How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@Jasper10,

Existing in the autopilot consciousness state is like handing all responsibility over to the biological machine/computer. This happens every second of every day for all of us. It's like we have moved away from the computer and it just defaults to automatic working mode waiting until we take the controls back again to input new information which the computer processes until it is able to memorize/ replicate a task automatically for us. This is how we exist/operate. We are embroiled within a biological computer-like machine whether we like this or not or accept this or not and we are influenced by it.. The autopilot consciousness state is different to the manual consciousness state whereby we take control. These basic consciousness concepts are already known about in psychology. The individual needs to become AWARE of the above. We are separate from AWARENESS. However, we can become aware of the 2 off consciousness states and experience the transition in and out of these consciousness states. CONSTANT Auto-pilot consciousness living/thinking is not good. Most people exist in this state all their lives however. A good example of autopilot existence is when people meditate deeply by going within themselves or disappearing within their head in thought. If one does this too much one can have the feeling of disassociation or a feeling of living in ones head. One needs to be grounded again. Learning about consciousness states is the thing to do and not just spend all ones life just thinking about stuff. We are NOT thoughts.....we just have thoughts...!!! New realizations will then open up....

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Yes, I have seen a car being made..

To respond to some of your other comments, when i say that we impose our human created patterns on other things, you are correct that is what science does, but in doing so, to make the case, people must be able to demonstrate what is being studied. If they cannot, then it is not science, it remains at best a hypothesis until such time as there is a method to make it demonstrable. You appear to be saying that because we can observe ourselves being creators that we can assume that there is a god as creator and you are exactly correct. You can assume, but you cannot demonstrate this. That is the difference. Assume all you want, you think it is valid. Fair enough, so do i. But i will not put much stock in this until that assumption can be demonstrated.

And even more, science does not make proclamations of truth. It is provisional, forever and always until something new is discovered that overturns the previous theory. The reason for this is precisely that we cannot know all properties and all interactions of those properties. Science, as powerful as it is, is very limited in what it can discover. Its "truths" are mostly practical, probably never getting underneath what is studies to truly understand it (see gravity). I do not view science as a method of getting at "truth" in the grand sense, only in the practical sense..and science is further constrained by what we know about epistemology.

So, yeah, you keep saying essentially the same thing over and over again. New examples illustrating the same thing. I get it. It didn't convince me the first time and more examples of that same type will not either. You could prove evolution wrong and it wouldn't be any more evidence for a god. And yes, i keep repeating myself as well, we are not getting anywhere..so

Lets get to the root of it. I am coming from a Humian point of view. Are you familiar with Hume? Have you read any of his books, specifically An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding?

So, though Hume has been challenged about some of his stuff by Kant and others, the essence (if not particular details) of his argument about epistemology remains unchallenged or at least un-overcome. So, if we are to not be talking at cross-purposes, can you articulate Hume's point of view relative to this topic and then say why you don't hold to it? Because that to me is the crux of this argument. All these great examples of life as design is not going to cut it. It doesn't get at the root of the dissension.

Also, are you familiar with the concept of reification? Can you steel man my argument by explaining to me why reification is important in this argument? You do not have to agree with any conclusions, you don't have to agree with Hume. But at least if you have to argue along that vein, it will show where our disagreement lies. Otherwise you are going to keep giving your wonderful observations of AI and the big bang and evolution which i have no truck with and only hold those things as scientifically provisional anyway. The answer isn't: we can't come up with a better explanation so it must be god. Or the bald ass assertion that things just couldn't have happened which begs the question (see Hume). Articulate what Hume would say to this and you'll better understand my point of view.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Sorry Leddy, we need to have this discussion over that beer we talked about. I'm sure i could convince you that what i am saying has merit, even if you disagree.. Wink

I blame myself for lack of appropriate articulation..

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

We all sound like fools sooner or later, if we’re honest.

Cheers

0 Replies

If religion proves anything it proves philosophy is just as clueless as itself. Obviously religion is philosophy to some people just like philosophy is religion to other people. So can we all please finally admit that religion is philosophy as much as philosophy is religion? Seriously its pretty obvious to anyone with a brain. Our wonder is more important than our personal feelings. That's why religion and philosophy exists.

1 Reply

@crackedhead,

It is not possible separate religion and philosophy, they are both embroiled together. Most scientist want nothing to do with religion but in the same breath they want to study/ understand consciousness as if consciousness is a lab rat. They are unwilling to connect the two or become part of there own experiment.

