What Do You Follow?

[Phoenix Wright]

I see you didn't even bother attempting that little exercise. It's not as pointless as you think.

Also, why not discuss things as freely in IRL as you do on the Internet?

Then explain it, because obviously none of us are getting it except you.

I'd rather not lose friends over something so stupid. Contrary to what I may seem like here, I'm actually very tolerant towards religious people. Unless of course, they say something I find incredibly dumb.

[eclipse]

Then explain it, because obviously none of us are getting it except you.

I'd rather not lose friends over something so stupid. Contrary to what I may seem like here, I'm actually very tolerant towards religious people. Unless of course, they say something I find incredibly dumb.

Heh, no problem!

Religion is a personal thing, so there is no one-size-fits-all explanation. What seems like perfect sense to one person will make no sense to another. Each person must find their own reason to be religious, if they choose to do so.

[Phoenix Wright]

Heh, no problem!

Religion is a personal thing, so there is no one-size-fits-all explanation. What seems like perfect sense to one person will make no sense to another. Each person must find their own reason to be religious, if they choose to do so.

OK. Now would you mind explaining to me how any of that relates to a person changing psychologically because of religion? On the scale that you, as well as many others, would claim?

[eclipse]

OK. Now would you mind explaining to me how any of that relates to a person changing psychologically because of religion? On the scale that you, as well as many others, would claim?

That would require me going into a past I'd rather forget. Let's say I'd be a much more pissed off person if I didn't have religion in my life.

I'm still trying to patch myself up and forgive, despite all the years that have passed. I don't know if I'll ever be fully successful.

[Phoenix Wright]

That would require me going into a past I'd rather forget. Let's say I'd be a much more pissed off person if I didn't have religion in my life.

I'm still trying to patch myself up and forgive, despite all the years that have passed. I don't know if I'll ever be fully successful.

I'm aware of you having your trials and tribulations (PWftw), however, can you think of another such example not relating to yours?

For argument's sake, why would anyone else need religion?

[eclipse]

I'm aware of you having your trials and tribulations (PWftw), however, can you think of another such example not relating to yours?

For argument's sake, why would anyone else need religion?

Now THAT'S a good question! :)

If your life was/is going perfectly well, and you see no need for religion, then there's no point in trying to get into it. You'll have to decide for yourself when the right time to start believing is (in some cases, it's never). It's not something that should be forced, just as I shouldn't force everyone on the boards to play Pokemon Mystery Dungeon.

[eclipse]

Randomly wandered back to a particular site, and found a nice, long article that describes why I hate pushy people on either end of the religious spectrum:

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/imonk-classic-the-little-brothers-of-saint-archie-bunker

This is aimed at Christians, but I think some of this can apply to atheists.

[Meteor]

If your life was/is going perfectly well, and you see no need for religion, then there's no point in trying to get into it.

What I gather from this is that you're saying religion is essentially a path to happiness for some people, which is the ultimate goal (religious or not). So in that sense, if religion is what makes you happiest, it is 'right'. Right?

Edit: I read the blog you linked to. I think the strategy it suggests is applicable in almost all social situations. There is a time and place to share your opinions, and it usually isn't the first time it pops into your head.

Threads like this are an example of a good time to share, because everyone knows what they are getting into.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Meteor

[Kanami]

Well, as the Archie Bunker example shows, religion doesn't stop at the individual. It's not exclusive to religion either. If I find a game I like, I'd introduce it to my friends hoping they'd like it to. And even if they didn't I'd continue playing it which in connection would devalue our friendship.

Extreme? Yes, but the devalue comment isn't completely wrong. I'd personally wonder "why they enjoy the game so much when it's so boring" and as a result I'd be thinking that the friend plays crappy games. Not a fatal blow a friendship but it does detract, as minimal as it is.

Religion is pretty much the same, people aren't going to find something they like and then be content with keeping it to themselves. Especially when is supposedly defines you as a person. (I've seen accomodation advertisments which say "females preferred, Indians only, homosexual friendly, Catholics only")

I admit, a good portion is able to keep their religion to themselves, but with the concept of believers will go to heaven, non-believers to hell. Well it's inevitable that one would claim superiority to the other.

