Also, are you making the empirical claim that RELIGIOUS thought and SCIENTIFIC thought have similar impacts upon the human brain? If not, why bring up science?
I wasn't, no- but I absolutely would. Though I suppose it depends on what you mean by "impacts," which is a completely empty word that I despise. If you mean that they've gone about instilling themselves in the collective subconscious of society in roughly the same way- making grandiose promises (afterlife and eternal rewards vs. longevity and rich earthly rewards)- then I'd agree. Otherwise, you'll have to be more specific.
how does this follow.
Even if you could calculate the entire universe according to the "laws of science," and "miracles" (i.e. exceptions) still occurred, then that wouldn't prove a God; it would simply prove that laws don't exist in the natural world, and are only meager human attempts to desperately explain what little slice of existence we have access to.
yes if nietzschean thought is so chaotic and inductive knowledge is so unreliable why are you using inductive knowledge of what nietzsche wrote
You'll have to do some reading yourself. Hint: Nietzsche is one of the few philosophers who doesn't contradict himself here, because he recognizes the limits of the human mind at understanding reality. Something you fail to appreciate.
oh no not absolute you'll still act as if it has a near 0% of being false.
There are no percentages when it comes to value judgments. No system can be proven more or less "likely" to be true by the fruits it reaps, any more than you can say "Planting this tree here is the correct place to plant it, because it's grown apples for us to harvest." What if you didn't want apples? What would compel you to in the first place?
But all of those are consequences of our current brains and societal structure. With brains that don't have basilisk (impossible) or social structures which incentivize truths over nontruths (impossible with our current brains),
That second point is suspect. As Nietzsche correctly points out, "truth" (i.e. laughably limited human truth, a mix of induction and deduction) is actually making a comeback against the traditional truth-falsehood mix, as pursuers of truth have proven themselves not just capable of survival and reproduction, but of acquiring great power.
For more, check out The Gay Science. Off the top of my head, it's around aphorism 100-110.
I cannot think of a single truth which would be antiproductive to survival JUST BECAUSE it was known to some intelligent agent. I suspect I'm not thinking hard though, so I invite you to produce some.
Well damn, now you're making me go look up the quote. Hang on... (yep, I was right! Aphorism 110)
Throughout immense stretches of time the intellect produced nothing but errors; some of them proved to be useful and preservative of the species: he who fell in with them, or inherited them, waged the battle for himself and his offspring with better success. Those erroneous articles of faith which were successively transmitted by inheritance, and have finally become almost the property and stock of the human species, are, for example, the following: that there are enduring things, that there are equal things, that there are things, substances, and bodies, that a thing is what it appears, that our will is free that what is good for me is also good absolutely. It was only very late that the deniers, doubters of such propositions came forward - it was only very late that truth made its appearance as the most impotent form of knowledge.
Oh, and fun talk as always, newbie.
--
Houston Texans: 3-3
Division Ranking: 2nd