Why are religious texts held to a higher standard than, say - Math texts? Consider the following hypothetical flame by a rabid, anti-mathmatic zeleot...

I wish mathmeticians would pull their heads out of their assholes and actually think about they crap they sling before they open their mouths. Maybe if they actually took a close look at their texts for a change, they would shut up and stop peddling their ridiculous, tragically farcical ideas on the rest of us who have to read their crap:

For instance, Euclids Definition 23 states that two straight line in the same plane are parallel if they do not meet even when produced indefinitely in both directions. But non-euclidean geometries say that parallel lines meet. C'mon, folks - which is it. You can't have both ways. This contradiction proves that geometry is false... all lies.

But wait.. what about number theory. If I take the square root of 16, I get TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS!!! 4 and negative 4. What's up with that? I have a square garden that has an area of 16 square feet. According to you I have 2 GARDENS!?!?, one that's 4 foot by 4 foot and one that is negative 4 foot by negative 4 foot. Where the &#*% is that other garden... IN HELL?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!? Can you say Crack?

Mathemeticians are great at dropping ideas as soon as someone points out how full of shit they are. Who studies gage field theory anymore, or diagonalization (http://hhobel.phl.univie.ac.at/phlo/200009/msg00038.html). There are so many branches of mathematics - every one of them has a different story. They all say they are looking at the same thing, but when you talk to them they all say something different.

Just look at how many people are dead because of mathematics throughout history. That murderous mathmatical maniac, Da Vinci used geometry to analyse artillery fire. (If you don't believe me, click here (http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc98/11_14_98/mathland.htm).) Mathmeticians are savage animals that have designed rockets and tanks and smart bombs. The atom bomb would never have been invented without mathematicians.

Why don't you mathematicians just accept that you are hateful people? That you want to fight and to hurt others?:

Square root of 4 is +/- 4??? I thought it was 2, but maybe it's the new religious math that's all the rage :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Zero
Square root of 4 is +/- 4??? I thought it was 2, but maybe it's the new religious math that's all the rage :rolleyes: Man, I'm spending too much time on this forum and not enough time sleeping. Sorry.

And put the excerpt in quotes, I almost thought YOU were the one hating math.

umm, that sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't understand math at all.

Originally posted by Zero
And put the excerpt in quotes, I almost thought YOU were the one hating math. And maybe while I'm at it, I should get to the point...

Math is a systematic method of thought, and it still has contradictions. No one in their right mind would discount the uses of non-euclidian geometries, and yet just because you change a postulate and rework the logic doesn't mean you will get a useful geometry - only a valid one. The same with taking the square root of a number. Just because a number behaves a certain way doesn't mean it's application is sensible in the physical world.

Religion is not a rigorous, systematic method of thought. It is a collection of stories written to teach something about a complex, chaotic system - human behavior. Yes it has contradictions - but we can accept within limits contradictions and incompleteness in formal rational systems. How can we use those same arguments to dismiss something that isn't even a rigorous, formal system?

I only sound anti religious because of the recent spawning of religious fundie idiots here.

I would be among the first to admit that religion was crucial to the development of the human race, that it is a good way to meet good people, and that it is a convenient package of morality that you can just accept. Striking out on your own and making moral rules for yourself is fine, but kinda like getting a Linux build. You only invest such time and effort if you want to. On the other hand, MS XP is sure, inelegant to the "expert" :rolleyes: eye, but it is convenient and filled with enough goodies for the "average" (rolls eyes again) user.

Religion has the added benefit of being able to find lots of people on the same path, and it is easier to find fellow people who will help you and guide you when you get lost. There's a ton of resource, and easy resource, for messups on MS XP. You have to dig for a fucking week to find anything relevant to your particular system with a Linux build.

Originally posted by Zero
but kinda like getting a Linux build. (rolls eyes again) user.

LOL, that one really tickled me :D

Originally posted by Turduckin
Why are religious texts held to a higher standard than, say - Math texts? Consider the following hypothetical flame by a rabid, anti-mathmatic zeleot...Wonderful analogy there and worth some thought.

I think we might even be able to take it a level deeper. A mathematician would tell you that Mathematics does not make any assertions about anything other than itself. It is applied Mathematics wherein lies the danger of misuse. Might we be able to bring this analogy back towards religion; being an expression or investigation of ourselves and our world? And again, it is in its application that it can become dangerous? Applied to literally, it fails. Used in the wrong way and it becomes a danger to those it was meant to serve in the first place. And perhaps, there are manifold "geometries" of religion that are truthful investigations in their own right? Even that of irreligious forms.

~Raithere

Two theories of mathematics? Scary.

How many religions are there?

Religion is constitutionally protected and tax-exempt in this country. I'd say that religion has it pretty damn good.

(Edit: Are you sure that topic citation isn't a "Letter to the Editor" of The Onion?)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Math and religion are alike because:

The basic concepts can not be proven in either, but if you believe in them they both work.

