Spillover from "Share Your Spiritual Beliefs" Thread

[Xander]

Well, by that definition they are not similar, then.

Religion does not use the scientific method of analysis to justify faith. Religion does not conduct experiments to offer theory. Religion is not independently verifiable. It does not strive for objectivity in perspective, nor detachment in analysis.

They do not use the same methodology. Period.

Just to reiterate:

- Confirm/disprove the existence of God/s (the fundamental religious question) using the scientific method of analysis, Xander.

- Confirm which religion is closest to objective truth.

- Using testable religious variables, offer educated speculation on what happens in the afterlife. Please show clinical precedent.


Sound foolish? It's because the methodologies that justify religion and science don't wash. Not now, not ever.

It's just not happening.

But all of this happens within one larger system, ie the universe. As such at some level both operate within the same parameters, are restricted by the same ceilings and so forth or one is disproven (or both, or neither). It's false wisdom to declare two things so separate that neither can be related to the other. That's not to say you can't do it, only that I would and do object to such thinking as divergent from trying to become more enlightened. As such you could say I was engaging in my own religion but as I've hinted at many times, there are NO non religious people... it's just some actually choose a religion to follow, others a philosophy or science or whatever.

You see what I CAN show you is that the entire realm of science is based upon founding principles which we estimate are correct but have no real hard means of testing if they work outside of our own paradigm. I mean who's to say that this gravity being you all allude to is omnipresent? What proof is there that on a remote planet it doesn't exist at all? of course we have no evidence to make us believe that but also we have no perfect refutation of the concept either. Something which scifi plays on quite a bit.

I think it was a kind of Popper idea wasn't it that if something isn't refutable then it's not true or not useful or something wasn't it? Well you can't test the foundations of our beautiful construction which is science without stepping outside of it. How is it not so for religion? I mean this self affirming ideas are quite prevalent but to assume that no one can try to affirm or deny them from outside of that system is basically walling off certain avenues of inquiry for no good reason. If someone said to me that they wanted to see if the MBTI applied to fish then I may think them odd and may well ignore most of what they say but if they came up with some kind of result which threw light onto the MBTI as it pertains to humans then I would listen intently (note I wouldn't necessarily agree or take it on board but I would consider their thoughts). To do otherwise is both arrogant and unwise [note that statement is made specifically in context of the story and is NOT meant as a statement about you or anyone else... no seriously].

So yes you may well say that to analyse religion from the point of view of science is a high road to no where and you may well be proven correct but by failing it reveals something previously not known. In fact regardless of the pursuit it reveals things.

Unless you already know all there is to know then you cannot know what is not known yet without it being known and therefore invalid. Ergo you cannot predict how the unknown will become known. Thus you cannot rule out any form of inquiry into any subject no matter how seemingly unrelated less you state categorically that you have some kind of foreknowledge of the unknown.

[Follow that one (See "Yes, Prime Minister" if you don't see the kind of gauntlet I just cracked on your nose ]

 

[Katsuni]

I have that same desire, are you Catholic too??

Thou shalt not kill.

Also, priests only use maces, D&D told me so ^.~

 

[Night]

You're obfuscating, Xander. And I like gauntlets.

But all of this happens within one larger system, ie the universe. As such at some level both operate within the same parameters, are restricted by the same ceilings and so forth or one is disproven (or both, or neither). It's false wisdom to declare two things so separate that neither can be related to the other. That's not to say you can't do it, only that I would and do object to such thinking as divergent from trying to become more enlightened. As such you could say I was engaging in my own religion but as I've hinted at many times, there are NO non religious people... it's just some actually choose a religion to follow, others a philosophy or science or whatever.

From a vague universal perspective, sure: they're related. As I mentioned earlier, when you dilute intensity of traits, everything shares relations.

From a taxonomical standpoint, lumping large slices of creation into fuzzy intellectual blobs doesn't really impress me. There's no real connection, only formless, subjective links. It's why Biology has the Kingdom-Phlyum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species classification model - to increase simplicity in bridgework and accuracy in analysis.

You see what I CAN show you is that the entire realm of science is based upon founding principles which we estimate are correct but have no real hard means of testing if they work outside of our own paradigm. I mean who's to say that this gravity being you all allude to is omnipresent? What proof is there that on a remote planet it doesn't exist at all? of course we have no evidence to make us believe that but also we have no perfect refutation of the concept either. Something which scifi plays on quite a bit.

