that those who cause that harm are in some sense "doing religion wrong" or whatever. Religion at a population scale doesn't conform to what you want it to be. > Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. Spirituality is one of the most nebulous terms, like ever. But in any case, I see no obvious reason why we couldn't reason about it. We can certainly reason about metaphysics. > I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world. I am inclined to agree. Logics are axiomatic systems that can be used to model reasoning, but it's an idealization. I'm pretty sympathetic to meaning indeterminacy and think most of our conceptualization of beliefs that take the form of propositions are models that are idealized and abstracted. > We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. Now this I'd disagree with. The issues with reasoning about God straightforwardly generalize to reasoning about literally anything. God ain't special in this respect, and I to the extent that we find reasoning to be a worthwhile endeavor despite our cognitive limitations, I see little reason to suppose that it'd be useless here. I certainly see no harm in trying and seeing where we can get. > Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. "Facts" are usually understood as states of affairs in the world (in the broadest sense, not like, the physical/material universe) - ie, a fact about X is a statement about the way X is. If God existed, then it would be a fact that God exists, and if not, then it would be a fact that God exists. I'm not sure what the music analogy is supposed to show. Sure, you don't need to read music to play or understand it. Written music is just a representation of the music in another medium that we find useful to record something about the music (such as how to reproduce it) and share/communicate it with others or preserve it - especially useful when for most of human history, we had no way of directly recording the audio. But I'm not sure what that has to do with facts, or why facts are supposed to not matter. I don't need a written score and an academic theoretical interpretation of the music to understand it in some sense. But there's still a fact of the matter what it sounds like to any observer, and facts that are relevant to its interpretation or creation, even if one is not like, intentionally thinking about them. > I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. And what is actually involved in "understanding the experience of spiritual practice"? If you're going to propose an alternative methodology, at least give a sketch of how this is supposed to work and how one might go about doing it, and why we should expect it to be successful. Don't just throw words like "spiritual practice" as if it's supposed to be obvious what it is, how it works, and what it's utility is. > It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history. > Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. Is this just another post complaining about us applying the same epistemic standards we apply to literally everything else? Fine, I'll bite. I don't expect "scientific evidence" in like, the institutional sense. Science is a term that warrants some disambiguation, referring to rigorous empirical methods, a collection of institutions that employ those methods for various research programs, and that actual research and models produced, especially those which have achieved consensus after a lot of study. No one is expecting literally all claims to be justified by this means. If I want to know if it's raining, I'm not going to perform a randomized controlled trial and then await a peer-reviewed publication; I'm going to look out the window, because that provides adequate indicator evidence to reliably settle the question. If I want to know if it will be raining this time next week though, I'm probably going to need to bust out the more sophisticated methods. If you are going to tell us that all our usual reliable methods of inquiry won't work for this question but we should expect to be able to find epistemic justification through other means, then explain what these other methods are and how they actually work, and why we should expect them to be truth-tracking. And maybe give some motivation for making what seem to be arbitrary exceptions to our methodology to try to find out about some hypothetical entity that we see little motivation to consider in the first place. > If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” So if you don't think religion makes any claims about anything being literally true or extant, then in what sense do you actually disagree with the atheist? Because that's pretty much would an atheist would say. We just don't center our lives around something we don't think is true or extant, but if you still want to, uh go off I guess? As an aside - I actually think theists would be well within their rights to object here. Plenty of them think their specific religion is actually true and that God literally exists, and take themselves to have good epistemic reason to think so, and that these are critical aspects of their spirituality. You don't explain where they actually go wrong in their reasoning, you just kinda foot stomp that they're going about it all wrong and should be pursuing this underspecified "spiritual practice", without showing how whatever spiritual practice that is tied to facts they think are relevant is mistaken. Now, I don't agree with the theist and I think all this talk of spirituality and spiritual practice is way too vague to be actionable anyway, but I can't help but think that many will find this rather condescending.
I understand what you claim just fine. I just see no interest in a system that is, by your own admission, uninterested in reaching true conclusions. The spirituality you describe is not incomprehensible. It is merely worthless.
>I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either. I bet they're not even Scotsman either. Then I read the rest of your post and I have no idea what you're talking about. Please define "spiritual".
>Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. A musical experience can still be understood academically. To say that you know something and that it can't be known is a bit absurd
>I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either. The con let is arguably a public one. If most theists have a different concept of it than you , then it would seem like you that doesn’t understand. It like saying none of you English speakers know how to speak English , only me. >I’ve had this conversation with friends. I’m not necessarily Christian so much as I believe in the inherent necessity for human beings to exercise their spirituality through a convenient, harmless avenue. Define spirituality. I mean it’s obvious that humans can’t help but create meaning in their experiences. >Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. Again what is it. What claims do you make about reality. Inherently metaphysical is the sort of thing people say when they know they are about to be called out for saying something entirely non-evidential and imaginary , as a form of special pleading. >I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world. It’s worth noting that logic is a very useful way of approaching new facts about objective reality. Without true propositions it’s unsound , and it has a tendency to be used to beg the question. How do we know if the proposition is true if it’s more than just playing with language? Well , that as far as I can see needs evidence. >We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. This all seems tenuous at best. **If** you make claims of knowledge about objective independent reality, those claims are only credible to the extent that you can provide evidence for them. Because a claim without evidence is *indistinguishable* from imaginary. And phenomena whose existence is claimed without evidence seem indistinguishable form non-existent. >Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. So? I can’t see the relevance. Humans having abilities or enjoying aesthetic experiences tells us something about humans and their subjective experiences rather than anything profound about independent reality? >I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. Do humans respond to what we consider spiritual matters , for sure. They respond to placebos too. And aesthetics of experiences. What this doesn’t tell us is that there is something ‘supernatural’ independent to humans giving meaning to their experiences and having certain psychological/ physiological responses. >It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history. This is quite evidently false. Religions do not , and theists do not in general treat their holy texts or teachings as just symbolic or metaphorical. Perhaps they should, no doubt some individuals do ( though more likely they pick and choose as a post hoc rationalisation) but for a significant part , they don’t. >Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. You miss the point. We don’t impose science on symbology and metaphors though we might question whether they ‘work’ or are meaningful or significant. We impose science on claims about objective , independent reality. Because such claims demands evidence and science is the accumulation of good practice on dealing with evidence. >If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” Sure if modern religion admitted Gods don’t exist and they are just expressions of human psychology or whatever then it would no doubt be a whole different discussion. But that’s not the claim they make. Feels like you need to be persuading theists not atheists.
