@theamazingbatman: ok, let's see how this goes XD
I will tell you on the basis of what I keep some things as knowledge and what doesn't pass that test. This will be a long explaination, so please bear with me.
I RULE: I live by experience. If I experience something and everybody I met experiences the same thing, then it is true (as far as we humans can conceive).
Example: I know fire burns because I experienced it and nobody ever told me "no, I can sleep on a burning campfire with ease".
II RULE: the more something conforms to stuff I already know, the easier it is to believe it, even if I haven't experienced it.
Example: I have never seen Seattle, but I do have experience that other cities exist and that the USA exist, and so does everybody that I know. There is nothing particuarly exotic about a city on the other side of the world because there are cities here.
III RULE: if something is verifiable, given an instrument that anybody could use or be taught to use (and that I know it exists) then I tend to put my trust in it.
Example: getting back to Seattle. Millions of people have been to, photographed (an instrument that I know how it works and I could use) and left their inprint on Seattle, so I believe that it is there even though I've never been. I could get there with a plane, something I have done tons of times. So there is no reason to doubt the existence of Seattle.
Example: I know that infrared light exists because I can go down to a laboratory and see it with the right instrument. It requires some knowledge, of course, but that can be acquired by studying and verifying the basics.
IV RULE: I trust notions that are built on experiences and on other verified notions. Also, this can be compounded with the II rule.
Example: I know that fire burns, so I assume that fire will burn most organic stuff. This is coherent with the fact that I have seen stuff burn and that I can verify that readily with the right instruments. Nothing weird about knowing that oak wood can burn, once I have seen other wood burn.
V RULE: if something is a very original notion and it departs from my experience, I take it with caution until it is thoroughly verified.
Example: my boss, my first day of work, told me we could visualize single fluorescent molecules with a resolution of 5-10 nm. I found this very hard to believe. So I went to the lab and made a series of experiments. Each of these experiments was based on stuff I had verified (III rule) and stuff that I knew based on other consolidated notions (IV rule).
At the end of the week, I had successfully visualized my first single molecule.
VI RULE: for me to consider something true, it must be repeatable every time I want. Not just a couple of times or when others decide that I can go and check.
Example: every time I put my hand on fire, it burns.
Example: every time I get on a plan, it flies. Every time a plane doesn't fly, there's a reason why it's not working properly.
Example: every time I do the correct procedure, I am able to see single molecules through my experiments. If I change the key factors, I won't be able to see them.
I can do any of these things when I want, as many times I want.
VII RULE: if an information is new and I can't verify it or I don't know anything about the subject (or not enough to make a definite decision) I go to sources that have been compiled with a critical eye. I don't trust a source just because it's written. I read books that have been scrutinized by people who wanted to shut them down.
Also, I always always alwasy go read something that claims the opposite and put them to the same scrutiny.
Example: the Higgs Boson exists? I am not a particle physicist, so I can't know and I don't have the immediate means to verify. So I read the experiments of the team who claims it does. These experiments were checked and were verified dozens of times with the intent of disproving them (verifying something you wish was true is not a great process) and they always turned out to be true. The scientists that did them are highly qualified and are held to a rigid scrutiny in everything they do. So I have no real reason to say that the Higgs Boson doesn't exist. Also, nobody stated any facts that would go logically against the existence of the Higgs Boson.
Of course, If I wanted to, I could also get a PhD in physics and go check by myself. It would be a long process, but I know that I can do it, if I choose: this kind of reassures me about the truth in the statement.
VIII RULE: nothing has to be ever proven NOT to be. You can't prove a negative. You can't prove that I'm not an alien who appears to be human. But such a notion isn't supported by any of the previous rules, so until we have some proof of it it's very very safe to consider it false.
IMPORTANT: this is the same way that we know that vampires, unicorns and fairies don't exist.
THESE RULES...
...are not made up. Even if they don't realize it, people don't believe anything without using these rules UNLESS (important) they have an interest in believing it. For example, chiromancers have an interest in believing that horoscopes work, even though it is firmly established (by any of those common sense rules) that they don't. Same goes for politicians and corrupt scientists ;)
NOW, TO GOD
The existence of a god does not asnwer to any of those criteria.
I RULE: I never experienced god, neither have any of the people I have known. Some people claim to have had an actual experience with god, but those experiences are not verifiable or repeatable (see points below). Basically it's a very narrow number of people who claim to have had contact with the actual god (and even among those people the tales differ wildly).
II RULE: the existence of a god doesn't conform to anything we have readily knowledge of. It would be a being/force unlike any other that doesn't follow any of the rules that govern everything we can actually experience. No other entity has ever been found that behaves in the same way.
III RULE: god is not verifiable by everyone with a mean known to everyone, not even by actual study. There is no instrument or process that lets you gain access to an experience with god reliably and verifiably. Most people that try the same prayer don't see god, nor do those who perform the same rituals. These witnesses are scattered and uneven.
Example: if somebody tells me that they are lucky, as in stuff always go well for them, a quick way to verify it would be to have them play a lot of dice games. If this person gets an average amount of results, but still claims to have had lucky streaks when I wasn't watching, I have no reason to believe him.
IV RULE: the existence of a god can't be built on anything else, because its presence is unkowable and misterious. There is no path through verifiable notions that gets you to the conclusion that god must exist.
IMPORTANT: such a route should be so that you have to make NO ASSUMPTIONS besides the fact that if everybody experiences the same thing in the same conditions, then it's true. For example, I can arrive to the conclusion of how radiowaves work because I can study physics... but the cool thing is that everything that I am thought can be verified first hand, I never have to take anything for granted. And so can another million people doing it with me, no exceptions.
V RULE: god is a far departure from any other notion. But, as we have seen, cannot be verified in a strandard and repeteable manner, you can only try to guess and rely on persona impressions.
VI RULE: there has never been a religious experience (not spontaneous remitions at Lourdes... those are explained by common science; I mean something that is unmistakably supernatural, like an appearance or something unexplained by our understanding of the world) that can be reproduced. They are always tales of lonely encounters and prophetic dreams that have no way of being repeated or verified.
VII RULE: sources claiming to be able to demonstrate the existence of god always come from religious people, which are hardly unbiased and have a lot to gain from such a demonstration.
Also, if you go and check the facts they use to demonstrate their points, you can find them to be false. I have tried many times.
VIII RULE: if there is no proof nor evidence of a god, I don't need to disprove it. Belief of many doesn't imply existence.
IN CONCLUSION
As I said, I choose to only ankowledge as real those things that stand to all of those rules. It's the way the baby mind works, the way humans are now able to fly and trasmit data at these speeds... and it's the way you know how not to die! Self-preservation is based on pain-avoidance and knowledge of threats, which are based on direct experience.
With all of this said, if there is a god (and again, I never said there is no god definetely, I just said that I don't believe in it), it's completely outside of these rules. You have to bypass logic and direct experience and believe unverifiable, unrepeatable stories to be able to believe in god.
And that's not the way I live my life.
I should clarify: I don't think that belief is stupid. I think it's a feeling like many others. It is neither good or bad unless it leads you to damaging yourself or others. And of course religion doesn't do that, so it's not inherently bad or good.
I am perfectly ok with other people believing. I just don't :)
P.S. I am so sorry this was this long. I wanted to give you my best written account of the way I personally reasoned and elaborated my spiritual side.
Log in to comment