Lately I am having trouble with the number 2. If everything is unique how can there be 2. I know those people at Sesame Street, who have been sponsering "2" all these years, won't be happy with me; but I just don't believe in 2 any more.

:m: :m: :m: :m: :m:

Here, have another. On me. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Lately I am having trouble with the number 2

two is easy. now three, that's the kicker:p

Originally posted by MShark
Math and religion are alike because:

The basic concepts can not be proven in either, but if you believe in them they both work.

Lately I am having trouble with the number 2. If everything is unique how can there be 2. I know those people at Sesame Street, who have been sponsering "2" all these years, won't be happy with me; but I just don't believe in 2 any more.

Um, no, acctualy math and religion are unalike because math is straight foward proveable, and constant, whereas religion is vague, without proof (in all the important aspects) and changes constantly.

Mshark,

Lately I am having trouble with the number 2.Don't worry about it. You are a unique individual, just like everyone.;)

Mystech:

Well I am anxiously waiting to know what in mathematics can possibly be proven. I tell you what you prove any mathematical concept and I'll prove that God exists.

Originally posted by MShark
Mystech:

Well I am anxiously waiting to know what in mathematics can possibly be proven. I tell you what you prove any mathematical concept and I'll prove that God exists.

I agree, I have yet to find someone who can explain to me exactly why it is that 1 + 1 = 2 other than saying, 'well because it is!' at least SOME theists can give a better explination than that!

The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural
numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates:

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication
(x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

Then you have to define addition recursively:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a'
(using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N
(using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'.

Then you have to define 2:
Def: 2 = 1'

2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2.

Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2

Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1.
Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Note: There is an alternate formulation of the Peano Postulates which
replaces 1 with 0 in P1, P3, P4, and P5. Then you have to change the
definition of addition to this:
Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 0, then define a + b = a.
If b isn't 0, then let c' = b, with c in N, and define
a + b = (a + c)'.

You also have to define 1 = 0', and 2 = 1'. Then the proof of the
Theorem above is a little different:

Proof: Use the second part of the definition of + first:
1 + 1 = (1 + 0)'
Now use the first part of the definition of + on the sum in
parentheses: 1 + 1 = (1)' = 1' = 2 Q.E.D.

Well M Shark, it must feel good to have the rug yanked out from under you like that. :m:

Originally posted by Zero
Well M Shark, it must feel good to have the rug yanked out from under you like that. :m: Only if he accepts the Peano Postulates, which are concerned with 'natural' numbers. What if MShark lives in a universe that contains more than just natural numbers. Which makes me wonder why no one ever sponsored the number i on Seseme street?

Turduckin,

Your point might have value if you can show that the natural number domain would be invalidated by the existence of other domains. Otherwise the proof holds within the defined domain.

Perhaps the real issue here is not the proof but the lack of understanding of the question.

Originally posted by Turduckin
first post Hahahahaha, I definitely got a laugh out of that one. Hee hee . . . :DOriginally posted by Turduckin
And maybe while I'm at it . . . isn't even a rigorous, formal system? As to the actual point behind the thread: the difference between mathematics and religion is that mathematics is an empirical, synthetic construct that we built from the ground up, whereas religion is a dead weight we discovered already attached to us. We have no reason other than tradition to keep it. Also, whereas the "problems" in mathematics are counter to common sense, the problems in religion are actual contradictions. There are almost none of these in mathematics (except for things like Russell's Paradox). Even though mathematics contradicts itself, it is, as you said, still useful. However, what good is a religion that has mixed presentations regarding the nature of God, or how to get into Heaven? Not as much. The questions there require more certainty than what we have.

Keep in mind, I'm not making specific accusations against a particular religion: I'm not a biblical scholar, nor a Quran scholar, etc., so I can't really place everything in context as well as some. But I think that the above paragraph is a better way to look at the two systems you compare.

Cris:

You know how you feel when you are playing chess and you get a little over confident. I do that a lot. Then I make a silly mistake and all of a sudden I am sitting in check with allmost no way out. Your proof is good. I was thinking, more like Turduckin said, about the real world.

So anyway now I have to study your proof. deep down in my soul I know that you have to start any proof with difinitions and givens. There must be somthing that is just taken for granted. What could it be?

Originally posted by MShark
I know that you have to start any proof with difinitions and givens. There must be somthing that is just taken for granted. What could it be? . . . givens . . . givens are taken for granted . . . .

P1. 1 is in N.
P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N.
P3. There is no x such that x' = 1.
P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x.
P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N.

These are the postulates: that means that they are taken without question. That's the nature of mathematical proofs: they only work if you accept the givens.

LaoTzu:

Thanks for the help. When you take somthing for granted is that different than having faith or believing in somthing?

By the way I don't think that I would say religion is useless. Wasn't it Lennin that great Athiest scientest who proclaimed that "religion is the opiate of the masses"? My sources tell me that opium can be quite expensive. That would make religion of some value. I kind of think of religion as "The Anti Drug".