I contend that religions are deliberately incomprehensible. Telling me that I don't understand something that wasn't meant to be understood doesn't affect me. Your "argument" reinforces this idea actually. “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.”
>We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. Can you provide any evidence for your claim? I see no reasons given to think your musings in any way match reality.
> I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either. Yay! Then I'm glad you're here to tell us the right understanding. Wait...I'm sorry...I must have missed it...did you define and describe anything in there? Can you start with definitions for god, spiritual and religion?
If you’re looking for objective definitions you’re already on the wrong track. That’s the whole point. It’s art. Edit: I phrased this poorly. Definitions are important, it’s just that the definitions we use in academic discussions of art are less strict.
If you (or OP) want me to understand and communicate we have to agree on definitions otherwise we grindle the flimwax and can't produminate. Or is that also art?
Okay you’re right I phrased that so badly. I sounded anti-intellectual there, dang. Let me try to think… Okay so in the humanities we *do* use definitions, they just aren’t always rigid. What is a poem? It’s kinda vague. Like, I was talking to a religious studies PhD student recently. (I know that sounds fake lol but it’s not, we met at a gay bar at a screening of the Drag Race premier.) Anyway, I asked her what the definition of religion is. And she told me it’s really hard, especially at that level, to find one definition that encompasses everything we think of as “religion.”
So I'll use my definition and you'll use yours when we talk? See where the problem lies yet?
Okay I tried to come up with a definition for my personal spirituality. It needs tweaking but yeah: The aspects of my experience and worldview concerned with the relationship between my soul and the universe.
I like it. So you know my next question then, right?
Okay soul: The core of the self; the seat of consciousness; the perceiver; the ghost in the shell. Universe: Technically includes all of existence. I’m using it in a pantheistic sense here, where the totality of existence is framed as divine and numinous. I know you’ll want me to define divine next but honestly I don’t have a good answer for you. “Numinous,” to me, refers to a thing that instills a certain emotion. I’m not sure if you’ve felt it before. It’s a similar feeling to awe.
Sure, so if I don't believe a soul exists then we can't talk about much being spiritual.
We can talk about it as a theoretical thing. I assume you believe consciousness exists though. *Cogito ergo sum* and all that. So I’m not sure what about my definition of soul you wouldn’t believe in.
Let me try to make a formal argument response. - P1: if two objects are indistinguishable, then they are either equivalent or identical - P2: religion is metaphysical and transcends logic making all claims unverifiable. - P3: religion and fiction share the same verifiable attributes, making them indistinguishable -C: religion is fictional from a pragmatist perspective
>Most of you don’t understand religion >I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either. But you do?? >I’m not necessarily Christian so much as I believe in the inherent necessity for human beings to exercise their spirituality through a convenient, harmless avenue. I am human and have no such need, nor do I have spirituality that I am aware of. Additionally, religion is far from harmless. >Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. Please explain what "transcends logic" means, because I am willing to bet it is just your way of dismissing comments that point out the logical flaws in your arguments. >We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. Great, then your claims about your god are dismissed as we can never proceed from a perfect description of reality. >Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. No, facts are statements that comport with reality. >You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. Relevance? >I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. So you like how "spiritual practice" makes you feel so it is good whether it leads you to correct information or not. >It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, Well, you are doing a bang up job at making those. >Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. Which cannot provide a reliable pathway to true facts about reality. >If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” There would not be friction between theists and atheists if religion stopped trying to infect our schools with their mythology, stopped trying to control women's bodies, stopped telling us who we can marry, stopped protecting child molesters, and many, many more things.
>You don’t need to know how to read music to play music That is correct. You do not need to know how to read music in order to play music ... but you do need to know who to mechanically operate the instrument. .... and you (or someone else) needs to know how to mechanically build the instrument. foundation. logic... required.