Falsifiable, Xander. Falsifiable. Here, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

Fal´si`fi`a`ble
a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.

Gravity could be omnipresent, sure. Yet, omnipresence isn't falsifiable. It is therefore outside the context of our discussion. Neither here nor there.

Science is a best guess. It is open to falsifiable (there's that word, again) variables, should revision be necessary. Short of that and you have junk science.

Again - Science is falsifiable. It doesn't matter if gravity is omnipresent. If we can't falsify our hypothesis, we don't anything to go off of.

I think it was a kind of Popper idea wasn't it that if something isn't refutable then it's not true or not useful or something wasn't it? Well you can't test the foundations of our beautiful construction which is science without stepping outside of it. How is it not so for religion? I mean this self affirming ideas are quite prevalent but to assume that no one can try to affirm or deny them from outside of that system is basically walling off certain avenues of inquiry for no good reason. If someone said to me that they wanted to see if the MBTI applied to fish then I may think them odd and may well ignore most of what they say but if they came up with some kind of result which threw light onto the MBTI as it pertains to humans then I would listen intently (note I wouldn't necessarily agree or take it on board but I would consider their thoughts). To do otherwise is both arrogant and unwise [note that statement is made specifically in context of the story and is NOT meant as a statement about you or anyone else... no seriously].

I don't disagree that religion is problematic.

Using MBTI to test fish is still using falsifiable text - albeit in an intellectually dim manner. MBTI has some (fringe) clinical support. Again - using empirical data to assign fish MBTI has more scientific merit than using the scientific method of analysis to ascertain religious verity.

Unless you already know all there is to know then you cannot know what is not known yet without it being known and therefore invalid. Ergo you cannot predict how the unknown will become known. Thus you cannot rule out any form of inquiry into any subject no matter how seemingly unrelated less you state categorically that you have some kind of foreknowledge of the unknown.

Sure. I also can't logically rule out that gravity flows from the undercarriage of Gordon Brown. It's not plausible, but I can't impossibly rule it out.

Oh, and science is falsifiable -- not sure if I hit on that, yet. If the material doesn't correspond to this provided premise, it is scientifically irrelevant.

 

[Xander]

You're obfuscating, Xander. And I like gauntlets.

Who's obfuscating? I'm brain dumping. If you can't see the kitchen then you've probably been wimping out of the heat

From a vague universal perspective, sure: they're related. As I mentioned earlier, when you dilute intensity of traits, everything shares relations.

From a taxonomical standpoint, lumping large slices of creation into fuzzy intellectual blobs doesn't really impress me. There's no real connection, only formless, subjective links. It's why Biology has the Kingdom-Phlyum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species classification model - to increase simplicity in bridgework and accuracy in analysis.

There is an innate problem with frameworks of understanding, they are by their nature exclusive as you are aptly showing by saying that a scientific approach cannot be applied to religious viewpoints.

As for the whole "prove the existence of God" type effort at some scientific inquiry, it's bunk. There is no scientific ground upon which the presence or absence of a God makes one whit of difference. The question has no basis in science and neither does it in religion either. Of all the religions I have looked at it is formulated upon the premise that you accept the existence of a divine entity not prove or question it. Ergo religion is making no effort to ascertain an answer and is in fact in terms of development still using a textbook which is that old even public schools would have updated it!

So in terms of analysis neither science nor religion is capable of questioning religion because it's basis is grounded in acceptance. However science has equal claim to this as well as it is driven to try to build a framework which models reality convincingly however it is also built upon the presumption that the universe cares about systems and conforms to them. Now I wouldn't argue that the scientific approach has more credibility when considered objectively but then again I'm of the mind that the human brain isn't the be all and end all of creation and so I don't suffer the illusion that I can possibly understand life the universe and everything (to use it's proper and full title ). Having said that I also wouldn't argue that religion has been around for quite a while in one form or another... though the cynical side of me would point out that the only consistent presence in all of this is actually the human and not necessarily any divine being.

[and you thought that last post was strewn with mental ditches!]