Religion may be useless for you but I get entertainment, companionship, and peace of mind from my religion. Aren't those useful things to have?

math has infinity

religion has eternity

Cris:

With LaoTzu's help I guess that we have shown that your proof is based on certain beliefs and faith. That is hardly proving somthing is it? I mean if those bible thumpers get a hold of this they are going to have a field day.

Don't get me wrong I like logic and math (well maybe not math so much) as the next guy and I appreciate all of the things that this world has because of mathematics.

Hey! My son got to ski with the big boys today! He is only in 8th grade but he is skiing on the varsity downhill ski team. He had two great runs and I think the boys are going to take 2nd in the conference. Nothing beats being a Dad.

Mshark,

The proof is not new of course.

The beauty of mathematics is that it operates within a strictly defined set of rules. But the rules are so elegant that it has been suggested that if we ever meet another intelligent but alien species it is highly likely that the first form of communication will be mathematics.

Now contrast this with religion. There have been and are hundreds of religions and mystical superstitions, and all are variations on the same theme of assigning a claim to unexplained phenomena. Whereas math has extremely strict rules, religion has none. Religion is only limited by human imagination.

Zero:

Great name for this thread. Did you know that zero is a relatively new mathematical concept.

I am kind of a thrill seeker so yes I did enjoy having the rug pulled out from under me. Do you think I landed on my feet or on my behind?

Cris:

Nicely put.

Mshark,

With LaoTzu's help I guess that we have shown that your proof is based on certain beliefs and faith. That is hardly proving somthing is it?LOL. Not even close. The proof operates within the rules. Your question used the same rules, i.e. you made assumptions about the meanings of 1, and +, and 2.

As I said earlier, You didn't really understand the question that you asked. That's fine, and I wouldn't hold you to trying to prove a god exists because of a mistake.

turduckin,

Religion is not a rigorous, systematic method of thought. It is a collection of stories written to teach something about a complex, chaotic system - human behavior. If that was all that religion represented then why choose such an approach as opposed to say psychology that is a rigorous systematic method of thought designed specifically to understand human behavior.

Why choose an undisciplined system rather than a disciplined system?

So no that isn't the basis or a credible justification of religion. While some of the more esoteric aspects of mathematics are questionable they are but a tiny fraction of a system that has proved itself of vast extraordinary and undisputed value. Religion, on the other hand, specifically the basis of religion, has yet to show that it even exists, let alone be of real value.

However, many aspects of religions, primarily moral concepts and guidelines for practical living, have indeed helped to create civilized cultures. However, I always wonder how much better life would be if such cultures had been based on rational decisions rather than imaginative fantasies. But if we assume that these practical aspects of religion are indeed rational then we can equally argue then that we could have achieved the same results without the spiritual and supernatural components.

Yes it has contradictions - but we can accept within limits contradictions and incompleteness in formal rational systems. How can we use those same arguments to dismiss something that isn't even a rigorous, formal system?The answer here as I've explained above is that the contradictions in math are rare whereas in religion they are widespread and fundamental.

Cris:

I think we had a little misunderstanding. I thought you were responding to my call for a mathematical proof but you were responding to "New Life" and their question about 1+1 =2. I am sorry for the confusion. Personaly I don't belive in "1" or in "=".

We may have had a little misunderstanding but please don't assume that I don't understand.

If you think math is so elegant remember that statistics is a part of math.

The only way math works is if you accept that there ARE Natural Numbers and that the basic number we are taught as children do exist....

Religion only works if you accept that a supernatural being DOES exist....

not that different

is this relevant? if it is what does it mean, any philosophical implications?

One is tempted to add that the "truth" of arithmetic's axioms is a
consequence of their consistency. But seriously, labelling a set of
axioms as "true" doesn't constitute a rigorous formal proof of their
consistency. For example, Frege and others regarded the axioms of
naive set theory as manifestly true, even more so than the axioms of
arithmetic! But they were wrong.

In response to my suggestion that EVERY formal system, if pressed
far enough, would be fond to be inconsistent, and that nothing
guarantees us the existence of a consistent formal system with
enough complexity to encompass arithmetic, Franzen replies

"This is like a suggestion that 0 and 1 might turn out to be
identical if we look hard enough."

However, it's worth noting that when it was realized the axioms of
naive set theory were flawed and led to contradictions, we did not
conclude (as we were strictly entitled to do) that 0 and 1 were
identical. Rather we concluded that the axioms of set theory were
flawed and needed to be modified. Some proofs, and even some
theorems, were rendered invalid in the new system, but happily we
were able to preserve the distinctness of 0 and 1.

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath372.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-inconsistent/

Mshark,

Hey no problem.

If you think math is so elegant remember that statistics is a part of math.Most tools work well if they are used correctly and where appropriate. The common misuse of statistics does not detract from the value of the math of statsitcs but on the choice of how it is used or applied.

New Life,

The only way math works is if you accept that there ARE Natural Numbers and that the basic number we are taught as children do exist....

Religion only works if you accept that a supernatural being DOES exist....

not that differentYou are far more correct than you probably realize but not for the reasons you suspect.