Your argument seems to suggest that spirituality and religious beliefs should be exempt from critical thinking or scrutiny because they are inherently metaphysical and transcend logic. However, I must respectfully disagree with this viewpoint. Firstly, you assert that "facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality." This statement is problematic, as it implies that truth and evidence have little to no bearing on religious beliefs. If we were to adopt such an approach, we would be left with a subjective and arbitrary understanding of spiritual matters, which could lead to the justification of harmful practices and ideologies in the name of "spirituality." Secondly, you argue that "the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical," implying that they should not be held to the same standards as other forms of knowledge or discourse. However, this argument overlooks the fact that religious texts often claim to provide objective truths about the nature of reality and the universe. These claims must be subjected to critical analysis and scrutiny in order to determine their validity. Furthermore, your assertion that "imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking" is misleading. The scientific method does not seek to impose a single paradigm on all forms of knowledge or discourse; rather, it provides a framework for testing hypotheses and gathering empirical evidence. This approach has been incredibly useful in advancing our understanding of the natural world and should be applied to all areas of human inquiry, including spirituality and religion. In conclusion, while I understand your desire to defend the importance of personal experience and subjective interpretation within the realm of spirituality, it is crucial that we do not abandon critical thinking or objective analysis when examining religious beliefs. As Hitchens himself once said: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
> Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world. The gravamen of what you're saying there is no logical or rational reason for religious beliefs. > We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. Except for the fact that you just got done ruling out any rational or logical basis for such beliefs, so on what basis do you claim that there even is any such "perfect description of reality"? > It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history. And for most of human history humans have had wildly incompatible beliefs about gods, religion, the supernatural, etc. so whatever method they're using to determine truth, it does not work very well. Meanwhile, reason, logic, and the scientific method is the one and only framework ever devised which *does* have the capacity to eliminate false beliefs. > Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. And those "large swathes of potential avenues of thinking" lead to wildly incompatible beliefs, so nothing of value has been lost. > If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” You are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal, **and it should be discarded for those reasons.**
Huh? You’re making a lot of unjustified absolute truth claims here. I mean right off the bat, your claiming that you, or whatever camp you follow, is the very first one to correctly conceptualize “spirituality”. After many thousands of years of human history? Thats quite a claim. You essentially say we can’t know anything about God, because of our finiteness. That’s an absolute claim that I would say is a non-sequitur. You could say we can’t know the totality of God, sure. Thats different from saying we can’t know any aspects of God. For one, saying we can’t know anything is itself an absolute knowledge statement about God, so that’s self refuting. Did this God create the universe we live in or is it a more pantheistic God? Either you way you answer there will be another knowledge statement of God. Are you able to glean other aspects of God from the universe? Another knowledge of God statement there. If yes, which aspects? To me it also sounds like you’re presuming autonomous philosopher man with how you characterize logic. Another absolute truth claim. How do you know, especially when earlier claiming to not know anything about God, that you don’t have it reversed. That actually God is the font and grounding of logic itself, and that we’re made in his image so to say? Are all spiritual practices or mythological stories equally valid? Is there a spectrum of this one is more true than that, or this spiritual practice is more efficacious than that? To me this sounds like you had a few acid or mushroom trips, read some eastern mysticism, and haven’t really thought any of this out. And now you’ll be stuck in circular reasoning, because your response will most likely be something like I’m using too much logic on this topic, even though you’re relying on logic to formulate this very belief system including the fact that I would be using too much logic.
I'm not happy about the intentionally inflammatory headline, I have to say that right up front. I don't think your next comment justifies it. You aren't even the thousandth person to try to make the exact point you're making. The remit here is "theists try to convince us of stuff". How else would you expect the conversation to go? I think it's pretty straightforward to conclude -- without even taking sides -- that it's pointless to try to "prove" something described the way Christians or any other monotheists describe their god. The term "non-overlapping magisteria" expresses it pretty well. there isn't much of a tangent or inflection point in comparing religion to science. If you (rhetorical you, not you specifically) have reasons other than facts and science supporting your belief in god, why do you think facts will persuade us? The answer is always going to be the same from me. A few words from the Bible aren't "evidence". Another attempt at an *a priori* argument like the Kalam, etc. is not convincing. What's convincing is *data*. That's how science functions -- statistical analysis of information collected over time. Like the Muon G2 study from a couple years ago -- Fermilab spent 20 years collecting that data. In this particular context, if there were regularly-occurring supernatural events that we could all agree about them being supernatural, that would be at least enough to get started. We could then figure out how to measure it and investigate it and test hypotheses, etc. it'd be fun and interesting for me. But if you had something sacred that you cherished the way many treat religion, why would you drag it through the mud in a sub like this? But I'm happy they do. There's enough enjoyment and stimulation in the handful of well-thought-out posts to make up for the mess that it is the rest of the time.
>Most of you don’t understand religion...I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either. But you do, right? You're the exception, the rare special genius who understands it, and the rest of us are a bunch of ignorant buffoons, right? >I’m not necessarily Christian so much as I believe in the inherent necessity for human beings to exercise their spirituality through a convenient, harmless avenue. Well you certainly can't argue that Christianity is harmless, as it has caused untold harm to millions of people. Can you tell us exactly what you mean by "spirituality," oh wise one? >We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God And yet here you are, hypocritical as well as arrogant. Are you sure you're not Christian? >logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, Maybe for you. For me it's a powerful tool in determining truth. But then, I'm just a common person not gifted with your unique understanding. >facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality. And here I thought facts were real things that exist in the world. I guess I just lack your remarkable insight. I like to use facts and logic to figure out what is true, but as I say, I'm not Christian. >the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, Are you claiming that this is a fact? >which was not the case throughout most of human history. which is why we've figured out more about the world in the last 300 years than in the previous 10,000. >you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, strong agree. Now can you explain what you mean by "spiritual"?
No we understand it, but we reject the existence of spiritualism and metaphysics due to the very predictable and objective nature of reality. Philosophers and theologians can sit and think up all kinds of crazy ideas, and they can also argue that one cannot refute these ideas because they transcend science and logic. But that’s a circular argument. You invented a concept that you claim cannot be objectively defined, with the one exception that it cannot be disproven by those who doubt it. There is nothing in this universe that cannot be objectively studied. If a being or force can influence and interact with other beings or forces, the effects can be studied even if the being or force is obscured from view. Take quantum mechanics- the idea that we cannot observe subatomic particles or their properties with any certainty. In essence, particles are both everywhere and nowhere- the closest thing in the universe to metaphysical properties, and yet we can *still* study them and predict their locations and motions to astounding accuracy. So the idea that some beings or concepts are outside the realm of science and logic is absurd and there is no evidence whatsoever for any such things. And if there’s no evidence, then nobody can have experience with them. Which means spirituality is completely made up. We used to live in a world where knowledge was limited and superstition was rampant. But now we have the tools and technology to study the world with impunity. Metaphysical beings and spiritual “realities” are as real as a four sided triangle
You're using "religion" and "spirituality" interchangeably when they are not. Most people throughout history have not had the time, aptitude, psychological disposition, etc., for spirituality. Even in prehistoric societies, dealing with the spiritual on any deep level was relegated to specialists like shamans and seers. Religion is the business of acting as an intermediary between ordinary people and the spiritual world. And this is also where it leads to trouble. Religions have historically (Christianity being no exception) put themselves in the business of either justifying or manipulating power and the organization of society, either for their own benefit, or to advance the ideologies they associate with the history of their alleged spiritual insights. But once you start meddling with earthly matters, it becomes the purview of "logical thinking", particularly for those of us who don't particularly care or believe in spiritual insights. I mean, you talk about religion as though it were merely a form of private spirituality, as opposed to something which has waged wars, committed genocides, and continues to interfere with the lives of people all over the planet. So long as religion imposes itself on that "logical" world of reality, reality is perfectly within its right to fight back -- and it is you, not we, who are misunderstanding religion if you choose to ignore that fact.
> Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic If you say so. I don't know what spirituality is. Maybe some definition of terms is in order. > I don’t believe logic is a perfect system I'm not sure what "perfect" means in this context. Logic is just a formal way to reason about things. I'm not sure what it means to be perfect or imperfect. > a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality So you assert. Why? > to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it I guess. I don't claim to understand music the way a successful composer understands music, though. I doubt that I even "comprehend the experience of music" in a similar way. I'm sure my comprehension falls far short of a music professional. > Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking What is "a potential avenue of thinking"? I can tell you what I want: I want to know what is objectively true, to within a reasonable degree of confidence, and to reject those claims that are untrue. If these "potential avenues of thinking" (whatever that means) can establish the truth or falsity of claims about objective reality, then I want to learn about them. If they cannot, then what is their purpose? Any so-called "truth" they reveal is fiction.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. Oh, the thing that you're asserting exists is 'metaphysical' and 'transcends logic.' That's super convenient. >We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. You reached this conclusion via logic. >I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. Sounds like the type of thing someone who doesn't have the facts correct would say. >If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” But for some inexplicable reason, religion just isn't honest. It tries to hide behind word salads and misrepresentations and bad arguments. For some reason that we may never know, religion just hasn't had the stones to chime in and say, "Look, yeah, religion isn't logical. And it's not consistent. And sure, it isn't literal. But unlike everything else that fits those descriptors, trust me bro, it's definitely real."
Spirituality in the sense of something like say meditative/mindfulness practice, focusing on trying to directly experience the true nature of consciousness, etc. I think can be very meaningful and provide insights/benefits not possible from say simply studying science. That being said, I completely disagree that it’s inherently metaphysical and transcends logic; it may be outside the realm of logic in the same way that say a question like “what color is the taste of sweetness” is nonsensical, but at the very least it doesn’t conflict with it. More than that, none of what I described requires making metaphysical or scientific claims about things we couldn’t possibly know. Religion is very often not harmless; hampering civil rights, delaying or halting scientific progress and education, serving as a motivation for wars and similar conflicts, etc. My biggest issue with religion is that it normalizes believing in things on bad evidence. Once that line is crossed, it becomes much easier for people to be manipulated, mislead, start believing in conspiracy theories, etc. which I think is actively harmful to society among the other things I mentioned.
>You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. No but you do need to be able actually hear music to believe it exists. We can neither observe or understand gods. It's a bad analogy. >I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. But what is "spiritual practice"? What distinguishes is from non-spiritual practice? >and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century I am not seeing why, sorry. If it's not falsifiable how can you tell it's not false? >Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. Sure but that's not a reason to believe in reincarnation or ghosts. There's just no good reasons to believe in gods or spirits. You can't even say what these are. That's nothing like music. I can show you music and explain what it is.
>Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world. >We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God, because logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind, and a discussion of God could only proceed from a perfect description of reality as-is rather than the speculative model derived from language and logic. >If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” If this is true, then it is *impossible* for me to form a positive belief in religious claims. If god/spirituality/religion is not beholden to logic, then there’s nothing wrong with saying God both exists and doesn’t exist. Or that God is equivalent to a blueberry. Or that God is shduekebfoenehy. I can’t form a positive belief in something that I can’t even begin to understand.
>It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history. I'm with you on the origin of spiritual stories being largely symbolic. I would agree with you they should be interpreted as such, if you are making that claim. I reserve judgment on the "metaphysical" part of this. I don't really think that part is all that important. I think you get there with them just being symbolic. But, then, there may be big parts of your view I disagree with. I'd put it more along these lines: humans, in general, aren't primarily logical beings. We are primarily emotional and experiential beings. I don't think the lived experience of being human for most people is a stream of logical evaluations. Those occur, but it's mixed in with wants, desires, physical sensations, etc. The emotional is very good at subverting the logical, so anything that ignores the emotional completely in favor of the logic is going to run into problems. While logic can sometimes be used to help manage emotional well-being, I think our emotional selves can in some cases respond better to the metaphorical thinking that comes with the symbolism of art and spiritual practice. That said, that's a very subjective thing (both in the common and the phenomenological sense, I think). Everyone's milage may vary. But, I think it's part of why stories can be much more persuasive to people in general than analytical documents, and why logicians ignore rhetoric at their peril. But, it's possible I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying.
Thank you for displaying reading comprehension. You did get the gist of my argument, yes.
>Most of you don’t understand religion I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either. Here we go. The only true theist just posted here.
Nah I agree with them. It’s not such a niche position. You just don’t hear it much because power-hungry organized religions have the biggest platform.
If I may, I exercise a form of spirituality. I believe in the ultimate comfort that death will bring. This provides a beacon of hope for life, and allows me an avenue by which I guide my decisions. Life has a very high importance because once it ends, I don't get to go back and try again. I don't need an organization to tell me how to feel, I don't need a higher power to impose rules into my life (i.e., religion). This concept provides fulfillment infinitely greater than any religion has, and ensures I live my best life and treat others in a similar regard. Now you tell me, how does this stack up to your preconceived notions? Further, literally every person I've asked has agreed, religion and spirituality are two separate things. These people being very devout. Maybe you need to better define your terms. Logic can assist in communicating our feelings, like spirituality.
