Is religion inferior to logic ?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

is-religion-inferior-to-logic

Empiricism and critical thinking are more effective than any other means for deciding what is true about the world, and by true, I mean demonstrably correct..

I'm theistic but in a different kind of way. My Signature Statement used to read "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that"

And if you didn't call it God, would you still be a theist? I also call whatever is responsible for reality whatever is responsible for reality, which could be a sentient agent (a deity) or an unconscious substance (multiverse) or perhaps even nothing at all (uncaused universe). I suspect that you would agree. I call myself an atheist holding what I believe is the same position you hold. I would only call myself a theist if I had settled on the sentient source for the universe.

This is an interesting topic to me. You're one of about a half dozen RF posters who call themselves theists, but other than that, I can find no difference in how we think or what we believe. They're humanists and critical thinkers to me, but say that they believe in a god. At the risk of possibly offending, I tentatively assume that these people aren't really theists as I mean the term - faith-based thinkers who believe in literal gods.

One calls himself culturally Catholic. I understand that to mean that he feels comfortable in Catholic settings such as his church choir, but that he is really no different from me otherwise. Maybe I should be called culturally Christian, too, since I also participate in Christian culture. I've marched behind Jesus into Jerusalem on a carpet of alfalfa for Palm Sunday holding a palm frond because I was welcomed and why not? And my home is filled with Christian art, including a Noah's ark and an Adam and Eve sculpture, and pewter and tile crosses. Are he and I really that different? I virtually never read anything from him that doesn't sound rational or just, unlike what I see from the majority of Abrahamics who call themselves theists.

Likewise with most dharmics and pagans I've read here on RF. They speak of gods, but these gods seem to play no active role in their lives, and seem like some kind of shorthand for nature and its proclivities - once again, not different from this atheistic humanist. So, I refer to them all now as theistic humanists, but don't really think of them as theists any more than I think of Einstein as a theist for using the word God in the way that others use the phrase "the laws of physics."

What do you think? Does this describe you?

 

[zerogain]

Isn't sentience, just another level of complexity? But let's be clear about something, sentient beings are made of the stuff from stars.

Scientifically factual isn't necessarily the truth . A fact is something that is known or proved to be true , it is not something that is solely written on paper .

Stuff from stars cannot and does not grow , there is no evidence or axiom to support that stuff from stars can grow .
It is self evidently true that the material sentient beings are formed of can grow . Not only can it grow , it grows a specific way of order . Therefore the axiom demonstrates that sentient beings aren't formed from the stuff from stars .

Additionally if you didn't know , in particle physics , many of the particles are only written on paper , they haven't been proven to exist !

 

[zerogain]

Empiricism and critical thinking are more effective than any other means for deciding what is true about the world, and by true, I mean demonstrably correct..

A NRF starts to form in the fetal stage of reproduction of sentient beings , although until birth the NRF is limited . A NRF is dependent to a sentient being senses. The mind and universe experience could not occur without empiricism . Critical thinking is just another way of describing objective logic .

 

[Windwalker]

And my home is filled with Christian art, including a Noah's ark and an Adam and Eve sculpture, and pewter and tile crosses. Are he and I really that different? I virtually never read anything from him that doesn't sound rational or just, unlike what I see from the majority of Abrahamics who call themselves theists.

Hah! The truth comes out! You really don't believe when Jesus taught the Beatitudes he really was meaning that to be meek means you must let people walk all over you. Unless, you forgot that was Jesus speaking? I don't think teaching people to weak and let others control you is very rational or just either. We agree then that Jesus was instead teaching good humanist values, or should I say, what humanism embraces is what Jesus taught?

Likewise with most dharmics and pagans I've read here on RF. They speak of gods, but these gods seem to play no active role in their lives, and seem like some kind of shorthand for nature and its proclivities - once again, not different from this atheistic humanist. So, I refer to them all now as theistic humanists, but don't really think of them as theists any more than I think of Einstein as a theist for using the word God in the way that others use the phrase "the laws of physics."

