Knowledge and Religion

[Captain Cosine]

A post from my blog. I don't really re-read anything I write, so I'm not sure how angry I get at Religious people in here. It's mostly directed at Christians though, and of course not every Christian, just the hypocritical and hateful ones.
----------------------------------------------
We cannot “know” anything. Nothing will ever be 100%. If two theories oppose each other and do not completely explain one phenomena , then we have two options. Either one theory is correct, but just needs fine tuning, or there is a separate third theory that will explain everything. However, you should know there is not a single theory out there that doesn’t have a bit of mystery to it, a gray area, flaws. That means that even if we fine tune an existing theory, we know we will never fully explain everything, and if we accept there is a third, 100% accurate theory, we will also never be able to figure it out. We may be on the right track, but we will never know. Every theory will have those who oppose it, every theory will have flaws. Therefore, knowledge is nonexistent, everything we claim to know is merely a belief. Beliefs are dangerous, they can never be proven, and can prevent us from coming up with new ideas if we cling to tightly to a single belief.

Facts are non existent as well. They are just merely statistics. A fact is something that, statistically speaking, should always happen. However, statistics are based on observed events. One cannot know the nature of something that is not observed, however, which has proven itself true in quantum mechanics when, once the wave is observed, it turns into a particle. So, these so called facts could be wrong, we only have what we have observed as our basis for the ideas, and it would be irrational to think we could observe every single event in the universe at the same time, all the time, in order to prove something; it’s impossible. Therefore, so is knowing something.

Now is where I start my religious bashing. Stop pretending that you know God exist and what happens in the afterlife, or if there even is one. You cannot know anything. Your excuse for loopholes in your belief systems is that our minds simply cannot comprehend the divine. How do you know that? You don’t, you believe it. It’s a poor argument to protect yourself, because you’d be lost and confused if you were wrong. So, you say everyone who disagrees with you is going to hell, that’s your comfort. How about you accept the fact that you do not, and can not know what the hell is going on around us and in the metaphysical realm. We all have the same fear and dislike of confusion, but we’re not alone, being that everyone is confused. We convince ourselves of any belief that gives us a glimmer of comfort and hope, but more often than not, the beliefs are seriously flawed, and the believers usually end up spewing hate on all who oppose so they themselves retain such a false sense of comfort.

Of course someone who disagrees with me right now could be saying “Well you speak like you have knowledge! And you’re claiming all of your ideas to be true!” Well, is there any other way to present an idea? To back it up, provide evidence, and show its probability? How else do you defend an idea without thinking it to be correct? If I thought it was entirely wrong and held no ground, why would I talk about it? This is simply one of my ideas, I’m fine if you disagree, but at least give a good reason why, one with hard evidence. I accept that I could be wrong. It’s just an idea. I do my best not to believe in things, otherwise, like I said earlier, we come to hate and shun all who oppose if we cling too tightly. Just appreciate the different perspectives on life is all I ask.

[Antipodi]

all my life I swore not to have a bias one way or another and always to keep an open mind but i am sadly seeing imaginative and decent ideas quashed by pseudo science that seems to chop and change its ways yet we teach it as gospel in the schools and many children are becoming ignorant and single minded about it ..the very idea of imaginative creation is being quashed by bricks and mortar ..yet under it many a poet use a deep sense of spirituality as a guide to writing beautiful poems and wonderful stories and some like HG Wells are now comming true if we quash spiritual ideas for concrete we may just go back to believing the world is flat and not budging because some wacky scientist proved it ...I say always keep an open mind ..do not put down others ...respect their opinions ..NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE..for we are in an age of so called discovery yet we are closing our minds to the ideas that offer us universal conclusions ..all in the name of so called science..fact is in this universe we as mere humans know nothing at all except to eat sleep, kill and survive there has got to be more to life than that

[Captain Cosine]

I agree, we must always keep an open mind. I do not agree with most Christians ideas, but almost all of my friends consider themselves Christians, one of them being a very strong believer. I'm find with them believing what they want, as long as they have some sort of argument to defend their points (of course a very hard thing to do when it comes to spirituality). I always get heated however when they spew their hate over others for not believing, I try to remember we just think differently, but it's hard to stand by and watch them hate others for being different, very unlike the Christ they believe in.

