Hare Krishna

[Akincana Krishna dasa]

Yeah, sorry, this is ignorant. Science doesn't place limitations on what can be learned, learned about, or how it can be learned. It's only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised. Science is self-correcting, ever-changing, applicable to everything. It values careful observation and respects facts even when they are disquieting and seem to contradict conventional wisdom.

Your "truth", however, is one giant argument from authority - static, unquestionable, unchangeable, untestable, unexaminable, ignorant of observation and fact. Your "truth" can only propagate through religion, because it has to be brainwashed into people to make it appear reasonable. Your religion in particular has a well-known reputation for being a leader in brainwashing its rigid dogma.

If there are other valid ways of knowing that god/gods exist, science places no limitations on using them. However, based on the accumulated knowledge from thousands of years of observations, the reports of "god" or "gods" are a result of the known irrational characteristics of human beings rather than the actions of supernatural beings.

Science is a wonderful style of figuring things out. It's super great, and I support science.

Scientism is the belief that science is all the real knowledge there is and that anything that can't be explain by science can't be counted as knowledge. Scientism is an attempt to monopolize knowledge.

When you say "arguments from authority are worthless" - I have to ask, aren't a lot of the things you think you know founded on the authority of others? How do you learn anything, for example, without first accepting authority? Imagine a kid coming into a classroom from day one and challenging anything and everything, defying his teacher "your authority is worthless! why do i have to listen to anything you have to say?" Or can you read a book full of new thoughts and ideas without skeptically thinking "who the hell is this author to tell me anything! i can't learn anything from this person! don't try to brainwash me!"? Is that a very mature, balanced position, that leads to real depth of knowledge?

Yet you are comfortable to talk and think like that about religion. Why? How can you be so sure no religion has any kind of knowledge to offer you?

The answer, of course, is that you logically can't. It's just a reflection of your faith or your feelings about the world.

Another point is that, if we're trying to discuss the validity of religion, or a particular idea in religion, you have to make an argument to establish your point, not argue as though it were true. That's called begging the question. You're arguing on the assumption that my religions claims are false, not proving that they are false.

There are valid ways of knowing God. I've learned them, and I'm working on realizing them for myself. You're welcome to think that what I'm into is bullshit. But if you think that that's because you're somehow more logical and rational than me, you're really fooling yourself.