Anyhow, all that waffle should hopefully point you in the direction of the idea that both systems are based on an acceptance of authority. The person preceding you said this was right, now build upon it and don't undermine it. Another similarity. Both systems are also built upon certain proofs though no overarcing proofs are given (such as does God exist, is light a particle or a wave... etc etc). Both sides wrestle with their inconsistencies but also both state that the system is sound despite not having an answer for their inconsistencies. So can you not apply a scientific approach within a religious system? Of course you can. The scientific method relies on things being falsifiable and yes the big questions duck that approach but they do in science too so let's not get flippant (okay... more flippant). What a scientific approach would do is show up trends and basis for trends allowing people to see where their religion comes from rather than trying to sell it as a complete package frozen in time.

Falsifiable, Xander. Falsifiable. Here, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

Fal´si`fi`a`ble
a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.

Now that's just simply inefficient. How is this an authority? How is it applicable in any terms other than to underline the common interpretation of the word and how people expect it to be used?

Gravity could be omnipresent, sure. Yet, omnipresence isn't falsifiable. It is therefore outside the context of our discussion. Neither here nor there.

That's an excuse to avoid the "prove there is a God" type questions, something you aim to deny me the pleasure of.

Science is a best guess. It is open to falsifiable (there's that word, again) variables, should revision be necessary. Short of that and you have junk science.

I believe it was words said in jest but religion could most definitely do with this kind of thinking.

Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

And yes, that is my dogma.

Again - Science is falsifiable. It doesn't matter if gravity is omnipresent. If we can't falsify our hypothesis, we don't anything to go off of.

Que?
(Sorry I'm not trying to highlight brain fade... I'd have most of my posts in bold if someone did that to me... just trying to ascertain the meaning)

I don't disagree that religion is problematic.

Using MBTI to test fish is still using falsifiable text - albeit in an intellectually dim manner. MBTI has some (fringe) clinical support. Again - using empirical data to assign fish MBTI has more scientific merit than using the scientific method of analysis to ascertain religious verity.

So using MBTI on fish is quite okay but questioning whether some tenant of religion is valid in the context of it's own framework is lunacy?

We must meet. The children would be like a pox to the current draft of sheep thinkers...

Sure. I also can't logically rule out that gravity flows from the undercarriage of Gordon Brown. It's not plausible, but I can't impossibly rule it out.

You're going with the mass produces it idea? Fairly sure that one's been debunked.

Oh, and science is falsifiable -- not sure if I hit on that, yet. If the material doesn't correspond to this provided premise, it is scientifically irrelevant.

It is irrelevant to science, yes, that does not mean that using scientific philosophy on it will garner no decent results.


The first declares how scientists are the second would be a work of assumption unless tried in which case you've already done it, proving my point

So chose now Neo. Is it the blue pill that you've never done it and therefore are presuming it won't work or is it the red pill where you've tried it, found it didn't go anywhere which you considered useful and are now arguing from the point of view of you've done it already and know how it all turns out?

 

[Night]

Oh, Xander.

Whatever will we do with you?

You're debunking points I haven't made. It's likely you think I'm doing the same to you.


(You are wrong about Gordon Brown, though. Take that one to the bank!)

 

[Mole]

...by saying that a scientific approach cannot be applied to religious viewpoints.

In Hancock Library there is a whole library of books of mathematics.

And in this whole mathematics library there is not one equation that contains the variable God.

If God created everything, you would think that God would be mentioned in many equations. But God is not mentioned even in one equation out of the millions of equations here.

We are told metaphorically that mathematics is the language of God. But it is a language that knows not God.

 

[Night]

Listen to Victor, Xander.

 

[Xander]

Oh, Xander.

Whatever will we do with you?

You're debunking points I haven't made. It's likely you think I'm doing the same to you.


(You are wrong about Gordon Brown, though. Take that one to the bank.)

I thought we'd drawn battle lines? It's no good unless you stick to your guns you know. I feel like a nerd just running over the field with nothing going on the other end... most disturbing..

Anyhoo, I figured you were of the camp that science does not allow for religion and therefore it's thinking can shed no light upon religion. I convincingly kicked ass in the respect that such is wrong and proven false

To rewind to the beginning, the foundation of science is not falsifiable without using science, right? Well that's self affirming in the same way that religion is. You either get on the bus and go with it or people poke you with pointed sticks until you get off. Neither one is truly grounded because both have produced religions around ideas. Both ideas are fine and upstanding as simply that, ideas but both build in weaknesses when they try to claim to be the be all and end all.

