We don't assume that metaphysical reality is not true.
We state that if there is one, then Faith is a very bad way of knowing about it, and the differences among the various Faiths prove it for us.

Two of the older forum threads discussed scientism at length as well.

First
Second

Many food for thought over here, thanks a lot. However, the assumption that metaphysical reality is not true because we can't discover it with the processes we use to discover the physical reality doesn't seem entirely convincing. Don't get me wrong, I am 100% naturalist/materialist but I would perfectly understand that someone thinks differently.

The main problem I have here is the double standard regarding arrogance. Theists rather oftenly point out that naturalists are arrogant beause they want to "use science to understand everything". On the other hand, they claim a special transcendental way of knowing what is true, namely faith, but we can't criticize it since it is their personal beliefs.

It's like how religious people accuse atheists of having their heart hardened to god or are blind to things only believers can see. It's a load of bullshit that they think they have access to special feelings and messages that come directly from god. That's what the aunt was talking about, refusing to explain further. I think some believers know they don't get very far in an argument because why yes, we are blocked up and impeded by sense not to wander over to that foolish place. They of course think it's better over there where they are filtering the same world we have into a different framework, where bad things are revealing god's merciful wrath instead of just how the world and people are, and good things are god's love and grace. There is no expectation that god's love will touch people who need it the most. That's just the way god has to be, for our own good. For whose own good?

That's the thing. If god can't fix some people's lives instantly (as an omnipotent can), but this is for our own good, who is "we"? Why is it the best for "us" if those people are not helped? It's very special to be chosen to see things this way, this sick, selfish way, and cop out of explaining it because we're too stupid to get it. Rather, it's too stupid to try to explain, so that's her diplomatic way of giving up and saving face.

Science strives to be objective. Being a human endeavor, it can never be 100% so. But because of the iterative nature of experimentation (and the harnessing of the very human urge to prove that you're smarter than the other guy), most mistakes are quickly sorted out by other scientists. I've never seen theologists operate this way.

GodlessnFree, you might ask your aunt why she thinks that the universe has any metaphysical properties at all. Whence does her knowledge of them derive? By definition they are non-observable, and therefore unknowable to us. Under those conditions, the Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist perspective on them has exactly the same weight as the Christian one, and one's choice of which religion to follow is arbitrary.

Science is objective.
For some reason or another, scientists disagree only on advanced concepts where evidence is scarcely available and difficult to interpret, and such disagreements are not correlated with where a scientist grew up.
But with time, consensus is built, because evidence and continuous critique convinces everybody.
(Take a physics book, it will teach you the same concepts regardless if you bought it in China or in US).
For example, you will find no scientist rejecting the Maxwell Laws of Electrodynamics.
Science provides a very solid framework to evaluate the reliability of a scientific claim and its limits of applicability.

Religion is subjective.
There is vast disagreement on the basic dogmas, or on which Holy Book(s) is the right one, on the nature of God and its effect on reality.
With time, rather than finding a consensus, schisms happen and religions are fractured in thousands of smaller denomination each claiming to know the real Truth.
Most believers are affected by geography, ie, accept whatever religion they are born with.
For example, you can't agree on which one is the true Prophet.
Also, if you are born in US, chances are that your prophet is Jesus while if you are born in Middle East chances are that your prophet is Muhammad.
Religion has no way to evaluate a claim but "faith", which basically amounts to "anything can be true if I really really believe it true."

In short, someone claiming that religion can find things that science can't, should be ready to make a case about:
a) WHICH Truth is the real one (but a case can't be made, because even the respective academics can't convince each other).
b) How to distinguish religious claims from made up shit.

BTW, all this will comfort you but won't move the faithful one inch, they will just reject the thought.

Science is based on evidence.
Faith is believing in stuff without evidence nor reason, but because "you feel it" or because you consciously choose to believe what makes you feel good.

From this point of view, your aunt is entirely coherent.

The problem with faith, is that it does not provide any way to decide when you are right and when you are deluded.
By your aunt reasoning, she is right, and also all other religions (or Christian denominations) are right, because they have Faith they are.

"So tell me aunt, on one side I have you telling me, by Faith, that yours is the one true religion, and by the other side I have a Muslim, telling me that HIS is the one true religion. From the outside, how do I decide who is the deluded one?"
Adjust as required.
If "Faith" is the way to the Truth, it is not working for a good 90% of the planet and it would be arrogant of your aunt to decide (like everyone else) that she is in the 10%.
If she tries to make an argument that Christians are superior to Muslim, call her out for using reason.

Or in short, as Nietzsche said: "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything".

I am assuming that the people reading this are smart enough to know that the desert myths are false. I usually have an easy time debunking the anecdotes/ logical fallacies that theists use to prove the existence of a god/ their god.