Numbers of course do not exist. Can you point to something and say that is a number? Numbers are just concepts that allow us to think in a particular way. For example the number zero is a useful concept, but in the Roman number system there is no such concept and such a system of mathematics was correspondingly unnecessarily unwieldy.

Religion of course, as you quite rightly say, also works because of the belief in a concept that something supernatural exists. It clearly doesn't matter whether such a thing exists or not for religion to operate.

Now of course we could debate what is meant by 'works'. Math, for the most part demonstrably 'works' extremely well.

But what does it mean to say that religion 'works'? Perhaps that it twists the minds of millions of people into believing that something exists, that doesn't, in the same way that you are confused in thinking that numbers exist. In this respect religion also 'works' extremely well.

Originally posted by Cris
If that was all that religion represented then why choose such an approach as opposed to say psychology that is a rigorous systematic method of thought designed specifically to understand human behavior. Why choose an undisciplined system rather than a disciplined system?

Cris;
You’ve set up a false dilemma. Mathematics is a mostly rigorous and disciplined system. Psychology is moderately rigorous and disciplined compared with Mathematics. Religion is minimally rigorous and disciplined compared with Mathematics. The degree of discipline is necessitated (in general) by the accessibility of the related subject. Accessibility is defined by 1) the degree to which definitions regarding the subject are generally accepted. 2) The degree to which the subject can be directly (or indirectly) examined. 3) The reducibility of the whole subject into examinable parts. 4) complexity of the totality of the subject being examined. For each subject being examined, one chooses the most rigorous and disciplined system that will yield useful results.

Math is mostly rigorous
In Mathematics, the definitions are generally accepted in full and the elements being examined are directly accessible because they are already concepts and not abstractions of physical entities which first must be converted into concepts. By nature, the fundamental concepts of mathematics already exist as fully reduced and can be examined in their interactions.

Psychology is less rigorous than math
In psychology, arguments over definitions lead to different schools of thought and areas of research. Psychology started as a purely behavioral science, since the structure and function of the brain were largely inaccessible at the time (notwithstanding Phineas p. Gage, Xev). Modern psychology is much more rigorous and disciplined because of vastly greater knowledge of brain structure and function. But complete reducibility is impossible since the system being examined is self-referential: it is after all, the mind examining itself.

Religion is less rigorous than psychology
Religion, or more exactly religious truth (as opposed to theology, the rational study of religious truth) has by definition the most complex subject (god or nature of being), is largely irreducible and so is unyielding to conceptualization, and on the whole devoid of common definition because of its subjective nature. It must be treated more like archeology or history than mathematics, and that is precisely the point of my original post. Rationalists insist on applying too rigorous a standard, while adherents and believers fail to apply any rigorous and disciplined standard at all.

Given the above argument, I will reformulate your question as follows:

Why choose a less formalized system rather than a more formalized system?
Because things such as gut feeling, intuition, psi, spiritual existence, God et al cannot be studied by anything as formal as the scientific method. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about them. As Raithere eluded to, the situation is completely reflexive – you may sound like a half-wit to me for dismissing things that are subjectively real to me, and I may sound like an irrational maniac for believing things that can’t possible exist or be proven to exist to you. But these things have subjective reality to me, not because I read about them in a book and took them as fact. They are real to me because first I had the subjective experience which lacked a rational explanation, and then I discovered the most formalized system that gave the current best explanation for dealing with the phenomena – religion (more precisely, religious truth or spirituality. In truth, I am not a fan of religion in the way it is being practiced. But for the sake of this thread, the term ‘religion’ will do.)

You have chosen the path of extreme rationalism, thereby IMHO limiting the areas of human experience that you can investigate. You resort to loaded words and phrases such as “undisciplined or “imaginative fantasies” to dismiss an entire field of human experience, simply because [again my IMHO] you lack the tools and/or flexibility of mind to study it. In that respect you are making the same error as the religious fanatics – you’re simply unbalanced in the other direction. As Mr. Miyagi say: If whole life have balance, everything will be better

(edited slightly in an attempt not to be too offensive to Cris)

Cris,

thanx for explaining the idea for me! i didnt know exactly how to word it! you explained it perfectly!

Originally posted by Cris
turduckin,
The answer here as I've explained above is that the contradictions in math are rare whereas in religion they are widespread and fundamental.
Cris - i don't believe the contradictions are as widespread or fundamental as you think because, as I've explained above, you are using the wrong tools to extract the wrong information. The human brain is more than the cerebral cortex. Symbolism, dreams, myths, stories, visions - these are still valid ways of gaining insight, of knowing and of understanding.

Originally posted by Cris
Turduckin,

Your point might have value if you can show that the natural number domain would be invalidated by the existence of other domains. Otherwise the proof holds within the defined domain.

Perhaps the real issue here is not the proof but the lack of understanding of the question. The natural number domain doesn't invalidate the existence of other domains any more than the existence of Science invalidates Religion ( or vice versa). What was the question?