Anyhow what's wrong with getting rid of arbitrary defined boundaries if they have no real definable reason to exist except to separate what people approve of from what they don't on a grand scale?

 

[Mole]

Listen to Victor, Xander.

We should all listen to Victor - particularly Victor.

 

[Night]

I thought we'd drawn battle lines? It's no good unless you stick to your guns you know. I feel like a nerd just running over the field with nothing going on the other end... most disturbing..

Anyhoo, I figured you were of the camp that science does not allow for religion and therefore it's thinking can shed no light upon religion. I convincingly kicked ass in the respect that such is wrong and proven false

No. I'm off the camp that religion and science exist in exclusive intellectual spheres and are therefore of negligible consequence to the former.

Oh, and I do not concede that you made that point. As the point was not contextually available to make, you cannot offer it, post cogito.

There. Eat Latin.

To rewind to the beginning, the foundation of science is not falsifiable without using science, right? Well that's self affirming in the same way that religion is. You either get on the bus and go with it or people poke you with pointed sticks until you get off. Neither one is truly grounded because both have produced religions around ideas. Both ideas are fine and upstanding as simply that, ideas but both build in weaknesses when they try to claim to be the be all and end all.

Sure. They all begin from the same primordial goo, but take distinct pathways along the way. It's the road they take - not their birthright - that defines them as individual philosophies.

Haven't you ever heard of black sheep?

Anyhow what's wrong with getting rid of arbitrary defined boundaries if they have no real definable reason to exist except to separate what people approve of from what they don't on a grand scale?

Because they allow for progress. And your scale is wonky. There are degrees of accuracy you're (conveniently) glossing over to assert your point.

 

[Xander]

In Hancock Library there is a whole library of books of mathematics.

And in this whole mathematics library there is not one equation that contains the variable God.

If God created everything, you would think that God would be mentioned in many equations. But God is not mentioned even in one equation out of the millions of equations here.

We are told metaphorically that mathematics is the language of God. But it is a language that knows not God.

Sorry missed this one.

Mathematics and God are both theories. One does encroach upon the other but at a distance to place many more blockages in the path of them meeting. To place maths next to God you'd have to run one hell of a hurdle race... probably for several lifetimes too.

No. I'm off the camp that religion and science exist in exclusive intellectual spheres and are therefore of negligible consequence to the former.

So they don't meet? Ever?

Sorry, I don't think that holds water or gravity!

Oh, and I do not concede that you made that point. As the point was not contextually available to make, you cannot offer it, post cogito.

There. Eat Latin.

I prefer Italian but I'll give it a go... just as long as it's not that "I think therefore " bunch of tosh. Now that's a perfect example of taking an idea too far.

Sure. They all begin from the same primordial goo, but take distinct pathways along the way. It's the road they take - not their birthright - that defines them as individual philosophies.

Haven't you ever heard of black sheep?

Black sheep are sheep, individual philosophies are philosophies... all points which further my point. You can't arbitrarily separate religion and science based on some fripperous point that one claims objectivity. Otherwise all the other has to do is claim objectivity and whamo you're back to square one.

Intelligent design anyone?

Because they allow for progress. And your scale is wonky. There are degrees of accuracy you're (conveniently) glossing over to assert your point.

I'm glossing over the jargon, the assumed walls of definition in an attempt to bridge gaps which were put in place to keep things defined. Definition is necessary only to our understanding and not to the thing being defined. The universe does not care that you have divided the periods of light and dark into section and measure them. It has no concept of time.

Now if I err in my bridging then please do correct it's span but by saying that the bridge cannot be built is akin to saying we cannot know how to classify light because it's too difficult. Tosh says I!

 

[Night]

So they don't meet? Ever?

Sorry, I don't think that holds water or gravity!

No - I said 'negligible', which means they are mostly inconsequential unless acted upon by an external (intellectually confused) force. Read: Creationists.

I prefer Italian but I'll give it a go... just as long as it's not that "I think therefore " bunch of tosh. Now that's a perfect example of taking an idea too far.

Hey!

Don't badmouth the dead. Descartes was a handful. Don't be confused by his quasi-effeminate first name.

Black sheep are sheep, individual philosophies are philosophies... all points which further my point. You can't arbitrarily separate religion and science based on some fripperous point that one claims objectivity. Otherwise all the other has to do is claim objectivity and whamo you're back to square one.