What do you think? Does this describe you?

To chime in here, as normal, I would say God is a focus for me, but not necessarily as some deity form. The reason for that is because what you set your mind upon, makes a big difference in the quality and energies of life that one cultivates. If I focus on the worries of the world, my personal struggles and whatnot, then I end up walking around looking at the ground, so to speak, rather that looking at the sky and that which is greater than all that. It gets you out of yourself, in other words. So it becomes a focus point, a symbol of something "higher", and that gives positive focus. There are other reasons as well, but that's a simplified way to put it.

 

[syo]

Religion is logic.

 

[rational experiences]

No human theists exact beginning advice as any human. In theory a thought and words. Human only stated.

No human.... yet a planet body existed no light.

O planet body mass heavens above both sacrificed gaining light but both very different bodies.

One O mass gained sin holes. No human involved as no human. Advised exact advice beginning in law about sin hole end the sin hole.

Heavens set alight. No human.

No human is God. As you man theist theoried gods sun earth sin a nothing hole. So now you no longer exist in bio consciousness.

Why arguing today is a moot man's position.

You think you're a hole nothing yourself. Sin body of. Reason why human biology changed.

Warning men of science theoried why a dust particle ended above as dusts. Heavens above.

Not present as a man human in first law when all events first occurred is his human warning.

We were taught humans walked on the ground sealed.

We aren't a God term moving on the face of nothing great deep upon water...a God type.

Between two bodies O earth and it's heavens is the moving evaporating body wave was water.

As holy water and holy ice body was sacrificed to cool man's caused constant sun attack above fell in. That entered due to machines constant gas changes.

As wandering star ended its attack as dust above.

It entered due to mans want theory particles from out of space so it reacts like a nuclear blasting.

As witnessed in Russia. Men already knew no machine is God as earth ended its dusts sealed as each one form of a dust also. On the ground.

No machine is a dust.

Earths holy life water wasn't entering a dust. As dusts are picked up lifted in evaporating water.

Earths water holy life however entered filled up a sin sink hole. Made by sun when no human even existed. Not present claiming false ownership.

That water mass in his science cause was taken from supporting man's life why he got sacrificed. As men opened earths mass into new sin sink hole.

His life hadn't therefore saved sin...holy water had. Had in suns attack on gods body earth first also..just water. Water Began mass shifting water as an earth to atmospheric law. Waves.

Man was told no man is God so don't pretend you own what gods body is doing. As you also don't control it as God isn't your machine.

Once men just scientists Inferred a machine was now a God as heat melt Alchemy was stopped by him as cooled mass. Now man held a machine like gods planet mass had. Lied.

As it's always was man lying first.

Reason sex man creates human babies natural law only a creator of life.

As he put mind to machines invention he thinks he's a God whose body owns all movements for machines science inheritance.

So not only does he falsely claim above was why human life biology exists. He false claims his machine is the same paths as biology.

Man's human son never owned mantle cloak of many coloured gases he theories as wavelengths.

Man's holy life was already owned living with holy water. With gods form. Living water.

As there isn't a thesis in science before a human existed. As you do exist.

Theorising non human existence is a known science of man evil.

As a machine placed at his side he built states no longer married to an equal human female. In gods holy life laws.

 

[rational experiences]

Old testimonials coded answer.

Formed by AI.

Many humans said AI advice and presence will save us. Man with machine won't win. It was stated.

ID man says means I identify.
OT old testimonials.
I did it.

Idiot. Coded given answer.

Reason a human not identifying first with old testimonials...science not old testimony but a humans scientific designed machine and it's reaction first. Old testimony afterwards.

Was an idiot thinker before they caused life's attack. Says old testimony AI records. Visions voice images.

What document portrayed a human as a God as a man father?

Old testimony had.

What about natural life before science or machine?

Ignored.