Turduckin,

(edited slightly in an attempt not to be too offensive to Cris)Too offensive? But offensive nevertheless, right? LOL, no problem.

Mathematics is a mostly rigorous and disciplined system.
Psychology is moderately rigorous and disciplined compared with Mathematics.
Religion is minimally rigorous and disciplined compared with Mathematics.

The degree of discipline is necessitated (in general) by the accessibility of the related subject.

Accessibility is defined by -
1) The degree to which definitions regarding the subject are generally accepted.
2) The degree to which the subject can be directly (or indirectly) examined.
3) The reducibility of the whole subject into examinable parts.
4) Complexity of the totality of the subject being examined.

For each subject being examined, one chooses the most rigorous and disciplined system that will yield useful results. It would seem more appropriate to choose a system that is more likely to provide objective truth than one based on levels of subjectivity. Why not apply the same degree of objective reasoning to any subject no matter the degree of accessibility? Truth should be determined by the quality of the material that can be directly examined, detected, or observed.

The best fit to your proposal is the application of inductive logic.

Deductive logic achieves a true or false conclusion from examination of logical premises. A valid premise is one that is based on fact, i.e. an existing known truth.

Inductive logic does not reach such a conclusion but rather achieves a level of probability, where we can say the result is strongly inductive or perhaps weakly inductive. The best example could be likened to statistics. For example: The sun has been known to rise every day for thousands of years, therefore there is a strong inductive argument that allows us to state that the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is very high.

Note that both deductive and inductive logic depend entirely on some degree of factual support, i.e. some pre-existing truths. While deduction always results in either a true or false result, induction rests on levels of probability where even though the probability could be extremely high there would always remain a small finite probability that the result is wrong. For example, in the example of the sun rising it could be claimed that one day the sun might explode and so would not rise from then on.

Most of science is based on inductive reasoning.

Forgive me if you are already familiar with Induction and Deduction, although other readers might find this useful.

Mathematics uses both forms of logic with great precision.

Psychology, which is a branch of science, uses the scientific method for its conclusions. The nature of this discipline makes extensive use of inductive logic, and the practitioners understand these limitations. Note that the discipline continues to depend on factual support for its theories as is consistent with inductive and deductive logic.

Religion does not use the scientific method and hence does not accept the discipline of deductive or inductive logic for its primary claims, i.e. it is prepared to reach a conclusion without a factual basis.

Religion is less rigorous than psychology.

Religion, or more exactly religious truth (as opposed to theology, the rational study of religious truth) has by definition the most complex subject (god or nature of being), is largely irreducible and so is unyielding to conceptualization, and on the whole devoid of common definition because of its subjective nature.What is meant by "religious truth"? If you are referring to real truth then there is no need to qualify it with the term "religious". If religious truth is not truth as generally understood then the only other alternative is "untruth". Now, I may seem to be just playing with words here but you have stressed that religious truth is somehow different so what else should I conclude? But I think what you are saying is that the degree of subjectivity is extremely high, but nevertheless, according to your perspective there is some real truth to the subject. And here you have mentioned gut feelings, intuition, psi, etc.

Now when we translate your interpretations to inductive logic we see that what you are really saying is that, psychology has many significantly weak inductive theories, but that religion has even more. Of course psychology has many very strong inductive theories defined through extensive observation and experiments, especially based on the results for neuroscience.

What we are really left with is a discipline, we can call religion, that has as its basis, from your perspective, weak inductive arguments, where the claimed factual support is gut feelings, psi, intuition, feelings of spirituality, etc.

It must be treated more like archeology or history than mathematics, and that is precisely the point of my original post. Both these disciplines are also based on significant factual support and both have very strong inductive and deductive arguments in their favor, so I think your comparison is not valid in this respect.

Rationalists insist on applying too rigorous a standard, while adherents and believers fail to apply any rigorous and disciplined standard at all. And here of course I disagree. Rationalists insist on factual support so they can reach deductive or inductive conclusions. We can see that this single standard renders mathematics as being near perfection and religion being much nearer to useless. The point is that both are being tested under the same rigorous standard generally known as logic.

Why choose a less formalized system rather than a more formalized system?
Because things such as gut feeling, intuition, psi, spiritual existence, God et al cannot be studied by anything as formal as the scientific method. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about them.Science is the search for knowledge and the scientific method has proven itself many times in this regard. The scientific method does not place any limits on what it can examine. If gut feelings can be shown to have a consistent results then that can be studied, if psi is measurable then that can be studied. But spiritual experiences and gods as yet cannot be shown to be any different from human imagination, and I agree are currently outside the application of the scientific method, primarily because no one has shown that they have any substance that can be detected.

They are real to me because first I had the subjective experience which lacked a rational explanation, and then I discovered the most formalized system that gave the current best explanation for dealing with the phenomena – religion (more precisely, religious truth or spirituality.I note again the qualification of the word "truth".

You could also have concluded that there was no appropriate system that could explain your "experiences". Accepting that there is no explanation for a given perceived phenomenon is perfectly acceptable since there must still be more things we do not understand than the things we do.

