Continued from “The Roots of Distrust, Part 1“
What does it mean “to know“?
First, one must believe. Secondly, it must be true.
Religion is belief without the truth. Science is all about the truth. Scientific desire for truth is so strong that it invites any and all skeptics to take their best shot at disproving a theory or debunking said truth. Religious belief is so strong that it feels no need to burden itself with the petty details of truth. Science and truth just get in the way of a useful story.
In order for something to be true it must be hypothesized, tested, peer reviewed, and must stand up to the scrutiny of all who want to analyze this something.
The tenets of religion have been hypothesized… and that’s where this process ends. That’s not to say that these tenets are false , just that they’ve never been taken any further through this process. In the many thousands of years of existence there hasn’t been a single valid test confirming this hypothesis. Why not? Simply, it is not possible. It is beyond the realm of scientific inquiry.
Truth is what the verifiable facts say it is. Truth lies in the direction that the evidence leads. If a person is presented with facts and evidence and still chooses not to believe the truth, or at least seek corroborating information,then he is no more than a shrew doomed to be the prey of con-artist wolves and charlatan jackals.
If one is presented with the truth based on verifiable evidence and facts, and then chooses an argument contrary to this position, any claims made based on that argument are absolute nonsense. Any premise contrary to this truth must be false and any subsequent argument is rendered moot.
Applied to religion:
If one creates an entire belief system based on a false major premise then the entire belief system, no matter how staunchly defended, can be nothing more than utter nonsense.
Stay tuned for Part 3 of “The Roots of Distrust”