> Either something can be demonstrated or it cannot. If it can't be demonstrated then it is false. Here's my definition of truth: "Things as they really are,

> Either something can be demonstrated or it cannot. If it can't be demonstrated then it is false. Here's my definition of truth: "Things as they really are, have been and will be.". That sits independent of observation. > Religions include all sorts of truth That was about things like mediation, fasting, etc. being real effective principals. > > I'd say similar to math. > Math is based on logic, Math does not require faith. Religion is not Math. It depends on your religion I guess. The religion I practice describes a God with some constraints (if he broke those constraints, then he wouldn't be God). And from these contraints (axioms), various doctrines and results fall out logically. And they're coherent. And you can take the first principals and combine them in various ways to arrive at the same consistent conclusions. So that's why I say it's like math - the internal consistency, and the ability to logically derive more stuff without meeting contradictions. > > religion is pretty analogus to anecdotes. Not widely generalized, and can often lead to wrong conclusions. But doeant definitely lead to wrong conclusions. > Either you did not proofread yourself or you really have abandoned logic and coherent thoughts completely. If a premise is false, then conclusions based on those same premises can only lead you to the wrong conclusion. I think this goes back to my interpretation of truth, so a small example to illustrate what I mean. A buddhist can practice meditation because of their religion. If Buddhism is wrong, that doesn't logically mean practicing meditation is silly, wrong or ineffective. > > I personally belong to a religion which encourages experimentation > I dont think so. If that was true we would not be having this conversation. > Therefore experimentation in the realm of religion is not possible as you would inevitably come to a point where logic would tell you that something is not true but your religion says it is or vice versa. You're using some bad logic here. You're starting with "All religion is false" as a the starting point to arrive at the conclusion of "your religion is false". I'm here because I have applied logic. I have experimented with my religion, and my experimentation has brought me to where I am. I have found it to bless my life as and not contradict other sources of knowledge. I have found my religion to be a better, more reliable source of truth than "science" though. Science gets us iteratively closer to truths, not doubt, but the result of a scientific experiment never gives us absolute truth. The scientific method is about disproving things. It ultimately moves us from one imperfect model to a better but still imperfect model. > If a premise is false, then conclusions based on those same premises can only lead you to the wrong conclusion. Wrong - that's actually a false premise, an innocuous one at that, but at least easily disprovable. Proof by contradiction: 1) Suppose that x = -1 (i.e. true premise) 2) Then a false premise is x = 1 (i.e. contradicts the true premise) 3) From the false premise, conclude x^2 = 1 4) That's correct though, contradicting your statement of "false premises can only lead to wrong conclusions". ... That's pretty much the entire point of my post - false premises don't always lead to false conclusions, and if you think false premises preclude any conclusions built upon them from being true through other logical means, then you're throwing out the baby with the bath water.