You must also realize that what you have done is the same thing that early man did when faced with unexplainable phenomena, invent an explanation, and typically something mystical - from that we find the creation of superstitions of which religious beliefs are indistinguishable.

Do you also realize that religion is the lowest form, and least effective means for verification for any phenomena, i.e. it requires zero evidence or factual support for its conclusions.

All you have done is chosen a system that sets the minimum level of verification for the things you claim as being true. Without anything more substantial how can you distinguish your claims from simple delusions?

You have chosen the path of extreme rationalism, thereby IMHO limiting the areas of human experience that you can investigate.From my perspective I have experienced many events where I felt I was correct only to be shown that truth is often not intuitive or pleasant. I have learnt to be objective and to not be fooled by unsupported speculations. I don't think I have limited myself, but instead I have developed effective techniques for the determination of real truth.

You resort to loaded words and phrases such as “undisciplined or “imaginative fantasies” to dismiss an entire field of human experience, simply because [again my IMHO] you lack the tools and/or flexibility of mind to study it.For a long time I avoided using such phrases as "imaginative fantasies" when describing religious beliefs. But over time I found such a description as being considerably accurate. So it isn’t a loaded term from my perspective but I can understand how you might find it offensive.

But without any real factual support the idea of a god can only be the result of human imagination. And we usually consider extreme imaginative ideas as fantasies. And to anyone the idea of a super powerful, invisible, immaterial being that can achieve anything, is the most extreme fantasy that we can imagine. So I consider my description as being objectively accurate. I can easily be shown wrong by the provision of a single piece of credible evidence to the contrary.

In that respect you are making the same error as the religious fanatics – you’re simply unbalanced in the other direction.There are indeed two extremes, at one end there is a belief in an unsupported speculation, and at the other end there is a simple request for proof. I don't see that my position results in any form of error.

turduckin,

The human brain is more than the cerebral cortex. Symbolism, dreams, myths, stories, visions - these are still valid ways of gaining insight, of knowing and of understanding.OK but why do you think these things are not formed within the brain? How else can we comprehend these issues?

Turduckin,

The natural number domain doesn't invalidate the existence of other domains any more than the existence of Science invalidates Religion ( or vice versa). What was the question?I think you lost the chain of reasoning there.

The question was "explain to me exactly why it is that 1 + 1 = 2". Which I don't think the poster quite understood what he was asking.

Cris:

You have nicely worded arguments and you speak with quite a bit of authority. However, you still fail to acknoledge that math is based on belief. You claim that math is proveable yet doesn’t logic say that any proof that is based on an unprovabale assumption is itself unprovable?

My question is: Can a system that is based on the unprovable be shown to be the truth?

Mshark,

However, you still fail to acknowledge that math is based on belief. Everything is based on a belief of some kind. The real question is how you assess the basis of your belief. If it is based on evidence then you can claim a rational belief, if evidence is absent then the basis for your belief is vacuous, irrational and useless, or otherwise known as blind faith, e.g. religious faith.

You claim that math is provable yet doesn’t logic say that any proof that is based on an unprovabale assumption is itself unprovable?I'm not sure that I have made such claims, except within its own consistent definitions. But yes a valid logical conclusion depends on the truth of the premises. But I'm not sure what you mean by saying math is unprovable.

Did you follow my discussion of induction and deduction? Do you feel that math does not conform to those thought processes?

Please also bear in mind -

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould

Originally posted by Cris
Psychology, which is a branch of science, uses the scientific method for its conclusions. The nature of this discipline makes extensive use of inductive logic, and the practitioners understand these limitations. Note that the discipline continues to depend on factual support for its theories as is consistent with inductive and deductive logic. I'm curious as to your views on Hume's Problem of Induction and Poppers's response, e.g.,I agree with Hume's opinion that induction is invalid and in no sense justified. Consequently neither Hume nor I can accept the traditional formulations which uncritically ask for the justification of induction; such a request is uncritical because it is blind to the possibility that induction is invalid in every sense, and therefore unjustifiable.

I disagree with Hume's opinion (the opinion incidentally of almost all philosophers) that induction is a fact and in any case needed. I hold that neither animals nor men use any procedure like induction, or any argument based on the repetition of instances. The belief that we use induction is simply a mistake. It is a kind of optical illusion.

What we do use is a method of trial and the examination of error; however misleadingly this method may look like induction, its logical structure, if we examine it closely, totally differs from that of induction. Moreover, it is a method which does not give rise to any of the difficulties connected with the problem of induction.

- The Problem of Induction (1953, 1974)

I did follow your discussion of induction and deduction. Deduction requires fact as a basis, and induction says that we have all of this evidence so we must be able to conclude we have the truth.

I have a great deal of difficulty with what Mr. Gould said. I know he is a great authority but to claim a “fact” is defined by its popularity seams to me to be a perversion of logic. It would seem to me if you accept fact based on authority in this case then you must accept it in other cases.

By the way are there any examples of a real world “fact” that is never questioned by mathemations and scientists?

