With the amazing world of science facts, all one after another disproving gods and religions; we need to stop asking whether believing in gods or religion is rational, and instead start asking how strongly holding onto religious belief is even cognitively possible.
What makes some believed Truth actually True?
To me truth is a value judgment we place on what we think or believe is is evidence. Therefore, the rational imperative on us is to demonstrate that the proposed evidence or reasoned assumption is actually of a high epistemic standard with as much valid and reliable reason and evidence as possible from a credible source as possible which then makes some believed “Truth” actually worthy to be seen as Epistemologically True thus a “justified true belief”.
Broadly, epistemic means “relating to knowledge (itself) or to the degree of its validation” and epistemological means ” critical study of knowledge, validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge and the study or theory of various aspects of or involved in knowledge”.
There is much philosophical debate about knowledge. However, for the sake of most arguments, I’m fine working from the definition of “justified true beliefs”. But I always do so tentatively as problems could come up (the Gettier problem, etc.).
Therefore, I follow the standard in philosophy Justified True Beliefs = knowledge and when such knowledge reaches a high or the highest epistemic standard it can be dubbed epistemically certain.
To established justification I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.
Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.
For the true part I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.
The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.
For the beliefs part I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.
The “ethics of belief” refers to a cluster of questions at the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central question in the debate is whether there are norms of some sort governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Is it ever or always morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence? Is it ever or always morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of it? Is it ever or always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief? Are there some ways of obtaining evidence that are themselves immoral or imprudent?
HISTORIC DISCOVERY: Physicists ‘PROVE’ God DIDN’T create the Universe: http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612340/Origin-of-the-universe-riddle-solved-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God
Oldest Known Planet: 13 billion years old. The ancient planet is more than twice as old as Earth and a mere billion years younger than the estimated age of the universe. Its discovery, made using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope, is evidence that planets began forming soon after the big bang and may be very abundant in our galaxy. http://
We are evolution and not some special creation. It is a flaw in reasoning to think that we evolved naturally and then somehow magically got some supernatural soul. In fact the chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago. Most of the big differences between human and chimpanzee DNA lie in regions that do not code for genes, according to a new study. Instead, they may contain DNA sequences that control how gene-coding regions are activated and read. http://
Science shows a involved, intelligent, and caring god as ridiculous when you look at the history of life on the Earth which has witnessed five mass extinctions of species as a result of natural calamities. Where 90 to 99 percent of species ever existing on the planet have already become extinct and the fifth one – the most renowned extinction – hit 65 million years ago, simply death and destruction reigns on land and at sea. To highlight this fact is, about 70 plant and animal species become extinct every day, which makes about 3 species per hour and where is any intelligence or caring design in all that? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/08/040816001443.htm
Archaeological evidence debunks the beliefs that holy books are historic. Such as how archaeological evidence contradicts all four stories that make up the foundations of the bible; and show the bible was written, re-written, edited, and redacted for the purposes of propaganda. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1265119/-How-Archaeology-Disproves-Biblical-History#
Worlds Oldest Art “rock carvings” at least 290,000 Years Ago – Auditorium Cave, Bhimbetka, and Daraki-Chattan (rock shelters) (India), have what could possibly be some of the oldest art that involves a series of petroglyphs “rock carvings” such as cupules or cup marks and linear grooves made with pointed stone tool, which at least demonstrates a abstract almost ritual intentionality (the power of minds to represent things) even if their meaning is in question.
The story of Sasha Eliasson, the man who died twice last year—and lived to tell the world about it. The first time he died, Eliasson was left with no vital signs after the damage from a terrible motorcycle accident caused his body to shut down. His second death was during surgery several months later. Both of the clinical deaths lasted about two minutes time before doctors revived him. Eliasson explains why we shouldn’t worry about god after all, “Death is death. Once you’re dead, that’s it. It’s over.” http://firsttoknow.com/the-man-who-died-twice/?utm_source=facebookpage
Disabling parts of the brain with magnets can weaken faith in god and change attitudes of biogtry against people, study finds: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/news/brain-magnets-decrease-faith-in-god-religion-immigrants-a6695291.html What is also intersting is how the same part of the brain encourages religious belief and prejudice.