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

To respond to some of your other comments, when i say that we impose our human created patterns on other things, you are correct that is what science does, but in doing so, to make the case, people must be able to demonstrate what is being studied. If they cannot, then it is not science, it remains at best a hypothesis until such time as there is a method to make it demonstrable.

Since, is there no observable evidence of how the new information is introduced correctly into the genome to provide speciation or the introduction of sexuality (macroevolution), then you would agree the Theory of Darwinian Evolution should be called the Hypothesis of Darwinian Evolution for the same reason?

Quote:

And even more, science does not make proclamations of truth.

So does science agree the complexity in quantum mechanics, gravity and biology could just as likely been initiated and guided by intelligence since they have not observed complexity being initiated in any other way?

Quote:

So, if we are to not be talking at cross-purposes, can you articulate Hume's point of view relative to this topic and then say why you don't hold to it? Because that to me is the crux of this argument. All these great examples of life as design is not going to cut it. It doesn't get at the root of the dissension.

From Wikipedia-

Quote:

Hume held that passions rather than reason govern human behaviour, famously proclaiming that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions". Hume was also a sentimentalist who held that ethics are based on emotion or sentiment rather than abstract moral principle. He maintained an early commitment to naturalistic explanations of moral phenomena, and is usually taken to have first clearly expounded the is–ought problem, or the idea that a statement of fact alone can never give rise to a normative conclusion of what ought to be done.

Hume also denied that humans have an actual conception of the self, positing that we experience only a bundle of sensations, and that the self is nothing more than this bundle of causally-connected perceptions. Hume's compatibilist theory of free will takes causal determinism as fully compatible with human freedom. His views on philosophy of religion, including his rejection of miracles and the argument from design for God's existence, were especially controversial for their time.

We agreed that humans compare created patterns to other things, and it is correct that is what science does, but in doing so, to make the case, people must be able to demonstrate what is being studied. If they cannot, then it is not science. But Hume suggests humans are incapable of doing this when it comes to explaining anything that happened before human experiences, or cannot be explained by purely natural means.

Much of what is being studied in science today (The initiation of hydrogen and helium from nothing at the initiation of the Big Bang, Stellar Nucleosythesis, The Nuclear Forces, ect...) happened before the natural universe existed and therefore cannot by natural means nor repliated by human experience beyond comparing the introduction of the new information to our creative ability. I suggest if Hume would could be set on the moon next to the Lunar landing sight. he would of found it nearly impossible to postulate where and how the equipment came from.

Humists are always going to fail at explaining any introduction of complex or creative information into the univese.

How do you think your thoughts of creation change the directions atoms are rotating?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

would agree the Theory of Darwinian Evolution should be called the Hypothesis of Darwinian Evolution for the same reason?

So, 'evolution' is a fact. It has been and continues to be observed. Evolution is defined as allele changes in a population over time. And there is only the 'Darwinian' theory of evolution colloquially speaking. Those who study natural selection as it relates to evolution do not study Darwin any longer. He gave the general idea, his works are now only referenced in historical study. It is a tragedy that natural selection has so been conflated with Darwin. As far as natural selection being a hypothesis? No, it has the status of theory as all the current available evidence leads to this conclusion, until such time as new evidence has been introduced that overturns it.

Quote:

So does science agree the complexity in quantum mechanics, gravity and biology could just as likely been initiated and guided by intelligence since they have not observed complexity being initiated in any other way?

This is weird. What do you mean they haven't observed complexity being initiated except by intelligence? How do you know they have not? You are begging the question. Do you know what that means? If we have observed nature and it turns out that nature was not designed, then YES we have observed unguided, un-agented complexity. You are assuming, again, that it cannot happen. I can't argue with you if you feel what I am saying cannot be true. I'll say it again, you say yes, i say no and round we go. We get nowhere like this. You have initiated a situation where its heads you win and tails i lose. I have no such problem with your view. I maintain you could be right.

And that stuff on Hume is an example of what appears to be the absolute paucity of your knowledge about what we are talking about. It tells me you have not read Hume or Kant so that you would understand, at root, the epistemological philosophies that are relevant to this discussion. I highly recommend reading these philosophers. Not necessarily for truth, or so that you believe what's being said, but so you can educate yourself in the discussion and be able to talk intelligently about what the discussion about knowledge is. And unless you just ignored me, you also apparently do not understand the concept of reification and how it relates to knowledge.