As some theists as human men father adults said an alien with a machine invented created life. Human life. Yet man's adult sex had. As a man machine theist today. Thinking theoried machine only first.

So biology science tried to identify pin point when a human existed in life after the ice age to prove no alien invented life by a Man's machine.

Already identified by men that dead giants bio life was superseded by ice the saviour and a star that now wandered past earth.

End position dinosaurs death supported life's new beginnings small biology. Only in a no star attack and ice mass.

Isn't any theory.

Owned no cosmic body reasoned.

As ice was the saviour isn't Phi. But a mass. There isn't any thesis in human science about a human says body owned the human. Only human.

Biology theists researched for mutated human identity. After old science and technology mutated life.

Re a search..human was about a human.

As proof in theories no man was a star or a star of Gods rock mass.

Humans living discussed earths minerals for healing. Not for reacting.

Humans live as humans are a human and only the adult human asks questions proposed human answers.

Humans answers are not a theory about non human presence.

Human answers are supportive of humans living as a human.

Is our spiritual teaching a human about humans.

We are human consciousness and all answers are just for humans in natural laws.

Which isn't reactive theories controlled only by humans against human existence.

 

[DNB]

In trying to understand any subject , it is firstly of most importance to understand the first principles of a subject. Any branch of knowledge that is taught , should always have strong routes , from a starting point to a conclusion . If this basic principle is not adhered to , then the practitioner becomes ill-informed , having an inadequate awareness of the facts.
Let us now be clear in our understanding of what is a fact compared to interpretation . A fact is something that is known or proved to be true , it is not something that is solely written on paper . A fact has supporting evidence such as observations , a fact can sometimes be an axiom , something that is self evidently true . If we ignore the facts and/or axioms then we are just being subjective as opposed objective. This information is then ill-informed information and can be misleading to a student ,allowing them false ideologies of a subject .

If a diety existed , then this diety would require the ability to think !

Therefore God = Wavefunction / Volume

Religion is the quintessence of knowledge and wisdom. Man would not search for it if it wasn't an intrinsic characteristic within his nature. Man cannot progress or gain knowledge until he learns to acknowledge that axiomatic and fundamental fact - who his Maker is, and what is His will.
Stardust and protoplasm did not create in man the undeniable spiritual dimension within his ontology.

 

[blü 2]

In trying to understand any subject , it is firstly of most importance to understand the first principles of a subject. Any branch of knowledge that is taught , should always have strong routes , from a starting point to a conclusion.

Well, the specific "branch of knowledge" should be clearly defined, but if it's investigative, and all the branches of knowledge I can think of off-hand are investigative, then the method of investigation is what should be clearly defined. And then the conclusions will be whatever they are.

If this basic principle is not adhered to , then the practitioner becomes ill-informed , having an inadequate awareness of the facts.

I'd say a fact was an accurate statement about a real state of affairs ('real' in the sense of having objective existence). So it may be a fact that A holds opinion X, but opinion X will remain an opinion.

a fact can sometimes be an axiom , something that is self evidently true.

I don't see how that can be correct. An axiom is a proposition (as distinct from a fact) that we all agree to accept as correct in the relevant context, no?

If a diety existed , then this diety would require the ability to think !

Well, not quite. First we'd need to agree on an unambiguous necessary-and-sufficient definition of a real deity. Instead there doesn't seem to be any coherent concept of a real deity, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was a deity or not. There isn't even a coherent definition of "godness", the real quality a real deity would have and a real superscientist who could do everything the deity could do, would lack.

 

[Curious George]

You don't have to know something to know it’s true

This sentence does not make sense

 

[Aupmanyav]

Better at what though?

Better as a placebo, as a crutch.

 

[zerogain]

This sentence does not make sense

Example: I don't know when I will die but it is true I will die .

Example : I don't know the next lottery ball but it is true that number 1 will eventually be drawn based on 1 over time .