However, yesterday I was having a conversation with my aunt who unfortunately happens to be a nun and I asked her for evidence for her god. She replied that she didn't need any evidence because it was not a "scientific claim" but rather a claim that is beyond the "realm of science". I asked her then what was her reason(s) to believe in her god, her reply was "faith". According to her, faith is simply "the way to know the reality beyond science". Then, she said that I was closed to faith because I had been absorbed by the deceit of "scientism". She also claimed that she couldn't explain me her reasons for believing in her god because since I believed in "scientism" my mind was "closed to anything beyond science". That seems patent bullshit.

This isn't the first time I find this ridiculous argument. Popular christians of different intellectual capabilities ranging from John Lennox to VenomfangX always try to "debunk" atheism by equating it with "Scientism". Francis Collins said that scientism was a sign of close-mindedness. Lennox illustrated his criticism of scientism with a metaphor: Aunt Matilda's Cake. The metaphor is often praised among faitheads, I suggest you watch it in case you haven't done so yet. In a nutshell, the metaphor of the cake explains that science can allow us to know the physical properties of the cake (density, weight, volume, material composition) but not the metaphysical properties of it (purpose, maker, proper use). Then the cake is compared to the universe and Lennox claims that the universe also has metaphysical properties that are beyond science and require another way of reasoning in order to be known.

Well, enough of my rambling, I wanted to hear opinions/objections towards this high-sounding but really fallacious argument of "The Limits of Science". The best I got yet is AronRa's brilliant response: "Science may not have all the answers, but some answers are better than no answers at all, and that's what religion gives you".

Cheers.

Oh... Right. It's the weird name that confused me. It's a proper Hindu name and that organisation he posted is pretty common here. It's a hindu reform movement. Harmless actually, most of the stuff they try and get you on is incredibly progressive. Things like no caste and group worship rather than a priesthood and encouraging social awareness. It's weird that a spambot would have that name since most people who are for these agencies are kind of poor

Its probably a "see my organisation isn't as bad as the rest of the people you bang on about" post.

It is probably worth leaving intact because of Avicenna's response- but he should realize that he's not addressing a poster who's going to return for a discussion, and probably not addressing a live human at all.

Sadly, there are four or five posts by dattaswami all hawking the same site. Pretty sure it's an SEO bot - pity people have put the effort into replying :-/ Blog-side has had a busy day on the spam filter, too - cleared forty-ish out of there this morning.

I spammed the other posts by dattaswami, along with the responses. But I'm reluctant to delete this one because of AVlCENNA's response.

Again, this is a spamshot. I'm starting to supsect it's a bot.

Ah, this is where my forte comes in... (Atheist Ex-Hindu)

Aswathama's attack was to avenge his father's death (Drona) and was regarded as without valour because he killed men while sleeping. The entire point of that is for Aswathama to point out that they killed his father the same way (Drona was killed by people massaging the truth. Someone killed an elephant called Aswathama. Drona thought it was his son. People bum rushed him when he was either in grief or astral projecting to find out the truth. People didn't lie to him, they just said the words "The Elephant" very quietly so he didn't hear. Yes mahabaratha's heroes are not that heroic in terms of good and bad)

The Gita is actually an elegant mechanism for the removal of the Hindu equivalent of Leviticus. There is a section called the Laws of Manu whose laws are so batshit insane they belong to R'lyeh rather than a religion. Put it this way, the method of dealing with an adulterer in abrahamic religions is stoning. In hinduism it used to be "being fed to starving dogs". Granted both kill people in horrific ways but frankly the "being eaten by dogs" is a lot more disturbing". The Gita is actually a thesis on variable morality that places duty and outcome over the action itself. The entire Mahabaratha is a very very good morality piece thanks to the presence of Karna whose fulfilment of duty and upholding a honour code superior to everyone else's results in him actually "beating god".

In the end they point out that Karna (demigod of Surya the god of the sun and the brother of Arjuna) even stripped of the protection of his father and his weapons was still deadly enough to fight off Arjuna (demigod of Indra lord of the Devas), Krishna, Agni and Hanuman simultaneously. The only way to kill him was to cheat and shoot him while he had his back turned (A giant no no in Hindu valour)

The mahabaratha is meant to be a tragedy of acquaintance and valour in the face of duty. The ultimate joke is that the villains had the attributes of Heroes. Drona, Bishma and Karna were model human beings whose crimes were to "rise out of your caste", "to bismirch the honour of a single woman by a series of unfortunate circumstances", "to want to be better than his parent's caste". Can you imagine the insult to an individual for a woman to say "I will not marry him because he is just a cart driver?", or people refusing to teach him because of who his parents were? Or trying to be killed at birth?

It's filled with bits you are meant to argue over and so on. The whole thing is not meant to be read as a guide to anything and merely to inspire you by example. It's why Karna is so popular in India despite being a villain.