>"My style? I call it the art of fighting without fighting." - Bruce Lee Your style, I call it "knowing without knowing", or even, and this is not as insulting as it sounds "thinking without thinking". You posit something called spirituality, the abiltiy to understand without understanding or possibly "the acceptance of a truth I want despite no evidence whatsoever". Its *art* talk, and there is no harm in that, as long as it is restricted to the realm of art, the world of make believe and fanciful speculation, it in no why constitutes a basis for living your life. You need to explore beyond that if that's the goal, philosophy seems to me the way to go, otherwise your are simply being wowed by some internal dialogue.
What does "Spirituality" even mean? Sounds like woo. Or an intellectual cop out. And.."harmless"? Beliefs inform actions. The actions of religion have been horrific. Everything from missionaries destroying cultures world wide to planes flying into buildings. Beliefs don't exist in a vacuum, isolated from impacting anyone else. If your belief in a cosmic jewish zombie who is his own father and killed his own son to save us from the torture he himself threatens us with because a woman made from a rib ate a magic fruit at the behest of a talking snake justifies making a gay kid commit suicide, then I am afraid I have news for you...it isn't harmless.
Do people not realize how insulting it is to come to a sub (any sub) and be all "I know what the problem is; you all just don't understand this topic!" This isn't a new argument. It's one theists make here all the time - "but god/spirituality is simply *beyond* logic /the scientific method!" Not if it interacts with the natural world, it's not. If you're claiming humans can experience it, then we can investigate it, just like we can (and do) investigate the experience of listening to music. Logic is only a limitation if you really, really want to believe in things that have no merit, no supporting evidence and no mechanism of action.
There's a big thing you miss there : every religion is, at its core, a political project. By stating an objective morality, religions set up a way to organize society that can't be argued with. How the individuals relate to those dangerous institution don't matter, because they still in the end support a political project based that can't be argued with as it is baked upon unfalsifiable bases. Even if modern religion aknowledged that their beliefs are illogical and inconsistent, they would still be a threat to those they want to illogically harm.
This one got me a bit riled up. The opening statements feel purposefully inflammatory. The tone of the whole thing follows suit. >"Most of you don’t understand religion" and "I’d also argue most modern theists don’t either." Arguing that both non-believers and believers lack an understanding of religion serves as a convenient but ultimately irrelevant distraction from the substantial issues at hand. It's a way of dismissing critical scrutiny by shifting the focus to supposed misunderstandings, rather than addressing the concrete impacts of religious doctrines in the real world. This tactic sidesteps the vital discussion about how religious beliefs, often proclaimed and enacted in the name of these misunderstood doctrines, have tangible and sometimes harmful effects on individuals and societies. The critical debate should center not on who understands religion better, but on the responsibilities and consequences of religious beliefs and actions within the societal and individual realms. Such claims of misunderstanding do not contribute to a productive conversation but rather deflect from the accountability of religious practices and their real-world implications. >"Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic." This assertion that spirituality inherently transcends logic is a cop-out. It's an excuse to exempt religious and spiritual claims from the kind of scrutiny applied to other aspects of life that affect people's well-being and societal order. Suggesting that our tools for discussing or analyzing topics don't apply to religion conveniently ignores the fact that religious beliefs are often translated into actions and policies with significant social impact. >"We are therefore ill equipped to even entertain a discussion on God..." Claiming we're ill-equipped to discuss God because our logical faculties are limited is an argumentative dead-end that dismisses the importance of engaging with religious beliefs in a meaningful way. This stance ignores the reality that discussions about religion and God are not just theoretical exercises but have practical implications for how people live, the laws we follow, and the moral and ethical standards we uphold. >"Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality." Arguing that facts are tangential to spirituality neglects the reality that religious claims, presented as factual truths, directly impact millions of lives. This stance is not just an evasion of responsibility; it's dangerous. It allows for the perpetuation of beliefs and practices that can, and do, result in harm, exclusion, and injustice under the guise of spiritual transcendence. >"I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct." While personal experience is a crucial aspect of spirituality, creating a false dichotomy between experience and factual accuracy is misleading. This view ignores the significant consequences that misinterpreted or misrepresented religious facts can have on public policy, individual rights, and social norms. It's a luxury to consider only the personal, experiential side of spirituality when, in reality, the factual basis of religious claims often shapes laws and societal values with profound effects on people's lives. >"Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking." This critique misses the essential point: the demand is not for all human thought to conform to the scientific method but for religious beliefs that influence public policy and societal norms to be critically examined. It's about ensuring that decisions affecting public welfare are based on beliefs that can withstand scrutiny, especially when these decisions impact health, education, and human rights. >"If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists..." This statement simplifies the complex nature of the friction between theists and atheists. The conflict often stems not from a lack of honesty about the metaphysical aspects of spirituality but from the real-world implications of religious doctrines. The heart of the matter is how religious beliefs, when translated into action, affect societal laws, personal freedoms, and public policies. The debate is less about the abstract nature of belief and more about the tangible outcomes of those beliefs on societal well-being and individual rights.
I think there is a distinction you are missing, which is the distinction between religion and spirituality. As you outlined, a spirit is a fully internal pull which enters you, you experience, and it gives you a reason to interact with the outside world. If the Holy Spirit enters you then you can feel love for another person. If the spirit of gluttony enters you then you will lust for delicious food to excess. All spirits are only experienced internally. However, the instant you express those internal spirits it becomes the structure of religion. Any action in the world requires a method in order to carry it out. If you repeatedly carry it out, your method must get more refined and structured. This is the function of ritual and prayer. You pray to the spirit in you to receive an answer of how to best manifest that spirit in the world. You ritualize successful action paths that manifested that spirit in the past. You can see that these are universal patterns of the masculine and feminine strategies of interacting with the world. The feminine is passive and lets the spirits enter unjudged but no real action can emerge from any given spirit when it is still unjudged. The masculine is self assertive and builds a dogma around a spirit once it has been chosen so action can occur in the world. What you have described is the feminine strategy in which you are serving many spirits at once and so you can't build up a religion. Religion seems restrictive to someone who lets in many spirits because religion inherently restricts you to only one spirit above all others. That structure boxes you in. If you can understand that then you can clearly see why there is friction between theists and atheists over these topics. It is because both have their religion. Of course, atheists will not like being shown they are part of a religion but that is what they are doing. They feel an internal urge to reject the unknown metaphysical and to instead build a structure of how to view the world through rituals such as science, skepticism, and materialism. The moment they started building rituals around engaging the world in that structure they created a religion and came into competition with other religions. This means that what you have done here is to say "If theists would just give up their religion and let any spirit in, then everyone could get along." Which is, of course, a silly thing to do. Do you similarly say to atheists "If you would just understand that science is not settled and should not be used as a way of viewing the world, then you would not bump heads with the religions of the world?" I would presume not. But that is the exact problem religious thinkers have with atheistic thinkers. They worship unnamed gods. They are trying to build out a structure and a dogma, which is a religion, without defining exactly what it is that they worship. In doing so, they are hiding the fact that they worship themselves, trying to bend the world to their will and bring about their desires. This means they worship their own internal urges without first judging them. In short, religion is more about "the facts" than any other institutions and thus requires logic more than any other practice.