And when i say religion, I mean solely organized religion. It is very possible to be spiritual and not follow any specific religion, which is what I attempt to do, but being the rational thinker I am, it's hard to just believe in something I can't defend.

I'm always open to a new idea though, as long as it makes sense. Anything is possible, and I will always believe so.

[Antipodi]

Why then do they preach anti Christian theories and that is all they are is theories in schools to make monkeys out of us is that what we really are glorified monkeys without a greater purpose our freedoms are the ones being inhibited and we can feel the lions breath on our backs whilst the ignorant clap their bias hands and minds

[Captain Cosine]

Unfortunately I don't know why. People get far too bogged down in the physical reality, only focused on what we can see and touch. No one wants to try to get answers, no one wants to believe in anything they can't see. Power has conquered humans' consciousness, and it is all they care about now, money, power, etc. The ignorance across the world kills me inside everyday, to the point where I'm becoming a cynic. I dream of a world where people quit the hatred, the ignorance, this materialistic way of life; it's sickening. We need to open our eyes past the physical and try to see what could be beyond this realm.

[Antipodi]

that is why I am a Christian and am following my pathway and I rest my case ...if we follow the pathway of materialism we have got to destroy ourselves but if we come to terms with our spiritual being things may just go more asthetic and our true knowledge will find itself in peace compassion and understanding ...which is one set of spiritual universiality...material is terminal...true spiritual is immortal

[Captain Cosine]

As I mentioned though, that's simply a belief, as is everything I've said and claimed. You don't know about the spiritual realm, should one even exist. I still despise the materialistic attitude of this world, but I refuse to be involved in any organized religion. It has proven itself to be the source of much brainwashing and hate in the world. It's even a reason we deny our true nature (look up the Shadow, coined by psychiatrist Carl Jung). Carl Jung was a very spiritual man, but even he could see that we have a dark side, and that it was something we must come to grips with.

[Antipodi]

it is not and never will be man i follow with his flawed mind and craze for power over others greed and bias but a much higher and more spiritual force one who rules the whole universe and is only one not just this little patch of man infected dirt..sadly we lost it when Cain killed Able maybe even before when we believed we could be as Gods ...enough said tis my belief and you are free to make your own mind on these things ...we should all come together though in our compassion for the suffering and poverty of our fellow man that should be everyone who can helps common cause through true understanding

[Captain Cosine]

it is not and never will be man i follow with his flawed mind and craze for power over others greed and bias but a much higher and more spiritual force one who rules the whole universe and is only one not just this little patch of man infected dirt..sadly we lost it when Cain killed Able maybe even before when we believed we could be as Gods ...enough said tis my belief and you are free to make your own mind on these things ...we should all come together though in our compassion for the suffering and poverty of our fellow man that should be everyone who can helps common cause through true understanding

I agree with the bold part. I do believe we are all one, and need to stop dividing ourselves over petty disagreements, something I am surely guilty of, but try to avoid. We need to come together and truly find our answers together.

[Antipodi]

you and i are truly at one there but sadly we are only a few it needs to be a world wide movement ...

[Captain Cosine]

you and i are truly at one there but sadly we are only a few it needs to be a world wide movement ...

Well I'm always up for attempting the impossible :P

[asphara]

Hate god - but hate capitalism worse. Intellectually, I am a pure relativist, but emotionally I know one truth; that human feeling - pain, love, suffering - is all the human truth worth respecting. Hence my distaste for Christian aestheticism; but this barely exists now. You have ornamental religions, political religions, and only rarely socially organic, meaningful religions. In the latter case it is Western stupidity to assume science anything like the human meaning of, say, a tribal anamistic belief. The pre-socratic cosmologies have more wisdom then any modern thought - except those like Nietzsche and Hegel who were touched by the pre-Socratics. Late capitalism is dark capitalism - like the dark ages. Never was a culture (if you can call it that - and not an ossified clotted nexus human corpses) never was a culture stupid then the one we are speaking the language of.