As for hindu terrorism? It exists and it is vile in India. The BJP are nothing less than deadly facists who trample on the name of Gandhi in exchange for the idea that Hinduism and India is superior while their own kids speak english and attend foreign universities. They are the Lowest Common Denominator and one step away from such thugs such as the SS (Shiv Sena, as odious as the famous SS, famed for burning muslims during the Gujarat Riots) the Ram Sena (The idiots who breakup foreign restaurants in Bangalore) and the various rioters who have killed thousands of people.

What they encourage is the worst of India and Indians should be sad that these idiots exist in the land of Gandhi. They are the reason I am an atheist and I decided that they were grade A douchebags aged 8 simply because I didn't want to be associated with the same faith. We cannot point the finger at muslims and say "well you guys are worse". Comparing yourself to the worst excess of Islam is like saying "well atleast I am not Bin Laden" which doesn't mean anything in terms of what you are as people.

Today, the difference between religions has gone to the level of terrorism and the peace is not only cracked into pieces but also ground to fine powder. The ignorant fanatics of a religion are killing the innocent people of other religion. Such killing is not Jihad of Islam and also not Dharma Yuddha of Hinduism. You may argue that Mohammad brought the unity of religions through sword and therefore conversion of other religion into your religion must be through violence.

In the time of Mohammad, the religions were many and were quarrelling with each other by swords and that was affecting the peace to a great extent. Mohammad preached the unity of religions and finally had to use the sword only to stop several swords fighting with each other. That is not the situation in the present time. In every country all the religions are co-existing peacefully like the different members of the same family. The reason is that the humanity is well advanced in education and improved a lot in the faculty of logic through advancements of science and technology. Of course, you are free to teach your religion or even prove the defects of other religion through arguments and debates. If people are convinced, they will follow your religion. If not, you have to leave them peacefully.

Q’ran says that one should preach about Allah and leave the person with safety. Mohammad never said to use the sword when the religions are co-existing with peace and love to each other.

Gita came out from a war. But the war was not based on the deference in the religions. It was based on eradicating the injustice used to grab the property of some brothers by their brothers. Lord Krishna tried a lot for compromise. It was a war based on the division of property and not on the division of religions. Even in that war, innocent people living in villages and cities were not killed through terrorism. Only selected soldiers fought with each other in a selected place called Kurukshetra. You should not say that Aswatthama killed the people in sleep in the midnight and this is a part of Dharma Yuddha [Jihad]. But Aswatthama killed the soldiers of other side only and never entered the city of Pandavas and killed innocent people as done by terrorists today. Seeing these cruel activities of terrorism based on the difference in the religions, all the three human incarnations [Krishna, Jesus and Mohammad] from heaven are deeply pained because the same absolute God exists in all the three forms, who is the single creator of the entire humanity. The father is terribly pained if one of his sons kills the other son.

[spam link deleted —DF]

I think that god might be like Vorbis from 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett.

We can speculate, make up gods, write holy books, look at what our predecessors speculated, but ultimately if there is a god, it is unlikely that humans would be able to comprehend what it is.

Even if it were possible to comprehend such a creature, it doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to try. Lovecraft FTW.

@Miscreant - perhaps the reason nobody knows anything about god is that they need for there to be a god and because he's god, speculate a lot on the qualities he must have. I mean, if you are going to tell me all about god, I'm going to ask you questions, and so why should I worship the god you tell me about, or believe he exists at all. It's all word of mouth, and that's some tip-off right there.

When you add up all the qualities of this amazing creator, omniscience, love, free will, a lot of the qualities go into explaining why things just are the way they are. The way things are do not form contradictions until you add in someone made them this way, that you ought to be humble and devoted instead of an asshole punk ingrate, and then faced with a contradiction then presuming god is perfect and loving, just doesn't line up with having a good enough reason to send people to hell or even allow havoc on earth, and when we can't line these things up, chalk it up to humility and faith in a god who is perfect and loving and has to have a good reason, an unknowable reason. The fear of going to hell seems to work this way, or aligning with the devil, or chalking up all the bad things as the devil's work... just a pile of stories to adjust the things that don't make any sense to us. Well they must make sense to someone or they wouldn't have happened that way, since he created the darn thing.

History is just long enough, information is available enough, and people are just afraid of using their head because the inconsistencies will bother them and they don't want to be without god that they decide to have faith and let things be. You can let things be because they are the way they are ... without a perfect, omniscient, loving creator who gave you free will.

"I think, if God exists, we simply know absolutely nothing of what it is."

I think so too.

We can speculate, make up gods, write holy books, look at what our predecessors speculated, but ultimately if there is a god, it is unlikely that humans would be able to comprehend what it is.

I think, if God exists, we simply know absolutely nothing of what it is. All of the information we have available about God has come purely from the musings of our peers and predecessors.