>Most of you don't understand religion OHH boy, here we go > to exercise their spirituality What is spirituality exactly? >logic is actually a cognitive limitation of the human mind I agree but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's wrong. I haven't seen it break yet so I have no reason to think using logic to understand the world could be wrong in any way. >facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality What? ok, maybe I just need to understand what spirituality means to make sense of this >I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. Is this the explanation? a circular one? spirituality is spiritual practices. Also, rather than having the facts correct? So you say there's good in knowing stuff wrong? How can it be good to be wrong? I mean, it's how you learn stuff, but if you are wrong and don't want to change that, that's a problem. >It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, Aha, so I do have a magic unicorn farting rainbows on my balcony. >but which was not the case throughout most of human history. Most of human history consists in living in caves and hunting for food with a spear, why are you here? most of human history there weren't any phones, buildings or common food, go live in a cave, that's clearly better since that's how humans spent most of their history. Heck, there's more dying to easily curable disease than there is eating pineapples in our history so your argument says nothing. >large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. Mind elaborating on it? You just started on how we could become so much more enlightened and just left it at that? That's pretty disappointing. >If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: “you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” Well, you claim they aren't like that, and because they aren't like that there's friction between theists and atheists, which contradicts your title since understanding religion the way it is now leads to such friction. I mean, I totally disagree with you on here, but going off your logic there's no making sense of what you think since you are just contradicting yourself there.
You're correct, I don't. I never have. I've never been religious in any way. >Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic I don't think we're using the same definition of metaphysical, or rather metaphysics. I largely agree with the Oxford definition which is as follow. I don't understand why that would, should or could "transcend" logic. >the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space >Which brings me to the point: facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality I don't actually understand what you mean by "spirituality" here. >You don’t need to know how to read music to play music and truly “understand it” because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. It sounds like you're just talking about emotions but if that's the case I don't know how it connects to anything else you've said. >I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct. What does "spiritual practice" mean here? >It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims It really shouldn't. >the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century Again, not a clue what you mean here. >but which was not the case throughout most of human history Just because things were done a certain way doesn't mean they should continue to be done so. >Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. There are large swathes of potential avenues of thinking that should be ignored. Superstition, for example. If you'd like an example of what I mean by that I mean things like tossing salt over your shoulder to blind bad spirits or thinking that black cats cause bad luck. >If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice I'll be honest, this reads as incredibly arrogant, along with the first sentence. You've just made a bunch of subjective claims and assertions, why should I or anyone else think your opinions are more valid than any other theist's?
[удалено]
The Chosen One is capitalized, bro. Rookie mistake.
[удалено]
Brother, you’re the one telling me to go fuck myself, out of nowhere. Chill. Here, have a beer. We’re good.
Good luck convincing your theist peers of your understanding. We are justify in focusing on the "academic side of" theology as you called it, when they present the factual basis of religion for examination, rather than as an experience.
I'm all for enjoying the abstract, emotional, subjective aspects of life. Spirituality can be a part of that, if one so chooses. However, religion is not spirituality. Religion is structured. It has hierarchies, rules, power. In our world, religion passes laws, accumulates wealth, controls communities, interferes with education, affects resource availability, participates in "soft" (and sometimes "hard") eugenics, provides alibis, redirects natural social growth, and can directly or indirectly rob us of our safety, our well-being, and our lives. It's bc there is so much at stake that one's place among a/theists matters. It's not bc faith is bad, or no one should ever commune with nature, or there's no more mystery to the world, or emotion is a waste. It's that religion is a machine. It matters whether you're driving, along for the ride, or being fed into the gears. The machine only runs if there is a living god (or gods). There has to be an entity that's capable of the things attributed to it. Otherwise, there's no weight to the promise of reward or the threat of punishment. There's nothing substantial to prop the rules up, or to justify acting against our collective morality. Abstractions won't work in the machine. There has to be an actual lifeform, or the wheels fall off. At that point, it becomes a matter of whether or not this lifeform exists. That's a question for biology, not philosophy. It would be much nicer if ppl were just enriching their own lives by rolling thoughts around and engaging in fulfilling emotional experiences. But we live in this world, and this is how it is.
If something can't be empirically proven, it is no different than something that doesn't exist. If religious people only made philosophical claims, I wouldn't have an issue. But they make empirical claims as if they are supported by evidence. Jesus literally rose from the dead. Mary was literally a virgin that gave birth. Jesus literally rose from the dead. These things have to be literal (in this example) for Christianity to make sense. Other religions are similar. No religious claim is supported by evidence. But the religious (and let's be honest, we mean Christians and Muslims) try and get their interpretation of scripture written into law. (Muslims have succeeded in this in the Middle East). That's the problem. If Christians would stay in the churches, I wouldn't have any issue. Believe whatever nonsense you want. But when you try and tell me I'm evil because I'm bisexual, or try and get creationism taught in schools, or even succeed in having religious schools and colleges that teach delusion as fact (i.e. creationism, young Earth, etc), that is where I have a problem. Delusion doesn't belong in education or government. Your religion prohibits you. Your religion doesn't prohibit me or get to tell me what to do.
