Turduckin,
(edited slightly in an attempt not to be too offensive to Cris)
Too offensive? But offensive nevertheless, right? LOL, no problem.
Mathematics is a mostly rigorous and disciplined system.
Psychology is moderately rigorous and disciplined compared with Mathematics.
Religion is minimally rigorous and disciplined compared with Mathematics.
The degree of discipline is necessitated (in general) by the accessibility of the related subject.
Accessibility is defined by -
1) The degree to which definitions regarding the subject are generally accepted.
2) The degree to which the subject can be directly (or indirectly) examined.
3) The reducibility of the whole subject into examinable parts.
4) Complexity of the totality of the subject being examined.
For each subject being examined, one chooses the most rigorous and disciplined system that will yield useful results.
It would seem more appropriate to choose a system that is more likely to provide objective truth than one based on levels of subjectivity. Why not apply the same degree of objective reasoning to any subject no matter the degree of accessibility? Truth should be determined by the quality of the material that can be directly examined, detected, or observed.
The best fit to your proposal is the application of inductive logic.
Deductive logic achieves a true or false conclusion from examination of logical premises. A valid premise is one that is based on fact, i.e. an existing known truth.
Inductive logic does not reach such a conclusion but rather achieves a level of probability, where we can say the result is strongly inductive or perhaps weakly inductive. The best example could be likened to statistics. For example: The sun has been known to rise every day for thousands of years, therefore there is a strong inductive argument that allows us to state that the probability of the sun rising tomorrow is very high.
Note that both deductive and inductive logic depend entirely on some degree of factual support, i.e. some pre-existing truths. While deduction always results in either a true or false result, induction rests on levels of probability where even though the probability could be extremely high there would always remain a small finite probability that the result is wrong. For example, in the example of the sun rising it could be claimed that one day the sun might explode and so would not rise from then on.
Most of science is based on inductive reasoning.
Forgive me if you are already familiar with Induction and Deduction, although other readers might find this useful.
Mathematics uses both forms of logic with great precision.
Psychology, which is a branch of science, uses the scientific method for its conclusions. The nature of this discipline makes extensive use of inductive logic, and the practitioners understand these limitations. Note that the discipline continues to depend on factual support for its theories as is consistent with inductive and deductive logic.
Religion does not use the scientific method and hence does not accept the discipline of deductive or inductive logic for its primary claims, i.e. it is prepared to reach a conclusion without a factual basis.
Religion is less rigorous than psychology.
Religion, or more exactly religious truth (as opposed to theology, the rational study of religious truth) has by definition the most complex subject (god or nature of being), is largely irreducible and so is unyielding to conceptualization, and on the whole devoid of common definition because of its subjective nature.
What is meant by "religious truth"? If you are referring to real truth then there is no need to qualify it with the term "religious". If religious truth is not truth as generally understood then the only other alternative is "untruth". Now, I may seem to be just playing with words here but you have stressed that religious truth is somehow different so what else should I conclude? But I think what you are saying is that the degree of subjectivity is extremely high, but nevertheless, according to your perspective there is some real truth to the subject. And here you have mentioned gut feelings, intuition, psi, etc.
Now when we translate your interpretations to inductive logic we see that what you are really saying is that, psychology has many significantly weak inductive theories, but that religion has even more. Of course psychology has many very strong inductive theories defined through extensive observation and experiments, especially based on the results for neuroscience.
What we are really left with is a discipline, we can call religion, that has as its basis, from your perspective, weak inductive arguments, where the claimed factual support is gut feelings, psi, intuition, feelings of spirituality, etc.
It must be treated more like archeology or history than mathematics, and that is precisely the point of my original post.
Both these disciplines are also based on significant factual support and both have very strong inductive and deductive arguments in their favor, so I think your comparison is not valid in this respect.
Rationalists insist on applying too rigorous a standard, while adherents and believers fail to apply any rigorous and disciplined standard at all.
And here of course I disagree. Rationalists insist on factual support so they can reach deductive or inductive conclusions. We can see that this
single standard renders mathematics as being near perfection and religion being much nearer to useless. The point is that both are being tested under the same rigorous standard generally known as logic.
Why choose a less formalized system rather than a more formalized system?
Because things such as gut feeling, intuition, psi, spiritual existence, God et al cannot be studied by anything as formal as the scientific method. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about them.
Science is the search for knowledge and the scientific method has proven itself many times in this regard. The scientific method does not place any limits on what it can examine. If gut feelings can be shown to have a consistent results then that can be studied, if psi is measurable then that can be studied. But spiritual experiences and gods as yet cannot be shown to be any different from human imagination, and I agree are currently outside the application of the scientific method, primarily because no one has shown that they have any substance that can be detected.
They are real to me because first I had the subjective experience which lacked a rational explanation, and then I discovered the most formalized system that gave the current best explanation for dealing with the phenomena – religion (more precisely, religious truth or spirituality.
I note again the qualification of the word "truth".
You could also have concluded that there was no appropriate system that could explain your "experiences". Accepting that there is no explanation for a given perceived phenomenon is perfectly acceptable since there must still be more things we do not understand than the things we do.
You must also realize that what you have done is the same thing that early man did when faced with unexplainable phenomena, invent an explanation, and typically something mystical - from that we find the creation of superstitions of which religious beliefs are indistinguishable.
Do you also realize that religion is the lowest form, and least effective means for verification for any phenomena, i.e. it requires zero evidence or factual support for its conclusions.
All you have done is chosen a system that sets the minimum level of verification for the things you claim as being true. Without anything more substantial how can you distinguish your claims from simple delusions?
You have chosen the path of extreme rationalism, thereby IMHO limiting the areas of human experience that you can investigate.
From my perspective I have experienced many events where I felt I was correct only to be shown that truth is often not intuitive or pleasant. I have learnt to be objective and to not be fooled by unsupported speculations. I don't think I have limited myself, but instead I have developed effective techniques for the determination of real truth.
You resort to loaded words and phrases such as “undisciplined or “imaginative fantasies” to dismiss an entire field of human experience, simply because [again my IMHO] you lack the tools and/or flexibility of mind to study it.
For a long time I avoided using such phrases as "imaginative fantasies" when describing religious beliefs. But over time I found such a description as being considerably accurate. So it isn’t a loaded term from my perspective but I can understand how you might find it offensive.
But without any real factual support the idea of a god can only be the result of human imagination. And we usually consider extreme imaginative ideas as fantasies. And to anyone the idea of a super powerful, invisible, immaterial being that can achieve anything, is the most extreme fantasy that we can imagine. So I consider my description as being objectively accurate. I can easily be shown wrong by the provision of a single piece of credible evidence to the contrary.
In that respect you are making the same error as the religious fanatics – you’re simply unbalanced in the other direction.
There are indeed two extremes, at one end there is a belief in an unsupported speculation, and at the other end there is a simple request for proof. I don't see that my position results in any form of error.
As to the actual point behind the thread: the difference between mathematics and religion is that mathematics is an empirical, synthetic construct that we built from the ground up, whereas religion is a dead weight we discovered already attached to us. We have no reason other than tradition to keep it. Also, whereas the "problems" in mathematics are counter to common sense, the problems in religion are actual contradictions. There are almost none of these in mathematics (except for things like Russell's Paradox). Even though mathematics contradicts itself, it is, as you said, still useful. However, what good is a religion that has mixed presentations regarding the nature of God, or how to get into Heaven? Not as much. The questions there require more certainty than what we have.