[Aere]

I myself am an agnostic (I can't prove or disprove God, nor can anybody else), but if I try to believe a God, I think of the deistic version (The Clockmaker of the Universe) and that any other version would seem absurd. Does the God do what's good for humanity, or what's good for each human in particular? I don't think you can have both, or even the latter as it stands.

[Phoenix Wright]

Will there ever be a time where I feel the "old" me isn't completely retarded? <_<

Edited September 12, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Original Alear]

Will there ever be a time where I feel the "old" me isn't completely retarded? <_<

I mean, the very definition of "retarded" is delayed, therefore you might see yourself as forever delayed behind the present due to the natural biological functions of your body which keep you from acting in a truly simultaneous fashion.

[Espinosa]

I think much of today's secular thought is the product of Christian history turned upside down. All those clever arguments concerning the Trinity and the essences of Christ couldn't have possibly lead to anything else but our inhumanly fast (in its progress) science. If you want to blame somebody for today's technology-driven world, you'll have to blame Christianity as well. Or thank it if you happen to appreciate where we are now, whichever way works for you. The Greeks, the Romans on their own with their vision of history and progress... wouldn't have ended up with the same culture we have in any imaginable scenario.

[Zanarkin]

I think much of today's secular thought is the product of Christian history turned upside down. All those clever arguments concerning the Trinity and the essences of Christ couldn't have possibly lead to anything else but our inhumanly fast (in its progress) science.

Interesting, please do explain.

This is by no means a joke/mocking post, i'm genuinly interested and hopefully this won't count as spam to the serious discussion...

[Espinosa]

Christianity brought forth the concept that time is moving somewhere, that the history has a direction, that what lies ahead is brand new. The pagan view of the world was much different, as people believed they could return to Earth again and again, that the soul would materialise endlessly taking different form each time. Even the deities would change one after another, one usurper replacing the previous one. Ouroboros is a good symbol signifying that. Such a world view was mandatory for where we ended up, and it has stayed, alongside other positive and negative aspects of the Christian vision, in the sort of indifferent or sometimes even militantly irreligious attitude that defined much of new science.

Such an argument would explain why modern atheism in the West is so close to Christianity. An atheist will be disgusted by murder or any vile act of similar proportions as much as any Christian (in the pagan world view, such acts are nothing but a necessity, and as unfortunate as it may be for an individual to marry his mother and kill his own father, or for a mother to kill her children, tough luck for the people involved but it had to be done - even the gods were but slaves to rules of necessity beyond their control). So on the one hand, we have the morality that is grown within the same culture, shared between the people within that culture, on the other hand we have the reliance on reason, often to the point of self-negation, obtained from several centuries of theological disputes.

And really, read some natural science and theology, and you'll see how both disciplines make the divine, the Earth, space, etc. so empty and devoid of beautiful, poetic terms that should be applied to those subjects instead of thousands of pages of scholastic nonsense. Christianity and secular science are of the same kind, siblings you could say, and the only possible explanation why they're refusing to acknowledge their connection is arrogance.

[Phoenix Wright]

I mean, the very definition of "retarded" is delayed, therefore you might see yourself as forever delayed behind the present due to the natural biological functions of your body which keep you from acting in a truly simultaneous fashion.

I was using a slang form of it meaning "stupid." So, if it pleases you, you may read the word as "stupid" instead. :P

Christianity brought forth the concept that time is moving somewhere, that the history has a direction, that what lies ahead is brand new. The pagan view of the world was much different, as people believed they could return to Earth again and again, that the soul would materialise endlessly taking different form each time. Even the deities would change one after another, one usurper replacing the previous one. Ouroboros is a good symbol signifying that. Such a world view was mandatory for where we ended up, and it has stayed, alongside other positive and negative aspects of the Christian vision, in the sort of indifferent or sometimes even militantly irreligious attitude that defined much of new science.