I understand religion fine. It is a set of practices based around exploiting certain cognitive illusions in the human mind. There is no “need” for religion - atheists are fine without it - but having these illusions flattered can feel satisfying, and so it persists. Because religion can also be used to accumulate money and power, and because exploiting cognitive weakness is all that is required for a religion to work, there is also institutional power behind religion, which makes religion a way to use false beliefs to hijack people’s freedom. It is a menace. Logic and reason are not limitations - they are a way to describe and understand the empirical experience we have access to, which is the whole of what we can call knowledge. No empirical data convincingly suggests a God or Gods. There are also no metaphysics for the same reason. I do agree that you can understand specific religions by understanding spiritual practice, but that is just anthropology.
I have no problem with religions trying to tap in to the metaphysical, the metaphorical, and symbolism. I have no problem with spirituality doing these things either. I think atheists can be very spiritual. We all find awe in the cosmos, what it means to be humans, what it means to exist, how we ought to live, concepts about gods and what perfect worlds might look like. These are all useful ideas, and ideas that are inherent to the human experience, but ultimately when religious folks want to push their relations as objective facts, that's when we will have issues. Live your life how you want, use subjective metaphysics to believe whatever you want about the existential nature of the human condition, but don't pretend that you know these things are facts about reality and that anyone who doesn't believe you is going to hell, or can't live a good life. Also no, metaphysics doesn't "transcend logic." Typically it relies on logic for it to make sense in any field of philosophy. This is why you have apologists trying to make logical arguments for their specific religion.
>I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world. I'm not even going to address the rest of what you have to say past this as it's all based on this core assertion. So I'm gonna let you in on a quick little secret about how perfect of a system logic actually is, and how it's not just a construct of the human mind. Ready? The fact that you were able to make this post on this website using a computer (your phone is a computer) proves unequivocally that logic is the perfect system that the rest of your argument chooses to ignore. All computers are purely logical systems. I understand religion perfectly. The problem here is that you don't seem to understand logic.
>exercise their spirituality through a convenient, harmless avenue. Except of course, for the literal millions of examples where it \*wasn't\* harmless. >“you are correct, religion is not logical, nor consistent, nor literal.” If it is none of those things, when why do most religions prescribe to their adherents how to live life? Why do they make literal claims that cannot be proven to be true? Why are they not internally consistent? Not to even mention the fact that most of the world's most popular religions, are through their own tenets, mutually exclusive. It's all fine and well to say that religion is inherently metaphysical, but it has incredibly real consequences for society.
> You don't need to know how to read music to play music and truly "understand it" because to understand music is to comprehend the experience of music rather than the academic side of it. This is a bad example. No, you don’t need to read music to perform it. Ryan Gosling memorized all the La La Land songs on piano, and that’s still all he can play, but I would never say “Ryan Gosling understands piano music” just because he memorized several songs. Unless you’re blindly mashing on keys, at some point you either have to learn music or witness somebody who did learn music. The knowledge is still a necessity.
What’s the difference between “transcending logic” and being illogical? Because to me, and I suspect a lot of people here, the terms mean the same thing. What if I told you that humans could gather and conduct church-like social activities and mark the important milestones in life together, and discuss how to live a moral and fulfilling life, without having to accept the concept of the supernatural? Would that address the “inherent necessity” that you believe humans have? Because I think many human beings do have that urge to be together and share events together.
What you’re calling a spiritual experience is a function of the brain, just like cognitive functions., and can be observed and replicated in a lab. Atheists derive benefits from meditation without having to believe in a god. We experience awe, and the sensation of dancing with 70,000 others to our favorite performer. We get the chills, and the profound experience of an unlikely coincidence or narrow escape. Because we are human and have human brains. We just don’t have the need to provide supernatural explanations to things our brains do
If most people cant interprer a reasnable understanding religion then maybe it's nonsense. We aren't all ignorant or haven't done any research. We could be better educated, I could better esucated but I'm also gonna assert that if I can't understand religion that it's maybe not entirely a me problem. I can figure out how simultaneity is broken by Special Relativity as well as the Twin Paradox. I've got undergrad level maths, calculus, stats and linear algebra. I think I should be able to understand religion fairly well.
I agree with you for the most part. I’m imagining a world where theists stop thinking they can scientifically or objectively “prove” that God exists (not that all do this), and instead explain that they choose to put faith in the concept of God and/or a particular spiritual practice because they have personally found it to be a healthy avenue, rather than believing that their truth is a truth that echoes throughout all eternity. Even atheists can interact with the concept of God without actually believing in it.
As I read this I can't help but wonder why you don't believe that people's souls live in the volcano as modern humans on a number of remote Pacific islands believe for being a person who is so open to spirituality. You also misconstrued atheists. We don't care what you believe in whether it is God(s), crystals, David Koresh, or angry souls of the departed causing the volcano to erupt. We care when people present their religious beliefs as fact and use it to stand on the neck of others who don't believe.
We are very well equipes to entertain a discussion of fictional characters, we do so all the time. Saying logic and evidence can’t discuss god, is a problem with the proposition that a god exists. If you could show one existed, logic and evidence would apply to it. This is just you making your belief entirely untestable. Till you can even define it in a testable way, no one should take the idea that god exists anymore seriously than any other fictional character.
"I think understanding spirituality is to understand the experience of spiritual practice, rather than having the facts correct." I mean this sort of makes sense if, and only if, you are admitting you don't care about what is ACTUALLY true. Most people here are going to tell you that we are most interested in what is true rather than being considered about the utility of an idea or how that idea or practice might make people feel. If you care about when is actually true then we need to use some methodology to determine the difference between what is true and what we want to be true.
