In the method of 'religious truths' everyone is right and everyone is wrong, there is no way to sort out the true from the false.

When someone says, "clearly false", it should be (and in this case is) referencing the absence of any proof at all for the extraordinary claims. In this case, people who defend religion have a burden of proof here. Perhaps more precise wording would be: "arbitrary and totally unverified".

This is why I brought up fairy tales. They are just as arbitrary and unprovable. Do you think we should seriously explore them as well? If not, why does religion get a pass - because so many believe it? Let's not have science by vote of the masses. After all, the scientific consensus is that religion is false ;-)

Why not? I find it quite astonishing how often starting with verifiably false assumptions leads to worthwhile results. Your tower of reason is a decent construction. I find it a nice place to visit, but sometimes I prefer the woods. A mind too well-ordered misses the faults in its own assumptions.

Now then, I don't see how this (meaning, your example of aesthetics) is similar to religion. Religion is just assumed to be relative by most people I think; at least the religious people I talk to seem to say so and use it explicitly as an argument (you do, too, I think) to parry demands for falsifiability. So then your comparison goes out of the window.

Religious claims are typically falsifiable, and repeatedly disproved (creationism is a good example). Every time that happens, religions eventually back off, keeping only their claims that are not yet disproved.

Second, while some topics (like choosing a morality) are definitely outside the scope of science, the accurate description of our world is definitely inside. If something we could reasonably call "God" exist in our world, it's got to have consequences. I expect science to find out, or at least try. "Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.

I agree with your real point, though; what I'm saying is that religion in a class of its own, because the religious make it (or should I say 'make it up') to be that way.

(Related to this point, I do think that one day religion will be explained: when we fully understand the brain, how thoughts develop etc.; at that point, religion will be shown to be just a figment of our (rather, 'their') imagination. Maybe it served an evolutionary role once, who knows. Of course it won't give us insight in the nature of 'god', it will merely show that 'god' is a fabrication of our unconsciousness).

Your other points are related to http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Anti-epistemology and http://lesswrong.com/lw/of/dissolving_the_question/ (I suspect you know about these, but others may find them interesting.)

EDIT In response to your edit:

>"Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.

This is your projection, not mine.

Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact. As you know, I don't believe in God. If I were polite, I would stop there. Same thing for a deist. We could have a conversation, say "I (don't) believe in God", and it would still look like we "respect" the other's beliefs, and therefore we respect the other, period.

Trouble starts when I say "God doesn't exist" (it really doesn't). It's offensive. It makes too obvious that I think deists are wrong (they really are). Such a direct attack to their belief is of course not polite at all (yes, I am not polite). Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be).

On the other hand, a deist that really believes in God, should tell me that it exists, that I'm wrong. Being polite is again secondary. Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake! I certainly wouldn't want to Burn in Hell for, say, wanting to be immortal.

Another point. You said earlier:

> […] "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. […]

This is weird to my ears. I assume that for any thing that have observable effect, science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing. God is no exception. So, if you're right, then the existence of God doesn't have any observable effect (by contraposition). Then, belief in God, an observable effect, isn't linked in any way to the actual existence of God. Meaning, belief in God has no valid justification.

Plus, the way that typical monotheists religions depict it, not only God is observable, it has actually been observed. For instance, any miracle God have performed should have a hope of being detected by archaeologists. (Unless God cleverly erased the evidence but I don't recall anything like that on the Bible. To my knowledge, it isn't written that God evades science.)

Plus, God is almost always depicted as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent (let's live aside sentience etc.). Well, those three characteristics combined should be sufficient to have a pretty big observable effect: living in the best possible world. If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off.

So, saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God. Weaker that plainly stating that God exists because three famous, old, Holy books say so (authority can be a valid argument).

For the other side, I suggest http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Reductionism_%28sequence%29 It's longer, but I enjoyed it nevertheless. (I'd like to recommend http://lesswrong as a whole, but it's literally months worth of reading)

a topic index is here: http://christianthinktank.com/hway.html

it could be interesting to dialogue on the subject too...

Fair enough. There are so many dishonest people arguing on both sides that one begins to expect the worst.

>Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact.

Agreed. But one can never prove a negative. We can never prove that there is no plane of existence where another being might exist. That's not to say science shouldn't try. Science should, of course, explore every aspect of existence that it can test and observe.

>Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be).

Of course. I don't see why a theist should have a problem with trying to cure death. For a Christian (for example), the story of the tower of babel should be enough to feel comfortable that man wont be allowed to do "go to far". If it happens, then it was obviously allowed.

>Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake!

Honestly, it is this very urgency from both sides that causes the problems I think. If the climate change situation has demonstrated anything, it has demonstrated that my urgency can not inspire you to action.

>science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing

We can't even detect the things we think we know about (e.g. dark matter). We can't expect to be able to detect things we don't even know about yet.

>not only God is observable

Not God, but actions of God. And I agree, some occurrences in a holy book should be able to be discovered.

>If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off.

You seem to be assuming God would be in the same plane of existence as us. If I build a house I am not confined to that house, why would God be constrained by his own creation.

>saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God

It wasn't my intention to justify belief in anything, but rather defuse the absolute certainty of a position that can never be absolutely certain. My hope is that if people realize that no one has or can have all the answers that they'll stop trying to convince everyone all the time.

From what I've seen, the people who preach their message to strangers the loudest tend to be the worst representatives said message, regardless of faith (or lack thereof).

With regards to potential religious truths then the problem of course is that you can't verify religious claims thus the very idea of talking about truth in this context seems rather misguided.

Religious claims are by definition and practical circumstances not verifiable since they are claims about things outside what we can observe.

But they are also claims that there is a metaphysical reality which we cannot access through science but contain truths about the world we can access. And that is where it falls apart IMHO.

His major point is this: "There is no discrete self".

He isn't making an argument to discredit any potential religious 'truth' (in fact, he is using the existence of certain religious 'truths' as evidence for his argument). His comment about 'clearly false' religion was not his main point (although for some of us, extreme lack of evidence and verifiability is enough).

The annihilation of the self is an idea/concept/experience that occurs in many religious traditions, and also when exposed to certain drugs (hallucinogenics, I think). It is also a common theme in literature dating back to antiquity. The Bacchus is an example. Enlightenment in Buddhism is about annihilation of the self. Not that I am an expert on either.

By annihilation of the self, I mean the elimination of the concept of the self, not suicide. The thought being that the concept of the self is actually an absurdity. "Can a man step in the same river twice." This is what he is referring to when he talks about the flow of thoughts.

The concept of self leads to a lot of problems, selfishness, fear of death, things like that.

IMHO one should be able write without the pretense of neutrality and be judged holistically rather than dismissed out of hand.

You'd probably do something to improve your reality rather than try and replace a miserable life with some form of escapism (not picking only on religion here, even World of Warcraft fits the bill).