If you understood these things you would also understand that our lack of imagination or understanding of what 'caused' the big bang (if that really happened) does not mean that a designer wins by default. Caused may not even be an appropriate word. No one knows. No one apparently can know. There is no logic stating that only a designer could have done it. You are saying its impossible based on what science can produce. But our science doesn't say: we don't know what happened 'before' the big bang, therefore design. It has nothing to say about what happened 'before' the big bang because its postulated that the laws were not the same as curret. What were those laws? Is 'laws' the right word to call it (if you understood Hume and the concept of reification - this would be easier for you to understand)? Its beyond our capacity. And i'll say it again, maybe design is correct, you just cannot, logically (or obviously scientifically) speaking, know it.

Bottom line, if you are going to keep insisting that a design-less universe is impossible because i in particular cannot answer your specific questions (though there are others who do evolutionary biology for a living probably would), and you will not educate yourself on epistemology so you don't make these crazy assertions without qualification, then the discussion is over. What is there to discuss? You have already asserted that you are correct and cannot be otherwise.

6 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Humists are always going to fail at explaining any introduction of complex or creative information into the univese.

That quote from Wiki has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. And I'm sorry if this comes across as ad hominem, but your quote above is child-like in its articulation. Your quote is not what is relevant about Hume to this discussion. Do you even know what epistemology is (without reference to Wikipedia)? You have never read any of Hume's books have you? Hume covered a lot of territory. Your attempted articulation of Hume is from Wikipedia right? Not your own evaluation?

I had asked you before to steel man my argument using Hume and reification. I said you didn't have to agree with it, just show me that you at least understand what is being said so we can have a proper discussion that is above a high school level. You would be able to tell me coherently why i am incorrect at best, but I guess this isn't forthcoming..you appear to be happy to keep repeating things about complexity which add not one whit of new information (to use your physical phrase in the abstraction of words sense!) to this discussion.

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

As far as natural selection being a hypothesis? No, it has the status of theory as all the current available evidence leads to this conclusion, until such time as new evidence has been introduced that overturns it.

We have witnessed natural selection wipe out species by extinction. Humans have not witnessed (from experience as required Huminian point of view) a species evolving into another. If so please provide that evidence. Natural selection destroys information and we have not witnessed randomn input of new information producing a more complex organism (such as asexual to sexual reproduction). When we witness random input of genetic information creating complexity then I agree it should be called a theory.

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

If we have observed nature and it turns out that nature was not designed, then YES we have observed unguided, un-agented complexity. You are assuming, again, that it cannot happen.

I am sing a Humian poit of view here. We have not experienced it. It has not happened during the existence of Homosapiens. According to the archaeological record had to happen before. Could you please use a Humian point of view to provide of humans experiencing nature inputting new complex information into the genome?

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

It tells me you have not read Hume or Kant so that you would understand, at root, the epistemological philosophies that are relevant to this discussion.

I thought I did provide the epistemological philosophies that are at the root this discussion. Could you please provide the epistemological philosophies that are at the root this discussion?

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

But our science doesn't say: we don't know what happened 'before' the big bang, therefore design. It has nothing to say about what happened 'before' the big bang because its postulated that the laws were not the same as curret. What were those laws? Is 'laws' the right word to call it (if you understood Hume and the concept of reification - this would be easier for you to understand)? Its beyond our capacity. And i'll say it again, maybe design is correct, you just cannot, logically (or obviously scientifically) speaking, know it.

I am not saying I know. I say I have experienced intelligence creating complexity. I have not experienced Random input of information initiating or creating complexity. Since a Huminian point of view suggests wse build or hypothesis from exxperience I suggest intelligence is the only thing we experience creating complexity.

What is wrong with that understanding of a Huminian point of view?

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

Bottom line, if you are going to keep insisting that a design-less universe is impossible because i in particular cannot answer your specific questions (though there are others who do evolutionary biology for a living probably would), and you will not educate yourself on epistemology so you don't make these crazy assertions without qualification, then the discussion is over. What is there to discuss? You have already asserted that you are correct and cannot be otherwise.

I do not say it is impossible. I say we have never witnessed it and using a Huminian point of view makes it the less likely alternative\. I think you can educate me on this. Can you please explain where I am wrong and give me the correct understanding of a Humanian point of view of my argument.