[Captain Cosine]

Hate god - but hate capitalism worse. Intellectually, I am a pure relativist, but emotionally I know one truth; that human feeling - pain, love, suffering - is all the human truth worth respecting. Hence my distaste for Christian aestheticism; but this barely exists now. You have ornamental religions, political religions, and only rarely socially organic, meaningful religions. In the latter case it is Western stupidity to assume science anything like the human meaning of, say, a tribal anamistic belief. The pre-socratic cosmologies have more wisdom then any modern thought - except those like Nietzsche and Hegel who were touched by the pre-Socratics. Late capitalism is dark capitalism - like the dark ages. Never was a culture (if you can call it that - and not an ossified clotted nexus human corpses) never was a culture stupid then the one we are speaking the language of.

I don't think my brain is working today, could you simplify the point you were making? I think I understand it, and If i do, then I agree lol.

[Gardenhead]

pseudo science that seems to chop and change its ways yet we teach it as gospel

You're just plain wrong on the first point. No good school teaches pseudoscience, unless they're one of the loopy places teaching 'Intelligent Design' in the name of 'balance'. Pseudoscience, by definition, is not science. It's homeopathy and I.D., astrology and dowsing rod bomb detectors.

The 'chopping and changing' you refer to is the nature of science: it progresses as our observations of the universe progress. This is a positive thing, and a mature way of thinking - it is taught not 'as gospel', but robustly because it is by far the best explanation of the world we have. If it were taught 'as gospel', it would not involve the examination of evidence.


world is flat and not budging because some wacky scientist proved it

The reason we know that the world isn't flat is precisely because of the scientific method; I don't really see what you're getting at here. Do you really think that forming theories based on evidence is a bad idea?

...I say always keep an open mind ..do not put down others ...respect their opinions ..NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE..

It's a common misconception that 'respect' should mean 'give equal weight to'. I would never deprive anyone of their beliefs, but it would be idiocy to just say 'well, everyone's opinion is equally valid'. The opinion that dilution makes a solution more potent is not equal to the opinion that it makes it weaker. It's all very well allowing people to have their own beliefs and opinions, but there's no reason any of us should 'respect' the person that says the invisible pink elephant has a made a radish patch out of his old slippers. It's not enough to simply posit an idea and immediately expect respect for it; the idea has to have some weight of evidence behind it.

The whole point of science is to be open minded: to look at all the evidence and try to produce theories that correspond with it. Then, if contradictory evidence crops up, science doesn't just dumbly hang on to its old theories, it continues to progress.

for we are in an age of so called discovery yet we are closing our minds to the ideas that offer us universal conclusions ..all in the name of so called science..fact is in this universe we as mere humans know nothing at all except to eat sleep, kill and survive there has got to be more to life than that

Now that's not true at all. We know how to enjoy ourselves; we know how to make jet engines; we know why people get ill and how to cure them; we know how to produce remarkable works of art; we know that - sociopaths and psychopaths apart - living for ourselves is not enough, and we have empathy. We can imagine how other people feel.

I am a materialist in that I think only the material world, properly speaking, 'exists'. That doesn't mean that I can't be - for want of a better word - 'spiritual', and it certainly doesn't mean that I can't be moral. I don't need to think that the mind exists independently of the body and brain to be able to use it; I don't need to believe that God exists for me to be able to treat my fellow humans with love and respect. Of course there's more to human life than survival; we make our own meaning by acting with love and compassion, and by striving to flourish. That does not mean that we are at liberty to create our own truth out of our wish thinking.

My biggest qualms lie in these statements:

if we follow the pathway of materialism we have got to destroy ourselves

I have two problems with this. First, even if it were as you say and materialism led inevitably to self destruction, it wouldn't have any bearing at all on the truth of materialism. Just because something is undesirable doesn't make it untrue.

Second, why should materialism lead to this conclusion anyway? All it is is the acceptance of the known universe and the rejection of any 'spiritual realm' until the evidence suggests otherwise. It isn't, as you seem to imply, nihilism - and it is no reason not to enjoy a fulfilling inner life. That love is the result of neurons firing does nothing to trivialize love; just as knowing that water flows due to gravity has no impact on the awesome spectacle of Niagara; just as knowing that free will is an accident of evolution does nothing to supplant the brilliance of free will. In fact, I would argue that saying we have free will because the boss says so is an undermining of free will in itself.

Of course, being materialistic in the completely different sense of only valuing worldly possessions isn't a very fulfilling path to take; but that's an utterly different issue.