Is Your Religion a Cult? Of Course It Is! http://www.tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/jesse-richards-commentary/21286-is-your-religion-a-cult-of-course-it-is.html
Some say but Damien science ‘facts’ change because science changes based on what it observes. Strive not to be dogmatic about science – absolute claims are dogma no matter your stance. And the ever changing nature of scientific understanding is reason to abstain judgement and not refer to them as facts.
Well, science facts when changed are changed to the new best available science facts. Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One is not removed from strong stances simply by saying so. Dogmatic freethinking, ie, not allowing conformation of a validated thing as facts, is still dogmatic. It is not wrong to hold a closed view such as a conformation of facts, if it is proven and willing to alter if disproven. So I am fine in saying I have a dogmatic desire for truth built on valid and reliable reason and evidence. Understanding “science” is to grasp that it is not limited to one philosophy view. I value Scientific Realism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
One of my favorite metaphors for the relationship between reliability is that of the target. Think of the center of the target as the concept that you are trying to measure. Imagine that for each person you are measuring, you are taking a shot at the target. If you measure the concept perfectly for a person, you are hitting the center of the target. If you don’t, you are missing the center. The more you are off for that person, the further you are from the center.
But Damien, I am confused about we evolved from apes 5 million years ago but only made rock drawings 250,000 years ago,if we evolved from apes why did that cycle end, why are there still apes. To me it the big bang and the beginning spoke about in the bible coexist. 1 problem with the big bang, if the big bang happened all planets planets would be made of the same materials,who separated the elements into different planets let alone the sun. Please explain how the big bang is real?
First not understanding the science does not make the bible real.
One way to understand the difference between history and fiction in the Bible is through the Old Testament’s natural division into three parts:
- The world and its nature (Adam to Terah).
- The Israelites and their purpose (Abraham to Moses).
- The Kingdom of Israel and life in Jerusalem (roughly from King David onward).
Even a cursory look reveals a clear and significant pattern. In the first section, characters live many hundreds of years, and in the second, well into their second century. Only in the third section do biblical figures tend to live biologically reasonable lives. For example, Adam, in the first section, lives to the symbolic age of 930, and Noah lives even twenty years longer than that. Abraham, from the second section, lives to be 175, his son Issac to 180, and Jacob “dies young” at the age of 147. But the lifespans from King David onward, in the third section, are in line with generally accepted human biology. Furthermore, historians mostly agree that only the third section represents actual history. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-hoffman/the-bible-isnt-history_b_2803409.html
Dogs evolved from wolves and yet there are still wolves. Recent molecular evidence shows that dogs are descended from the gray wolf, domesticated about 130,000 years ago. But if they all share a common ancestor, why do toy poodles and Great Danes seem to have little in common? Years of selective breeding by humans has resulted in the artificial “evolution” of dogs into many different types. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html
And how we know the big bang is real? Gravitational Waves from the Big Bang can be detected for one. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/
Ok but Damien, dogs are the same genus, evolution relates all species not just same genus, how about how that relates to human.
Well the genus Homo is mainly modern humans, but ancestral lines includ Homo eructus, Homo habilis, Homo neanderthalensis,Homo denisova, Homo hidelbergensis, Homo floresiensis and others. However, researchers: classify chimps as same genus as humans. Humans and chimps share 99.4% of DNA — genetic code for life — according to a team led by Morris Goodman of the Wayne State University School of Medicine. “We humans appear as only slightly remodeled chimpanzee-like apes,” said Goodman. The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, proposes that chimps be added to the genus Homo, currently reserved only for humans. It’s an idea sure to spark renewed debate about evolution and humanity’s relationship with animals. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/…/2003-05-20-chimps_x.htm