Post Made Community Wiki by stoicfury
2 added 1 character in body
source | link

The main issue here is that you're glossing over your central concept that we can have "proof" of the "flawlessly correct" nature of most of our beliefs. The plain truth is that we have strong support for many of our beliefs about the world, and we have systematic ways, such as science, of building support for many beliefs, but it's unclear that any of this rises to the "flawless" standard you're proposing for religious belief.

The resonance and simplicity of terms like "psychological reasoning" and "simple mathematic problem solving" yield a comforting sense of stability, but they are far from unproblematic once you start to unpack their implications. Why should psychology be considered definitive? And whose psychology are we considering --yours, mine, a beliver'sbeliever's, an atheist's, a Hindu's, a Christian's? And in what sense are the important beliefs about the nature of life capable of being reduced to simple mathematics?

The main issue here is that you're glossing over your central concept that we can have "proof" of the "flawlessly correct" nature of most of our beliefs. The plain truth is that we have strong support for many of our beliefs about the world, and we have systematic ways, such as science, of building support for many beliefs, but it's unclear that any of this rises to the "flawless" standard you're proposing for religious belief.

The resonance and simplicity of terms like "psychological reasoning" and "simple mathematic problem solving" yield a comforting sense of stability, but they are far from unproblematic once you start to unpack their implications. Why should psychology be considered definitive? And whose psychology are we considering --yours, mine, a beliver's, an atheist's, a Hindu's, a Christian's? And in what sense are the important beliefs about the nature of life capable of being reduced to simple mathematics?

The main issue here is that you're glossing over your central concept that we can have "proof" of the "flawlessly correct" nature of most of our beliefs. The plain truth is that we have strong support for many of our beliefs about the world, and we have systematic ways, such as science, of building support for many beliefs, but it's unclear that any of this rises to the "flawless" standard you're proposing for religious belief.

The resonance and simplicity of terms like "psychological reasoning" and "simple mathematic problem solving" yield a comforting sense of stability, but they are far from unproblematic once you start to unpack their implications. Why should psychology be considered definitive? And whose psychology are we considering --yours, mine, a believer's, an atheist's, a Hindu's, a Christian's? And in what sense are the important beliefs about the nature of life capable of being reduced to simple mathematics?

1
source | link

The main issue here is that you're glossing over your central concept that we can have "proof" of the "flawlessly correct" nature of most of our beliefs. The plain truth is that we have strong support for many of our beliefs about the world, and we have systematic ways, such as science, of building support for many beliefs, but it's unclear that any of this rises to the "flawless" standard you're proposing for religious belief.

The resonance and simplicity of terms like "psychological reasoning" and "simple mathematic problem solving" yield a comforting sense of stability, but they are far from unproblematic once you start to unpack their implications. Why should psychology be considered definitive? And whose psychology are we considering --yours, mine, a beliver's, an atheist's, a Hindu's, a Christian's? And in what sense are the important beliefs about the nature of life capable of being reduced to simple mathematics?