Why then do they preach anti Christian theories and that is all they are is theories in schools to make monkeys out of us

If you're referring to evolution, I can't believe you have the temerity to call it an 'anti-christian theory' nor to mischievously say that it is 'preached'. Science is the pursuit of knowledge through observation and experiment; it doesn't seek to be 'anti' anything. Now, evolution does - as it happens - completely rubbish the literalist reading of, for example, genesis. This doesn't mean that the theory is 'anti-christian', but it does mean that creationists fly in the face of all of the evidence, and we can safely exclude them from serious intellectual debate. They're obviously completely free to believe what they want to, but their opinion on the matter is not worthy of respect. It's dogmatic and ignorant, and that is anything but open minded. If someone chooses to believe that elephants don't have trunks, that doesn't make everyone else 'anti-sans-trunkian', it just makes everyone else far more in tune with reality. You're making an observation of the facts into something antagonistic.

There are plenty of Christians (I would hope the majority) who accept evolution and continue to believe in God. It is still perfectly possible to say that evolution happened, but 'God did it' (although personally I find this argument underwhelming to say the least). Not accepting evolution - which is by all accounts as much a fact as that I am typing this sentence; that is to say, as much a fact as we can call anything - is not just 'having a different opinion', it is actively avoiding engaging with the evidence. Now, natural selection is different to evolution; there are certain differences in opinion in exactly how evolution works; but that evolution as a process does happen is pretty much unquestionable. It's in the fossil record and, more importantly, it's in our DNA. Show me the evidence that it doesn't, and I'll happily change my mind - until then, it can't be considered respect-worthy to blindly deny what's right under our noses.

Finally, the 'it's just a theory' line doesn't cut any ice. A scientific theory is very different to the other definition of 'theory' which is more comparable to a 'hypothesis' - a hypothesis is the starting point, an idea based on limited evidence that could become something greater, or could fail. A theory is the ultimate end point of a hypothesis, a successful idea that conforms to evidence, is falsifiable and testable. 'Theories' do not graduate into 'facts'. They are in themselves formidably sound knowledge.



As to the original post, I largely agree; but I don't think that simply saying 'knowledge is impossible' is helpful. I would rather think of our knowledge as perpetually imperfect rather than utterly non-existent; but then, that's kinda what you said anyway. I think that saying 'everything is a belief' is also literally true but somewhat misleading - after all, it is perfectly rational of me to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow (I sadly recognise that I must add the caveat 'relatively speaking' - I realise that the sun isn't literally 'rising'), but the belief that I can make my table levitate by winking at it suggestively is nonsense. Everything is a belief to a different degree; and belief in religious dogma is a very long way from 'belief' in the scientific method.

[Captain Cosine]

You're just plain wrong on the first point. No good school teaches pseudoscience, unless they're one of the loopy places teaching 'Intelligent Design' in the name of 'balance'. Pseudoscience, by definition, is not science. It's homeopathy and I.D., astrology and dowsing rod bomb detectors.

The 'chopping and changing' you refer to is the nature of science: it progresses as our observations of the universe progress. This is a positive thing, and a mature way of thinking - it is taught not 'as gospel', but robustly because it is by far the best explanation of the world we have. If it were taught 'as gospel', it would not involve the examination of evidence.




The reason we know that the world isn't flat is precisely because of the scientific method; I don't really see what you're getting at here. Do you really think that forming theories based on evidence is a bad idea?



It's a common misconception that 'respect' should mean 'give equal weight to'. I would never deprive anyone of their beliefs, but it would be idiocy to just say 'well, everyone's opinion is equally valid'. The opinion that dilution makes a solution more potent is not equal to the opinion that it makes it weaker. It's all very well allowing people to have their own beliefs and opinions, but there's no reason any of us should 'respect' the person that says the invisible pink elephant has a made a radish patch out of his old slippers. It's not enough to simply posit an idea and immediately expect respect for it; the idea has to have some weight of evidence behind it.

The whole point of science is to be open minded: to look at all the evidence and try to produce theories that correspond with it. Then, if contradictory evidence crops up, science doesn't just dumbly hang on to its old theories, it continues to progress.