Intelligent design anyone?

Intelligent design? Absolutely not. You're confusing science quackery with science fact, Xander.

Claiming objectivity and striving for it are distinct ideologies. Credibility is the currency we seek here, Xander. Of course absolute objectivity is never possible -- surely you agree that this impossibility doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it?

Why bother with any knowledge, then? By your hand, we ought to simply relax in our immutable ignorance as true progress isn't ever possible!

Back to square one, indeed!


(Oh, and I'm surprised you've never heard of Black Sheep -- you are English, aren't you? )

I'm glossing over the jargon, the assumed walls of definition in an attempt to bridge gaps which were put in place to keep things defined. Definition is necessary only to our understanding and not to the thing being defined. The universe does not care that you have divided the periods of light and dark into section and measure them. It has no concept of time.

Now if I err in my bridging then please do correct it's span but by saying that the bridge cannot be built is akin to saying we cannot know how to classify light because it's too difficult. Tosh says I!

How do you know what the universe wants?

Not that it matters, as what is truly relevant is that which is defined within the context of our shared intellectual heritage. Science is our best guess, Xander. It's not perfect, but requires delineation for it to breath and expand into new territories. Why must we arbitrarily extinguish definition as to avoid the likelihood that we might be moving in non-objective rhythms? Progress and precision are forever suspended in a balancing act, anyway. Why not do whatever we can do reduce bias?

No way around this. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to take the chance. New knowledge is ever more succulent than old anxiety.

 

[matmos]

Mathematics and God are both theories

Quite right. But one is consistent and the other is is not.

Then you could add that there's a difference between a logically consistent theory and wishful thinking.

Bad science is debunkable because it falls victim to its own logic - a problem that religion does not share.

Pay more attention to Victor.

 

[Xander]

No - I said 'negligible', which means they are mostly inconsequential unless acted upon by an external (intellectually confused) force. Read: Creationists.

"Negligible" is what I'd call a value based judgement. Hardly scientific but quite religious.

Hey!

Don't badmouth the dead. Descartes was a handful. Don't be confused by his quasi-effeminate first name.

I read Descartes and I've decided not to bad mouth his name. I shall now call him Discarded.

Intelligent design? Absolutely not. You're confusing science quackery with science fact, Xander.

Precisely. Ergo don't base the delineation between the two on something assumed and unverifiable. That's how the whole mess starts.

You can't claim superiority on your own terms and then complain when someone else claims superiority on their terms. Until the terms are levelled there can be no comparison and at present there's as much a case for an intelligent hand in the development of life as there is against, if you ignore all the indoctrination.

Claiming objectivity and striving for it are distinct ideologies. Credibility is the currency we seek here, Xander. Of course absolute objectivity is never possible -- surely you agree that this impossibility doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for it?

Why bother with any knowledge, then? By your hand, we ought to simply relax in our immutable ignorance as true progress isn't ever possible!

Back to square one, indeed!

A wise man knows that he knows nothing.

The point is not to not strive but to recognise our own failings and our own assumptions. The guys who made a pattern making program for what I assume was a telescope and then proceeded to map the universe claimed that because there was holes in the pattern it was proof of another dimension. That's foolish because the first assumption to be tested would have to be "are you missing something?". My initial assessment would have been that their program was insufficient or their understanding of the universe was insufficient to write a sufficient program.

Without questioning what we take for granted we only manage to assure ourselves that we're already right instead of risking it and entertaining the idea that maybe we've got a lot of it all wrong.

(Oh, and I'm surprised you've never heard of Black Sheep -- you are English, aren't you? )

Black sheep, the odd one out, the unspoken of member of the family, often related to someone being dodgy in terms of breaking the law. I turned it around to underline that it is still a sheep even if it is divergent from the other sheep. I would have thought ewe would have got that one.

How do you know what the universe wants?

I asked. Don't be stupid.

Not that it matters, as what is truly relevant is that which is defined within the context of our shared intellectual heritage. Science is our best guess, Xander. It's not perfect, but requires delineation for it to breath and expand into new territories. Why must we arbitrarily extinguish definition as to avoid the likelihood that we might be moving in non-objective rhythms? Progress and precision are forever suspended in a balancing act, anyway. Why not do whatever we can do reduce bias?