1 Reply

I'm pretty sure that all religions are wrong based on the fact that a real God wouldn't need to be worshipped. A real God wouldn't NEED anything based on the fact that a real God is absolute perfection. The one thing human thinking isn't. That's why all religions are wrong. God, unlike humans, doesn't need things. Especially admiration. Humans need those things though and that's why "Gods" exist. Religion is obviously human in nature. Which makes religion a human construct. Probably to keep ourselves from murdering and stealing and lying and cheating and wanting ourselves into extinction. Which makes it useful in the end as long as the majority is religious-ized. Pragmatism is religions downfall in the end.

1 Reply

@crackedhead,

Here’s the part I don’t get. I know there are a ton of religions who back you up on all these 'facts' about God.
So why would you believe them if you know they are wrong?

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

I do not say it is impossible. I say we have never witnessed it and using a Huminian point of view makes it the less likely alternative\

No, i will not educate you on Hume. You must do the work. Everything and i mean everything you have stated about Hume when it comes to what are considered 'facts' is completely false. You clearly do not have an understanding of Hume and how he categorized the different kinds of knowledge and WHY they were so categorized as if you did then you would know how it relates to this discussion. You will not even answer my questions about having read Hume or even about what reification is.

And your understanding of evolution is the same. You might and i say might perhaps have a fact or two correct, but it is clear you do not possess the kind of understanding required to place those facts in the correct categories of knowledge.

No, sir, you will have to do your own homework.

And to boot, you are disingenuous about your own comments:

Quote:

I am not saying I know. I say I have experienced intelligence creating complexity

Excuse me? This was from our prior discussion..you don't get to make these statements and then back away from them. You are a faithless interlocuter..

Quote:

You must demonstrate that non-man made things were created by an intelligence. There is no law that i am aware of that says that things must be created by agents and that's it.
[above is from me]
[your response:]
I can't. Nobody can because that type of complexity requires a creator with these characteristics:

1. It existed before the thing that was created so it could be there to create it.
2. It has intelligence and physical capabilities far beyond any of man's current capabilities, otherwise we could replicate it.

[my emphasis]

We are done Brian, to paraphrase someone, i refuse to get into a battle of intellect with an unarmed opponent..sorry if that is an insult, i don't normally, except in jest, like to do that to someone i disagree with, but you are not genuine.

1 Reply

@catbeasy,

Quote:

So, evolution is a fact. It has been and continues to be observed. Evolution is defined as allele changes in a population over time.

Can you give me an example of an allele change being observed that evolved into a more complex organism?

0 Replies

@catbeasy,

Quote:

No, i will not educate you on Hume. You must do the work. Everything and i mean everything you have stated about Hume when it comes to what are considered 'facts' is completely false. You clearly do not have an understanding of Hume and how he categorized the different kinds of knowledge and WHY they were so categorized as if you did then you would know how it relates to this discussion. You will not even answer my questions about having read Hume or even about what reification is.

Since, you are only able to respond in accusations without discussing the facts backing up those accusations, I am going to assume you cannot use Hume to support your view beyond the fact that he is a respected 18th century philosopher.

I read some Hume. He wrote many books on this subject. I am commenting on a post. Wiki summarizes Hume in a way that allows a poster to condense the discussion.

Hume is one of many Philosophers that base their view point on Subjective Idealism and Naturalism. He is probably in a minority among philosophers by putting a low priority on Rationalism. He seems to replace that with a humanistic form of Naive Realism.

Do you agree or disagree.

His lack of Rationalism combined with the inconsistencies introduced by interpreting Naturalism and Naive Realism according to Subjective Idealism leads to a narrow and inconsistent philosophical point of view. It leads to inconsistencies, because in science, a person has to consider events that occur at times, places and scales that are beyond our material senses in the natural world, but are not beyond a rational use of our imagination.

The only way to tie those different types of philosophy together in a coherent and consistent way, is by using a person or groups imagination to get outside the mind of the individual into a more objective point of view in the form of the Objective Idealism philosophical point of view.

I would appreciate a discussion of my quotes to back up your arguments. I thought that is what the purpose of this sight is.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I don't believe in those religions. It doesn't take religion to believe in something higher. It takes religion to be part of human society to some people. It takes atheism to be part of a group. Either way, I'd think "God" exists more than what human beings in a group would call "God". Put easily, I'd think that God could easily exist independently of a "group think" being of God. Please explain to me why a real God would need to be worshipped?

1 Reply

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know