4 ms·

Science is not some abstract thing, disconnected from the rest of the world. The age of the universe is not magically separate from clay pots in Mesopotamia or

Science is not some abstract thing, disconnected from the rest of the world. The age of the universe is not magically separate from clay pots in Mesopotamia or the fact that one's parents immigrated from Italy. We know where these religions came from, roughly how they formed, and we have good ideas about who wrote their holy books. The mystery is solved unless you care about the fine details. There are thousands of religions throughout history, and there is no reason to think anything special about one over another. You cannot believe in a religious worldview and commonsense facts about the world. They are logically inconsistent. On the epistemic point, you're right, but you have to give up commonsense beliefs or coherence if you go the religion route. Deductive logic should not be swept under the rug.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
> You cannot believe in a religious worldview and commonsense facts about the world. They are logically inconsistent. These two statements are logically inconsistent. You're assuming or implying that the only "way" to believe is by deriving your beliefs from facts using logic. In actual fact reasoning and belief are more nuanced and less consistent that that. It's completely possible to simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs or to use incompatible mental models. It may predispose you to certain other reasoning errors, but then so does holding the belief that all of your beliefs are logically derived. The fact that most significant scientific discoveries were made by people with religious beliefs should give you serious pause when proposing this, honestly. How do you reconcile that incompatibility. In fact even still, taken as a demographic, researchers are much less religious than the general population but still much more religious than we would be able to tolerate if the practice of science was completely incompatible with a religious belief.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  Put epistemology to the side. Logical consequence applies to all of your beliefs, no matter how you came to arrive to them. For example, you wouldn't believe (p & ~p) or (p -> ~p), independent of what your beliefs are. The fact that people can compartmentalize different inconsistent mental models really has no bearing on whether any given proposition is true or not. Humans are complex and prone to believing in superstition.

giraffe_lady 4y ago

> You cannot believe in a religious worldview and commonsense facts about the world. They are logically inconsistent. These two statements are logically inconsistent. You're assuming or implying that the only "way" to believe is by deriving your beliefs from facts using logic. In actual fact reasoning and belief are more nuanced and less consistent that that. It's completely possible to simultaneously hold contradictory beliefs or to use incompatible mental models. It may predispose you to certain other reasoning errors, but then so does holding the belief that all of your beliefs are logically derived. The fact that most significant scientific discoveries were made by people with religious beliefs should give you serious pause when proposing this, honestly. How do you reconcile that incompatibility. In fact even still, taken as a demographic, researchers are much less religious than the general population but still much more religious than we would be able to tolerate if the practice of science was completely incompatible with a religious belief.

vehemenz 4y ago
Put epistemology to the side. Logical consequence applies to all of your beliefs, no matter how you came to arrive to them. For example, you wouldn't believe (p & ~p) or (p -> ~p), independent of what your beliefs are. The fact that people can compartmentalize different inconsistent mental models really has no bearing on whether any given proposition is true or not. Humans are complex and prone to believing in superstition.