Such an argument would explain why modern atheism in the West is so close to Christianity. An atheist will be disgusted by murder or any vile act of similar proportions as much as any Christian (in the pagan world view, such acts are nothing but a necessity, and as unfortunate as it may be for an individual to marry his mother and kill his own father, or for a mother to kill her children, tough luck for the people involved but it had to be done - even the gods were but slaves to rules of necessity beyond their control). So on the one hand, we have the morality that is grown within the same culture, shared between the people within that culture, on the other hand we have the reliance on reason, often to the point of self-negation, obtained from several centuries of theological disputes.

And really, read some natural science and theology, and you'll see how both disciplines make the divine, the Earth, space, etc. so empty and devoid of beautiful, poetic terms that should be applied to those subjects instead of thousands of pages of scholastic nonsense. Christianity and secular science are of the same kind, siblings you could say, and the only possible explanation why they're refusing to acknowledge their connection is arrogance.

An interesting view, but who is to say how long a pagan world view would remain? Further, atheists don't find murder wrong because it's morally wrong be religions' standards. It's morally wrong to kill because we have no right to take another's life. Death, however, is something we see as necessary, obviously.

Religion: faith. Science: evidence. They are fundamentally different. They are incompatible with each other, but some choose to ignore that.

There's plenty of people that describe the beauty of the Universe. Most science personalities do so (Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Brian Cox).

There's a beautifully well done blend of trying to express its beauty, and how to objectively observe and understand the Universe.

[Original Alear]

Christianity brought forth the concept that time is moving somewhere, that the history has a direction, that what lies ahead is brand new. The pagan view of the world was much different, as people believed they could return to Earth again and again, that the soul would materialise endlessly taking different form each time. Even the deities would change one after another, one usurper replacing the previous one. Ouroboros is a good symbol signifying that. Such a world view was mandatory for where we ended up, and it has stayed, alongside other positive and negative aspects of the Christian vision, in the sort of indifferent or sometimes even militantly irreligious attitude that defined much of new science.

Such an argument would explain why modern atheism in the West is so close to Christianity. An atheist will be disgusted by murder or any vile act of similar proportions as much as any Christian (in the pagan world view, such acts are nothing but a necessity, and as unfortunate as it may be for an individual to marry his mother and kill his own father, or for a mother to kill her children, tough luck for the people involved but it had to be done - even the gods were but slaves to rules of necessity beyond their control). So on the one hand, we have the morality that is grown within the same culture, shared between the people within that culture, on the other hand we have the reliance on reason, often to the point of self-negation, obtained from several centuries of theological disputes.

And really, read some natural science and theology, and you'll see how both disciplines make the divine, the Earth, space, etc. so empty and devoid of beautiful, poetic terms that should be applied to those subjects instead of thousands of pages of scholastic nonsense. Christianity and secular science are of the same kind, siblings you could say, and the only possible explanation why they're refusing to acknowledge their connection is arrogance.

First off, the idea that Christianity or that science make existence devoid of beauty is an aesthetic judgement like any other. The Old and New Testaments have a beauty to them, then there are beautiful paintings of the Virgin Mary, Saints, medieval knights facing dragons, and the like.

Second off, Christianity and secular science don't "refuse a connection," there are in fact scientists who believe in god. Then there's Christian Atheism, which is the belief in Christian teachings without the belief in Christianity.

I also refute your concept of paganism as some sort of universal concept. There is no way to know what pagans as a general group believed of the world, to attempt to collectivize different traditions under one blanket and make assertions about them is quite arrogant itself. In Greek and Egyptian cultures, there was an afterlife which, AFAIK, there was no hope of return from except for Osiris in Egyptian culture. Additionally there were the teachings of the divine wheel of rebirth in Socrates or Plato's teachings. This is just an example of how your generalizations are quite simplistic.