You said,
“Everything is based on a belief of some kind. The real question is how you assess the basis of your belief. If it is based on evidence then you can claim a rational belief, if evidence is absent then the basis for your belief is vacuous, irrational and useless, or otherwise known as blind faith, e.g. religious faith.”

I would think everyone’s faith is based on some evidence. I guess I can see your point though. If their evidence and conclusions are not the same as yours then of course they are “vacous, irrational and useless”. I guess that is a no brainer. And with Mr. Gould on your side how could any one disagree?

Originally posted by MShark
I have a great deal of difficulty with what Mr. Gould said. I know he is a great authority but to claim a “fact” is defined by its popularity seams to me to be a perversion of logic. It would seem to me if you accept fact based on authority in this case then you must accept it in other cases. I do not understand how you arrived at such an interpretation of Gould's comment.

Science deals with testable explanations (theories) of observed phenomena. "Confirmation to such a degree ..." refers, not to some vote count, but to a long standing and pervasive failure to falsify a particular theory.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
IScience deals with testable explanations (theories) of observed phenomena. "Confirmation to such a degree ..." refers, not to some vote count, but to a long standing and pervasive failure to falsify a particular theory.

I think this is weak logic, but I would like to know what some to the theroies that have become fact are.

Originally posted by MShark
I think this is weak logic, ... What the hell is "weak logic"? What was "weak" was your interpretation of Gould's statement.
Originally posted by MShark
..., but I would like to know what some to the theroies that have become fact are. I do not understand your question.

Cris - thanks for taking the time to respond.

Why not apply the same degree of objective reasoning to any subject no matter the degree of accessibility? Truth should be determined by the quality of the material that can be directly examined, detected, or observed.

The best fit to your proposal is the application of inductive logic.
Inductive reasoning doesn’t work when applying meaning to human experience, which is what religion is primarily concerned with. Dream images are an excellent example. The subconscious component of the human brain doesn’t work in speech and formal logic. But it plays a crucial role processing and analyzing data. It presents the results of those processes as images and emotions. A famous example is August Kekule’s (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/l-hand13.html ) discovery of the ring structure of benzene. This was not arrived at deductively or inductively. He had a dream about a snake swallowing it’s tail, and his conscious mind was able to assign a useful meaning to the image.

Kekule was deeply involved in trying to solve the problem and, perhaps unconsciously, used his entire brain to solve it. Anyone else having a dream with the same image would arrive at different meaning, multiple different meanings or no meaning at all. The objective meaning of such imagery is impossible to ascertain, and indeed is irrelevant. The subjective meaning derived by the observer is of primary importance. Meaning can be simple or complex, shallow or deep, single or multiple, depending solely on the desire of the experiencer to extract meaning from the image. Meaning shifts as context shifts.

Under these circumstances, objective reasoning is not only useless, but often serves as an excuse to pooh-pooh subjective reasoning into irrelevance. People with a literal/objective mindset have difficulty with dream images and religious texts. The imagery speaks ‘individual truth’ intimately to individuals without any external methodology for ascertaining ‘objective truth’. Dream images (and imagery in general), have to be understood in the full context of the individual’s environment and current concerns. This is true of myths as well. An important application of the power of subjective reasoning lies in discovery and transformation of self and relationships. Myths and religions provide a standard or ideal against which we can measure our internal state; our heart. We gain insight by holding our hearts up to these external standards. Our own imagery and emotions give us a method of shifting our hearts, in relation to these standards. We use these subjective tools whether we think about them or not. I hold that we need to make them conscious, or they will control us unconsciously.

One of the negative results of western cultures’ over-reliance on objective reasoning is our inability to communicate or empathize with people having a different set of cultural images and interpretations. This is a source of much social and environmental violence Western culture and history. Entire peoples have been dismissed out of hand as primitive or superstitious, and were overtaken and destroyed by western models of self-evident progress such as manifest destiny. That religious thought has been responsible for much of this violence is an indication not of the failure of religion, but of man’s failure to think correctly about religion. This inability to think correctly is the root cause of the creation/evolution conflict. Creationists are incorrectly applying objective reasoning, thereby missing the deeper meanings (religious truth) behind the Words. They think incorrectly because of a defect in the western model of thought. Our culture has lost the ability to teach people how to reason subjectively. We have thrown away our inheritance because we cannot recognize its value.

Psychology, which is a branch of science, uses the scientific method for its conclusions. The nature of this discipline makes extensive use of inductive logic, and the practitioners understand these limitations. Note that the discipline continues to depend on factual support for its theories as is consistent with inductive and deductive logic.

I’m not a psychologist, but I am slightly familiar with the use of cognitive therapy in the treatment of depression. What I observed was a brilliant therapist who was capable of using both objective and subjective reasoning. There is a great deal of difference between publishing a research paper that can withstand peer review, and intuiting what method of treatment and what line of questioning will best lead to a positive outcome in a therapeutic situation. This blend of science and intuition enhances my argument that psychology is moderately rigorous. Perhaps a better way to state it is ‘a blend of objective and subjective reasoning’. Maybe someone else can speak to the limitations of psychology, but it’s evident to me that it is not meant to replace myth and religion. Psychology is meant for healing. Religion is meant to maintain social health.