What irks me is when people present information about a subject they are completely ignorant of as if it were factual. It saddens me to think of all the people, myself included, who buy into the illusion.

I think it really says something about our human nature, that we feel so lost we can readily and blindly accept even the absurdities of religion.

Perhaps, but it looks a lot like God likes to burn ants with a magnifying glass.

Yep. I didn't say it said anything good about such a God. The dark side of it is if the universe is made only for a deity's aesthetic pleasure, then at some level agonizing screams and laments (and pox pustules, and rendt flesh) are aesthetically pleasing to God, in some arrangement. I'm sure there's an apropos Bible verse or two about that...

Perhaps, but it looks a lot like God likes to burn ants with a magnifying glass.

From God's point of view, could he ever get surprised about an event?

According to "normal" theist beliefs, the answer would have to be no, which as I see it, leads to God knowing how everything is going to turn out. Pre-destiny, which has no place for freewill. This presents a God that created a complete eternal system where he knows the fall of every sparrow, before he got started.

I still enjoy movies that I've seen before and know how they end. The aesthetic value of something does not rely upon surprise or suspense even for humans. Who knows how an entity like a God draws value from events and activities, but if it would be anything like a human reaction, at the very least foreknowledge does not completely preclude value from being extracted from watching it unfold.

If there is such a God, maybe he made creation simply because he thought it was aesthetically pleasing.

I understood what she meant. It's like we're on a DVD of our own lives that can't play out some other way - and where does free will come in. What is the love of god for us have to do with our own lives and our own choices?

I mean, what is the plan and who is it for? If it's for us, but we can't change anything, then how are we supposed to also have free will to choose to love this god? If we are actors in a play that's already made to the end, and we just don't know how it will end but we're headed there, how is this a gift for us? It's something god made for himself if he has some plan or even if he doesn't. He has already seen the DVD then he puts it in the player and we are actors to entertain him. He is not for us and we cannot choose to be for him - we are for him whether we like it or not.

I also think of Jesus and what makes him suspicious at the outset is not being of the time-travel variety. A god who knows the future comes to earth and blends in. A really impressive thing he could have done was show everyone his new iPhone and sneakers with the wheels in them, install electricity in their huts, and fly away in his airplane before they came to crucify him.

But he brought wine to a party that was fizzling out and died on a cross like people tended to do. Think how many non-Christians there are in the world simply because that doesn't sound too snazzy to them enough to believe in it.

"It's like Michelangelo painting the Mona Lisa for Mona Lisa, it's absurd."

Um. *Da Vinci* painted the Mona Lisa. He was commissioned to do so by the sitter's family. So he did in fact paint it for her. Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean.

From God's point of view, could he ever get surprised about an event?

According to "normal" theist beliefs, the answer would have to be no, which as I see it, leads to God knowing how everything is going to turn out. Pre-destiny, which has no place for freewill. This presents a God that created a complete eternal system where he knows the fall of every sparrow, before he got started.

And the kicker is that he did this for us. It's like Michelangelo painting the Mona Lisa for Mona Lisa, it's absurd.

Ursa:
I'm not directly quoting a passage, this is just a basic tenet of theology. You are free to make your choice and then God/Allah/Karma judges you accordingly. It's less one specific passage and more a central idea which is touched on again and again. The Day of Judgement, Heaven and Hell, sawab(your reward for good deeds), sin, all rest on the fact that you aren't being judged arbitrarily. Actually, if Muslim theologians admit that Islam is against free will, then they've already lost the debate. Now their god is powerless, he can't even control his own actions, let alone the actions of humans.

@Darwin:
I would agree that as soon as the word "choose" enters the equation, it implies free will.

But languages are slippery things. Do you read Arabic? Is so, what is the original word, and is it found in the Qur'an, or just its commentaries? What are the connotations of that word in Arabic?

LMNOP: Well, they insist on the fact that you people choose to good or bad. That's pretty close to every religion's definition of free will.

@Miscreant: Oh how I remember asking that question of a few of my christian friends years ago. It caused no small amount of discomfort for them. It caused a whole lot of discomfort for me. It's been said, but the next question to ask yourself is why a loving god would create a whole system where people would be born into a situation where they are blackmailed into choosing god or burning forever. Any kind of loving being who would punish ANYONE--for eternity--for not choosing to worship it, is not loving. And that's really what the choice is all about--a jealous being who needs you to love and worship it badly enough to threaten hell.

The whole thing is nonsensical. God created people with the ability/propensity to be imperfect then he blames them for their imperfection. He creates hell to punish the imperfect people he creates. He decides that the only way around that imperfection is a bloody human sacrifice. He becomes a human so he can sacrifice himself--thereby making the imperfect humans acceptable. What a stupid and convoluted story.

Congratulations on being brave enough to ask the hard questions. You are on the road to true freedom.