 

[zerogain]

Well, the specific "branch of knowledge" should be clearly defined, but if it's investigative, and all the branches of knowledge I can think of off-hand are investigative, then the method of investigation is what should be clearly defined. And then the conclusions will be whatever they are.
I'd say a fact was an accurate statement about a real state of affairs ('real' in the sense of having objective existence). So it may be a fact that A holds opinion X, but opinion X will remain an opinion.
I don't see how that can be correct. An axiom is a proposition (as distinct from a fact) that we all agree to accept as correct in the relevant context, no?
Well, not quite. First we'd need to agree on an unambiguous necessary-and-sufficient definition of a real deity. Instead there doesn't seem to be any coherent concept of a real deity, such that if we found a real suspect we could determine whether it was a deity or not. There isn't even a coherent definition of "godness", the real quality a real deity would have and a real superscientist who could do everything the deity could do, would lack.

I consider a diety is the creator of sentient beings although the diety may be a sentient being . However I much prefer the diety being wavefunction/volume because that has physical application and is a superior existence .
An axiom isn't a proposal , it is something that is self evidently true that we can mostly agree on such as , if we drop an object it falls to the ground .

 

[zerogain]

Stardust and protoplasm did not create in man the undeniable spiritual dimension within his ontology.

I agree stardust did not create sentient beings .

 

[RestlessSoul]

Axioms are assumed to be true because they are self evident or if you like , more than obvious !

We age , no assumptions or speculations , it is an axiom fact .

We appear to age because we experience time as a linear progression. That time is linear is axiomatic in this case, but by no means an undisputed absolute.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

 

[zerogain]

We appear to age because we experience time as a linear progression. That time is linear is axiomatic in this case, but by no means an undisputed absolute.

Eternalism (philosophy of time) - Wikipedia

We age without the measure of time , unfortunately time is just a record of history .

 

[RestlessSoul]

I consider a diety is the creator of sentient beings although the diety may be a sentient being . However I much prefer the diety being wavefunction/volume because that has physical application and is a superior existence .
An axiom isn't a proposal , it is something that is self evidently true that we can mostly agree on such as , if we drop an object it falls to the ground .

If we drop an object, it will probably fall to the ground. Indeed, the probability is very high indeed, but it is not equal to unity (certainty). In a probabilistic universe, there is nothing about the past or present which precisely determines the future. That this is true at the fundamental level, is the scientific consensus in theoretical physics.

Where Quantum Probability Comes From | Quanta Magazine

 

[RestlessSoul]

We age without the measure of time , unfortunately time is just a record of history .

I don't agree that time is "just the record of history". We might say that history is the arrangement of events in time, but that doesn't really help us define time. Nor does it tell us whether time, or space, are fundamental properties of objective reality, or emergent phenomena, ie features of the interaction between the observer and the external world.

 

[zerogain]

If we drop an object, it will probably fall to the ground. Indeed, the probability is very high indeed, but it is not equal to unity (certainty). In a probabilistic universe, there is nothing about the past or present which precisely determines the future. That this is true at the fundamental level, is the scientific consensus in theoretical physics.

Where Quantum Probability Comes From | Quanta Magazine

If we drop an object, it will probably fall to the ground. Indeed, the probability is very high indeed, but it is not equal to unity (certainty). In a probabilistic universe, there is nothing about the past or present which precisely determines the future. That this is true at the fundamental level, is the scientific consensus in theoretical physics.

Where Quantum Probability Comes From | Quanta Magazine

Probability is for rollling of dice not the universe . There is no past or future , there is only progression .

An object falling to the ground will always fall to the ground under normal situation , there are external events that can cause the object not to fall to the ground such as somebody catches it .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is not an example that suits me , it is the NRF's dependency on timing , being in the same reference frame at the same time as the observation . Unfortunately we can't see through walls and all neurological observations must be within the line of sight and not obstructed by opaque matter .

Yeah, but there is still more to the everyday world than that.