It is probably worth noting that the idea of doctrine within any culture is questionable. Take for instance Greek myth: in the Theogyny by Hesiod, Athena is born from bloody sea foam that comes from the head of Zeus's dead father, whose name I forget, and therefore has no mother; in The Iliad, when she is wounded after intervening in the Attic-Trojan War, she goes crying into her mother's arms and is comforted thusly.

Finally, if Paganism is "correct" as a worldview, than Christianity is just one more usurpation, which means that none of those concepts were actually "brought forth" by Christianity since they already existed.

I would also say that Astronomy has brought us beautiful images of the universe which we never would have seen without it.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Blue Mars

[Phoenix Wright]

I also refute your concept of paganism as some sort of universal concept. There is no way to know what pagans as a general group believed of the world, to attempt to collectivize different traditions under one blanket and make assertions about them is quite arrogant itself. In Greek and Egyptian cultures, there was an afterlife which, AFAIK, there was no hope of return from except for Osiris in Egyptian culture. Additionally there were the teachings of the divine wheel of rebirth in Socrates or Plato's teachings. This is just an example of how your generalizations are quite simplistic.

Finally, if Paganism is "correct" as a worldview, than Christianity is just one more usurpation, which means that none of those concepts were actually "brought forth" by Christianity since they already existed.

I cannot believe I forgot to point this out.

Ah, I forgot to mention this too! haha

Good points.

[Espinosa]

An interesting view, but who is to say how long a pagan world view would remain? Further, atheists don't find murder wrong because it's morally wrong be religions' standards. It's morally wrong to kill because we have no right to take another's life. Death, however, is something we see as necessary, obviously.

Atheists in the West have been nurtured by the same culture (that has formed as a result of several centuries of stability), therefore it is natural for them to share the Christian morality naturally, without giving it much thought. I'd like to encourage you to take your doubt one step further - why do we feel that we have no right to take another's life? And it's no surprise that you say we do feel one's life is one's right, because a right goes under the category of Law, which also shaped not without the Christian participation to say the least. That, and your name is Phoenix Wright. I kid, I kid.

Religion: faith. Science: evidence. They are fundamentally different. They are incompatible with each other, but some choose to ignore that.

I've heard this countless times before, and it appears more incredible each time I seriously think about it.

Science relies on faith just as religion (in particular, Christianity since that's most topical in our milieu) relies on reason. For one, the scientific method demands faith in itself, faith that we can indeed learn things about the world we live in and that the scientific method is capable of providing us with that knowledge through experience. Similarly, if reason had clearly suggested Christians that Jesus was never a historical person, or that he was an ordinary bloke who died like the rest (archaeology testifying that his body was buried here or there, or something, and that there was no resurrection to speak of), there would be no point in treating the Bible as anything but an elaborate allegory from one of the greatest humanists and there would be no Christianity and no Christians. But it just happens that you have all those people who are convinced in the historical authenticity of the events described in the Bible, and who have the experience of communication and life in faith to make it something more than awareness of facts, or a gnosis of some kind.

There's plenty of people that describe the beauty of the Universe. Most science personalities do so (Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Brian Cox).

I'm not doubting that specific representatives, both Christian and secular, are capable of finding beauty in their world view and sharing it with the world in a convincing manner. It's still necessary to remember that much of this was born in polemics, out of necessity to persuade or convert. Omar Khayyam is another scientist-poet (one who, I'll confess, interests me quite a bit more than any contemporary personality), not to mention a Muslim-poet as well. I'm not accusing every single person with either belief system of literary, artistic or aesthetic impotence - you don't know me, but trust me when I say I know better than that - I'm saying theology and the scientific method as such do not leave any place for any kind of poetry. The reason we see it is because there is an effort to have some of it too.

[Espinosa]

First off, the idea that Christianity or that science make existence devoid of beauty is an aesthetic judgement like any other. The Old and New Testaments have a beauty to them, then there are beautiful paintings of the Virgin Mary, Saints, medieval knights facing dragons, and the like.

If you're talking about the Christian icon, then I wouldn't agree that it's the right place to look for a testament of earthly beauty. Those icons are symbolical to a high extent, pointing to belonging to the other world, depicting people who renounced this one. I personally have a problem with this, because, as trite as it may sound, I happen to seek beauty, comfort and joy in this here life, right now.