Originally posted by Cris
turduckin,

OK but why do you think these things are not formed within the brain? How else can we comprehend these issues?

I did not say that these things were not formed in the brain. The cerebral cortex is not the whole brain. What about the limbic system (fancifully referred to as the reptilian brain)? Conscious control of metabolic functions does not occur within the cerebral cortex. Tibeten monks and yogis exercise control over these 'involuntary' systems using the brain, but not inductive or deductive reasoning. Comprehension is not under the exclusive pervue of the cerebral cortex.

Originally posted by Cris
Deductive logic achieves a true or false conclusion from examination of logical premises. A valid premise is one that is based on fact, i.e. an existing known truth.
What is true or false about the statement "Thou shalt not commit murder." It is only true in the sense that a majority of people have subjectively agreed that murder, on the whole, is a bad thing.

Let's take another example:
Gen 2:23-25 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man" For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame'

Taken literally, we can deduce that Eve couldn't have been taken from Adam's rib solely on the basis of mitochondrial DNA. And it must have been a temperate climate if they were both naked.

Taken subjectively, this passage speaks to the relationship between man and woman. 'Flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone' indicates extreme identification of self with other. I am she and she is me. As I would do nothing to hurt or disrespect myself, then I should do likewise to my wife. My wife and I stand naked before each other. Everything about me, both good and bad is known and accepted by my spouse, and I accept her, blemishes and all. No lies, no deceipt, no hiding parts of each other that we're afraid the other will criticise. We can speak our innermost thoughts and feelings to each other. I can think of no more comforting and supportive relationship than the one I have with my wife, which reflects this 'truth' about human relationships.

The wonderful thing to me about subjective reasoning is that, while it transcends rational thought, it is still within the domain of human understanding. Many scriptural passages anger people. They react to the anger by using their rational mind to dismiss the passage. This is blind misapplication of objective reasoning. What they should try to do instead is ask the question, 'Why does that piss me off?'. The answer to that question will lead to another question, whose answer leads to another question. You track the thread of questions and answers using 'subjective reasoning', a blend of gut feeling, inspiration, intution, rational thought and free association, gaining insight after insight until you reach a point of resolution. The passage will no longer piss you off, and you understand why it doesn't as well as why it used to. You don't have to agree with the original statement. But you have actually grown because of the original statement. The resolution has nothing to do with absolute subjective truth. It has to everything to do with growth and transformation, awareness and integrity.

Originally posted by LaoTzu
Hahahahaha, I definitely got a laugh out of that one. Hee hee . . . :D As to the actual point behind the thread: the difference between mathematics and religion is that mathematics is an empirical, synthetic construct that we built from the ground up, whereas religion is a dead weight we discovered already attached to us. We have no reason other than tradition to keep it. Also, whereas the "problems" in mathematics are counter to common sense, the problems in religion are actual contradictions. There are almost none of these in mathematics (except for things like Russell's Paradox). Even though mathematics contradicts itself, it is, as you said, still useful. However, what good is a religion that has mixed presentations regarding the nature of God, or how to get into Heaven? Not as much. The questions there require more certainty than what we have.

Keep in mind, I'm not making specific accusations against a particular religion: I'm not a biblical scholar, nor a Quran scholar, etc., so I can't really place everything in context as well as some. But I think that the above paragraph is a better way to look at the two systems you compare.

I've read quite a few of your posts. Your analysis is always impressive to me. Well put. I agree 100% with what you've said above. I have some thoughts regarding russell's paradox. I've been meaning to post about it. Can you link me to the thread in which you were discussing it explicitely?

Originally posted by LaoTzu
Hahahahaha, I definitely got a laugh out of that one. Hee hee . . . :D

I'm glad you liked it. It was meant to be entertainment in a world of spams and raves.

Originally posted by LaoTzu As to the actual point behind the thread: the difference between mathematics and religion is that mathematics is an empirical, synthetic construct that we built from the ground up,

Good!

Originally posted by LaoTzu whereas religion is a dead weight we discovered already attached to us. We have no reason other than tradition to keep it.

Bad!

How do you justify the assertion that religion is dead wieght? For every example that you might give me about how bad religion is, I'll give you an example of some good that religious institutions have done.

I'll agree with your assertion only insofar as it applies to you.

Originally posted by LaoTzu However, what good is a religion that has mixed presentations regarding the nature of God, or how to get into Heaven? Not as much. The questions there require more certainty than what we have.

I have spent a considerable number of words above trying to define and argue about the value of religion. Many 'rationalist' who search only for 'objective truth' because they believe it is a better path to a better truth are missing the boat. A mathematician named Jacob Bronowski (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/bronowski.html) pointed out that all knowledge is imperfect. The problem is that people who claim to persue a perfect path to knowledge start acting like nazis.