Now that's not true at all. We know how to enjoy ourselves; we know how to make jet engines; we know why people get ill and how to cure them; we know how to produce remarkable works of art; we know that - sociopaths and psychopaths apart - living for ourselves is not enough, and we have empathy. We can imagine how other people feel.

I am a materialist in that I think only the material world, properly speaking, 'exists'. That doesn't mean that I can't be - for want of a better word - 'spiritual', and it certainly doesn't mean that I can't be moral. I don't need to think that the mind exists independently of the body and brain to be able to use it; I don't need to believe that God exists for me to be able to treat my fellow humans with love and respect. Of course there's more to human life than survival; we make our own meaning by acting with love and compassion, and by striving to flourish. That does not mean that we are at liberty to create our own truth out of our wish thinking.

My biggest qualms lie in these statements:



I have two problems with this. First, even if it were as you say and materialism led inevitably to self destruction, it wouldn't have any bearing at all on the truth of materialism. Just because something is undesirable doesn't make it untrue.

Second, why should materialism lead to this conclusion anyway? All it is is the acceptance of the known universe and the rejection of any 'spiritual realm' until the evidence suggests otherwise. It isn't, as you seem to imply, nihilism - and it is no reason not to enjoy a fulfilling inner life. That love is the result of neurons firing does nothing to trivialize love; just as knowing that water flows due to gravity has no impact on the awesome spectacle of Niagara; just as knowing that free will is an accident of evolution does nothing to supplant the brilliance of free will. In fact, I would argue that saying we have free will because the boss says so is an undermining of free will in itself.

Of course, being materialistic in the completely different sense of only valuing worldly possessions isn't a very fulfilling path to take; but that's an utterly different issue.



If you're referring to evolution, I can't believe you have the temerity to call it an 'anti-christian theory' nor to mischievously say that it is 'preached'. Science is the pursuit of knowledge through observation and experiment; it doesn't seek to be 'anti' anything. Now, evolution does - as it happens - completely rubbish the literalist reading of, for example, genesis. This doesn't mean that the theory is 'anti-christian', but it does mean that creationists fly in the face of all of the evidence, and we can safely exclude them from serious intellectual debate. They're obviously completely free to believe what they want to, but their opinion on the matter is not worthy of respect. It's dogmatic and ignorant, and that is anything but open minded. If someone chooses to believe that elephants don't have trunks, that doesn't make everyone else 'anti-sans-trunkian', it just makes everyone else far more in tune with reality. You're making an observation of the facts into something antagonistic.

There are plenty of Christians (I would hope the majority) who accept evolution and continue to believe in God. It is still perfectly possible to say that evolution happened, but 'God did it' (although personally I find this argument underwhelming to say the least). Not accepting evolution - which is by all accounts as much a fact as that I am typing this sentence; that is to say, as much a fact as we can call anything - is not just 'having a different opinion', it is actively avoiding engaging with the evidence. Now, natural selection is different to evolution; there are certain differences in opinion in exactly how evolution works; but that evolution as a process does happen is pretty much unquestionable. It's in the fossil record and, more importantly, it's in our DNA. Show me the evidence that it doesn't, and I'll happily change my mind - until then, it can't be considered respect-worthy to blindly deny what's right under our noses.

Finally, the 'it's just a theory' line doesn't cut any ice. A scientific theory is very different to the other definition of 'theory' which is more comparable to a 'hypothesis' - a hypothesis is the starting point, an idea based on limited evidence that could become something greater, or could fail. A theory is the ultimate end point of a hypothesis, a successful idea that conforms to evidence, is falsifiable and testable. 'Theories' do not graduate into 'facts'. They are in themselves formidably sound knowledge.



As to the original post, I largely agree; but I don't think that simply saying 'knowledge is impossible' is helpful. I would rather think of our knowledge as perpetually imperfect rather than utterly non-existent; but then, that's kinda what you said anyway. I think that saying 'everything is a belief' is also literally true but somewhat misleading - after all, it is perfectly rational of me to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow (I sadly recognise that I must add the caveat 'relatively speaking' - I realise that the sun isn't literally 'rising'), but the belief that I can make my table levitate by winking at it suggestively is nonsense. Everything is a belief to a different degree; and belief in religious dogma is a very long way from 'belief' in the scientific method.

Gonna have to agree with just about everything said there. Interesting points you made.