No way around this. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to take the chance. New knowledge is ever more succulent than old anxiety.

New knowledge is okay but if it's based upon faulty foundations then isn't it another flat earth society? Of all the institutions upon which we pledge our lives should not science receive one of the most intense, no boundary respected kind of scrutinies we can muster?

 

[Mole]

Pay more attention to Victor.

Sure, pay attention.

We live in the attention economy you are my paymaster.

 

[Unique]

Deracinated means to be cut off from your roots.

And the fact that you call your patrimony brain washing shows not only are you deracinated but you deny it as well. And why not, it would be too painful to face - it would mean facing a permanent cultural impoverishment.

Fair better to call your rightful inheritance brain washing. It also has the advantage of being part of deracinated popular culture.

I'm aware of its meaning... one only has to play enough warcraft 3 to know that

I'm not sure what your point is are you trying to say something about my mother or father or god?

 

[Mole]

I'm aware of its meaning... one only has to play enough warcraft 3 to know that

I'm not sure what your point is are you trying to say something about my mother or father or god?

I rather like the word deracinated. I only recently found out its meaning and I have been looking for an opportunity to show it off.

But you have the advantage - I have never even seen warcraft 1 or 2, never mind 3.

But what I was trying to say that almost all are given their religion in the trance of childhood well before they have developed their critical mind.

Of course you are entitled to call this brain washing but anything you teach a child will be accepted uncritically in exactly the same way a child accepts their parents.

In fact it is quite like learning our native language. We learn our native language quite unconsciously without any engagement of the critical mind.

So we learn our language unconsciously. We learn our religion unconsciously. And we accept our parents unconsciously. This is our inheritance. It is only later, usually in tertiary education, that we come to criticize our inheritance.

And of course not to have part of this inheritance is described by that lovely word, deracinated.

 

[Argus]

Ah, I'm so far behind on this thread! I just can't take a day off.

 

[Unique]

I rather like the word deracinated. I only recently found out its meaning and I have been looking for an opportunity to show it off.

But you have the advantage - I have never even seen warcraft 1 or 2, never mind 3.

But what I was trying to say that almost all are given their religion in the trance of childhood well before they have developed their critical mind.

Of course you are entitled to call this brain washing but anything you teach a child will be accepted uncritically in exactly the same way a child accepts their parents.

In fact it is quite like learning our native language. We learn our native language quite unconsciously without any engagement of the critical mind.

So we learn our language unconsciously. We learn our religion unconsciously. And we accept our parents unconsciously. This is our inheritance. It is only later, usually in tertiary education, that we come to criticize our inheritance.

And of course not to have part of this inheritance is described by that lovely word, deracinated.

Ah yes, I understand now

Interesting, though I don't think it would of made a difference if the Christian religion was given to me as a child. Why?

Well because my mother is Buddhist and I was taught all about it I however chose to respect it but not embrace it as my religion and this was a choice I made as a child

Now the reason I say "brain washing" is because the only way religion would of effected me as a child is by not giving me a choice which essentially is brain washing, the fact that I was not having my hand forced is the reason for my chosen preference

That being said, it would be more like "holding a gun" to my head even in childhood, I've always been a curious person with way too many questions so there is no way I would truly 100% believe in something even if I said so

At an early age I was thinking deeply about the meaning of life and for someone to tell me something "is a certain way" I would always be skeptical of people

I payed little attention in school as a child too as I found most of it irrelevant even being so young, the questions the other children were asking were of no interest to me

I've been this way as long as I can remember, I can remember playing in the sand pit by myself with the gears in my head turning already, going over ideas

There was no "trance of childhood" for me as I was vastly different from other children

Funny you mention language I remember as a child discussing that very concept with my mother I was questioning it already

I disagree that I learn any of the things you stated unconsciously, do you have proof of this?

If what you are saying is true than so is children believing in santa. Most children simply found out santa wasn't real through others I however demanded the truth from my mother and was obviously devastated

Hypothetically if I was born into a highly religious family there is no doubt in my mind that I would be skeptical and unlikely to take what they say as absolute truth even as a child

I was born with a critical mind, it wasn't developed

 

[Wonkavision]

If God does exist, then he has no causal relationship to the physical universe, meaning he essentially doesn't exist.

I've never understood that argument.

Why couldn't God have a causal relationship to the physical universe?