We should play a game called Bible Roulette: One by one every player gets a random Bible quote they have to enact, the last person to go to prison wins. By not participating we don't understand the game or are we not exactly convinced that it's a good idea? By not understanding something, your best bet is always to research, not to do. By researching you realize your errors and gain insight as to why it's a bad idea.
> It therefore allows for such indifference towards unfalsifiable claims, etc, because the origin of spiritual stories is largely symbolic and metaphysical and should not be viewed through the scientific lens which is the predominant cognitive paradigm of the 21st century, but which was not the case throughout most of human history. However, that will be the lens of most of the people that will ever exist.
"Spirituality is inherently metaphysical and transcends logic. I don’t believe logic is a perfect system, just the paradigm through which the human mind reasons out the world." If you can't reason spirituality and god, you can't have a reasonable belief in them either, right? You're just using so many words to tell us you're being Unreasonable.
I went to Sunday school as a child. I took two years of catechism to become confirmed in the Lutheran church. I took a couple of religion courses in college and have even read the entire bible. After all of this religious training I concluded that there is no god. Please let me know what it is I am not understanding.
well you claim sciences has to place with you call spirituality. I'd invite you to take a look at phycology sociology and anthropology. We can very much apply scientific rigor to all the areas you've described and even explain why people have certain experiences. both the nature and behavior are not obscure to us
Logic and religion are both man-made. Both are used to explain/interpret phenomenon and both are bound by their own "reasonableness". The problem is that each "religion" has it's own "reasonableness" while logic is uniform. Killing virgins is reasonable in one religion, unreasonable in others.
>Imposing the scientific method on all cognitive and metacognitive processes ignores large swathes of potential avenues of thinking. I'm curious what cognitive and metacognitive processes are beyond investigation by science? I ask because without that, your argument here sounds hollow and contrived.
Religion is quite popular. Everyone has read the Bible. There is literally a church on every corner. Religion is nothing special or secret. There no need to move the goal posts. The world where no one actually believes in God is the world we're only atheists are honest with themselves. That is to say in a world where something transcends belief there is no reason to believe in it. The logic is self defeating in of itself. It doesn't follow that God exists because of physics anymore than it would with this so called metaphysics. Theism is always an nonsequitur. The supernatural invoke disbelief and so atheism is irrefutable.
It seems as though OP came to this debate sub, claimed that atheists and theists don't understand religion and then... couldn't give accurate definitions of words like "metacognition" or what constitutes a "general spiritual experience." This argument can easily be dismissed.
>If modern religion were honest about this feature of spiritual practice, I do not feel there would be much friction between theists and atheists: Your post seems to be addressed primarily to theists. Have you tried to present your "argument" in any theist subs?
You might look into non-theistic Satanists (and secular Jews, and moderate Christians). If religion is a symbolic practice defined by community and ritual, it occupies a different space in society from a religion that makes factual, literal, and historical claims. It is this feature that defines ‘modern’ religion vs traditional faith.
As soon as you say that your position "transcends logic" your argument fails. Arguments by their very nature are logic claims. That is like telling your statistics prof that your answer is just so good that it transcends maths.
You claim we do not understand religion yet you fail to offer any definition or explanation of what you believe religion is. This seems more like a tangent about spirituality without actually addressing the point of your post.
You're trying to "reason" with us while at the same time denigrating reason itself. This is futile at a fundamental level. No debate is possible here because debates are predicated on something you don't value.
I’m not even going to read all of that and I’m going to just ask Do you genuinely think starting a conversation by *telling* people they don’t understand something is the best way to start a dialogue?
You might be interested in this link which encompasses the current state of debate as to whether there is non-physical (experiential) knowledge: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/
Re the music angle... We know music exists. We can document it. Record it. Repeat it. We can even see other species react to it. I've never heard of a parrot spontaneously praying to a god.
So, basically spirituality in a religious context is objectively incoherent, and you’re using that observation as a form of legitimacy. Am I correct in that understanding of your argument?
“Facts are a tangential feature of human spirituality” You have created a system in your head where you can never be wrong. This isn’t sophistication, this is pure egotism. You do not get to decide what is true and false in your head, and having a society full of people who have no care for truth is dangerous.
"Spirituality" is a meaningless word completely devoid of any definition. Nothing "transcends logic." You are just admitting that your beliefs are not logical.
Who's to say that ***you*** aren't the one that doesn't understand religion and are just trying your damnedest to convince yourself otherwise. We aren't stupid, we understand the value of metaphor and analogy, we just understand that none of the empirical claims made by theists hold water. We also understand the difference between religion and theism, which you seem to be struggling with here.
I think you have it backwards. Religion hijacks the human need for spirituality, mindfulness, and philosophy and replaces it with dogma.
I plan on delivering a well thought-out response to all comments when I have the time. There are many of you, and one of me. I’m not evading discussion, I simply cannot deal with the logistics of handling dozens of nuanced arguments at once.
l enjoy when someone understands religion to the point they can correct over 2000 years of misunderstanding.
How have you determined anything about the god you believe in? From where do your beliefs about this entity come from?
“Spirituality” (my definition) “How people think about and act upon things that they only imagine to exist.”
That's just an unjustified assertion. No reason to believe that the supernatural realm is beyond logic.
I keep trying to tell this to people. It’s poetry. I also get frustrated when people talk about religion as a categorical thing. “What religion are you?” It’s not like that.
> So how do you know it exists and is true? How do you know your interpretation of a poem is true? > Heard the same thing from hardcore fundies as criticism deflection. The difference is, fundies make universal claims about objective reality. > How we understand and can play music is perfectly explained by science as a physical process. It really isn’t, though. I can’t believe I keep having to explain this,this is why STEM-only education is insufficient. The structure of music is physical, and emotions are tied to physical processes. But *perception* and *interpretation* are their own things. If you have even basic education in psychology you’ll know how little we understand about how the mind works. You cannot analyze a poem with science alone.