Search for Verity vs. Faith
(Top Posts - Distance From Belief
in theism - 032201)

Is search for verity the most reasonable and sensible basis
for understanding our natural place in a natural universe,
perhaps one of an all-but infinite array of universes?

Is an underlying anti-bias, doubt, reason, and a searching
nature the most reasonable and sensible foundation for
understanding the ability of disbelievers to depart the
'follow-the-leader' mentality of our childhood and seek
verity in as independent a manner as possible?

If the answer to these 2 questions is yes, it's difficult to
be OK with the fact that many are taught and raised to
suspect any non-belief in their religion to be worthy of
______ (insert anti-human activity or position here).

Downright scary when you look at the past and see the
harm that has come to humankind due to the teaching of
personal biases in this manner, biases which have included
at their basic core an 'us vs. them' mentality.

What about claims of miracles, contacts with god, and
the like?

Audiences would be wise to weigh the likelihood that the
related experiences are phenomena of emotions interacting
with the brain, some well-intentioned / others devious and
manipulative, social and cultural manifestations, group-
induced psychoses, reflections of peer influences/wants/
needs/desires/fears, reflections of inadequate knowledge
of or lack of respect for naturalism, and compare those
explanations to the likelihood that imaginary beings mating
to the belief system that the experiencer was impressed by/
inflicted with from birth (in most cases) actually had any
reality to it.

As for bible claims, note both the lack of knowledge of
naturalism and the deep social/cultural intertwining of super-
naturalism with every aspect of society in those days, and
therein resides further rational explanations for the expres-
sions of all sorts of superstitions/super-beings in the bible
and other so-called holy documents of that time period in
human history.

The problem with religiously-based revelations are the
parental, social, cultural, financial, sexual, and largest of
all, 'enticement of immortality / threat of immortal torment'
aspects that lead most rational folks to doubt the under-
pinning verity of the imagined beings for which the Hindu,
Buddhist, Catholic, Muslim, Mormon, Protestant, Jehovah's
Witness, etc... is claiming an experience as validation of
their imagined beings really existing.

Each person's imaginary beings are reflections of the factors
listed above and as such are totally, rationally, and logically
understandable and explainable based on those factors.

Reason is a survival trait. Our knowledge of our natural
world has only recently been described in a manner that
would give enough answers to replace the 'I don't know'
or 'a super-being must have done it' with 'here's a totally
natural explanation'. I use a 'last 200 years' figure as an
approximation of when our knowledge of the natural world
exploded to the extent that super-beings were no longer
a viable explanation (like they ever were) for our being,
but many of religious faith would argue that we still haven't
come far enough.

If you look back on human evolution and consider the
vast period of time that passed before we began to develop
language (estimates vary widely on that), bury our dead,
manufacture tools of increasing complexity over hundreds
of thousands of years, develop art (36,000 years ago - cur-
rent estimate), develop symbolic written language (~6,000
years ago), develop printing presses, develop computers,
educate most of humankind (still a long ways to go there
and see the anti-education efforts of religions and most
countries, especially as relates to reality when it comes to
history, for a clue as to why that's not an easy goal to
attain) ...

Well, it's no wonder that humankind still clings to ancient
perceptions developed in our genetic-memetic world which
included little natural understanding until the last 200 years.
Until recently, our species was ignorant of continental drift,
causes of storms, causes of volcanoes, causes of earth-
quakes, causes of impacts from the sky such as asteroids
and comets, the vast fossil record, evolution, dinosaurs,
genes, DNA, the vast beyond vast size of our universe, etc.

So, since our knowledge is so virginal, so new, we, those
who are willing to search for answers in our natural world,
can clearly see the reasons why religious faith in imaginary
beings persists as compared to the naturalistic explanations
for accepting our origins in a natural world.

Persons not of religious faith find the reasons for religious
faith unreasonable when it comes to verity. Persons of reli-
gious faith, based on factors specified above, most having
little to do with verity and much to do with desire/need/lack
of knowledge regarding our natural world, find religious faith
to be too seductive to dismiss. You might think of it as 'the
sin of religious faith'.

Verity knows no bias (when considered as an absolute ex-
tant our perceptions). A natural understanding of our natural
world knows no supernatural *unless* reason leads one to
something other than an imagination of something.

If you understand our natural origins, a universe all-but be-
yond comprehension, all-but unfathomable complexity of our
natural world, then you know that humankind's true place in
the universe is to understand it. Only then will verity reveal
our ultimate origins and destiny. 'Made up' answers just don't
cut it anymore. Verity is the only noble enterprise and verity
knows not of imaginary beings except as applies to under-
standing the reasons why people persuade themselves into
following such things.

4-step logical underpinning of absence of religious faith
follows:

1. If you can logically replace 'little invisible pink furry friend'
with God or Allah or Shiva or any other imaginary being,
therein underlies a fatal flaw of religious faith.

2. If you can logically replace God or Allah or Shiva or any
other imaginary being with 'little invisible pink furry friend',
therein underlies a fatal flaw of religious faith.

3. If you cannot logically replace 'little invisible pink furry
friend' with God or Allah or Shiva or any other imaginary
being, therein underlies a fatal flaw of religious faith.

4. If you cannot logically replace God or Allah or Shiva or
any other imaginary being with 'little invisible pink furry
friend', therein underlies a fatal flaw of religious faith.

See where I'm coming from, there? Fatally flawed no matter
how you look at it, as exact specifications of imaginary
beings are all in the 'make believe' category as they are all
equally imaginary and exist only in the imagination of the
believer.

The only arguments involve the details of the imaginary being
attributes, human details steeped in myth, with the imaginary
beings in fact outside anything but unsubstantiated *claims*
of human experience.

As for imagined value, see social / cultural influences and
ponder / compare the value of imaginary beings to the value
of verity. If you value imaginary beings over verity, I suggest
you try out the 'little invisible pink furry friend' belief system.
See me for details, as I'd be more than happy to provide
a totally pro-human belief system for folks who wish to
center their lives around such a philosophy. I assure you,
no threats / damnation / torment / killing / worship / mone-
tary requests / guilt / authoritarianism / anti-humanism phi-
losophies will be part of the 'little invisible pink furry friend'
belief system.

- - -