Second off, Christianity and secular science don't "refuse a connection," there are in fact scientists who believe in god. Then there's Christian Atheism, which is the belief in Christian teachings without the belief in Christianity.

Science and Christianity were a single entity for quite a time, I'll agree with this. It was the monks doing all the research, and studying thoroughly and whatnot. Key freethinking or secular scientists are offspring of Christianity and its culture, and if it were any different, we wouldn't have made the discoveries that changed our world. This makes militant atheism intolerance towards belief in that the five senses do not exhaust the human experience or, on the contrary, the conservative unwillingness to accept evolution as a fact, to cite an example, all the more absurd.

I also refute your concept of paganism as some sort of universal concept. There is no way to know what pagans as a general group believed of the world, to attempt to collectivize different traditions under one blanket and make assertions about them is quite arrogant itself. In Greek and Egyptian cultures, there was an afterlife which, AFAIK, there was no hope of return from except for Osiris in Egyptian culture. Additionally there were the teachings of the divine wheel of rebirth in Socrates or Plato's teachings. This is just an example of how your generalizations are quite simplistic.

No, sorry but you don't. It's not at all impossible to find out what different pagans believed in, since you have the written and archaeological data from the past, not to mention the existing pagan tribes and nations that still live on.

In Ancient Greek mythology, the underworld was hardly after life in the meaning you are applying to it. Hades was for the privileged, for 'special' heroes and special villains. The other souls were believed to simply take other form upon the end of their earthly life, transmigrating endlessly. I'm fairly convinced the concept of reincarnation was not foreign to Egyptians either, but of course I am aware that it's not shared unanimously by every single pagan religion. That was the view that governed when Christianity made its way to the top as a state religion in Egypt, Armenia, Syria, Rome etc., which is what I needed to get my point across.

Finally, if Paganism is "correct" as a worldview, than Christianity is just one more usurpation, which means that none of those concepts were actually "brought forth" by Christianity since they already existed.

Can't say I made any sense out of this. To clarify what I was trying to say, paganism is indeed universal as there is not a single ethnicity out there that hasn't been pagan at some point. Paganism is also not merely heritage of the past, but reality. I'm not only referring to the pagan cultures that have survived in different parts of the world, but this pronounced pagan approach to life that never really left us. It is also not futile at all to speak of pagans' unity, because pagans are, believe it or not, the most religiously tolerant people. A pagan will travel to a different land and won't be displeased at all to worship different deities from those he is used to, because he will recognise the god in question as serving for a specific purpose, and the only difference that will remain will be an insignificant one - that of the name. Judaism, Christianity, Islam... They were very different in this regard. No devout follower of either will ever agree that the other religions worship the same being under a new name. The Jews were always at war with the other tribes, and the Judaic God was constantly in rage with their flirting with the heathen customs of the next pagan culture they had contact with. Christians were systematically persecuted in the Roman Empire, singled out of the other religions with which the rulers had no problems with.

As for the usurper theory being applicable in this case, Christianity doesn't see the Father as an usurper, but as a creator of the universe who is constantly ruling. He had no predecessor and will have no successor. Of course, various religious syncretist sects, like the various gnostical schools of thought, did believe that the creator of the universe was a malevolent being, an usurper, and had God and Satan change roles in their systems, but those were no Christians.

[Phoenix Wright]

Atheists in the West have been nurtured by the same culture (that has formed as a result of several centuries of stability), therefore it is natural for them to share the Christian morality naturally, without giving it much thought. I'd like to encourage you to take your doubt one step further - why do we feel that we have no right to take another's life? And it's no surprise that you say we do feel one's life is one's right, because a right goes under the category of Law, which also shaped not without the Christian participation to say the least. That, and your name is Phoenix Wright. I kid, I kid.

Not all atheists hold my point of view. I think it is a right given by the government, yes, that states that we have a right to life. However, I think it is natural that *most* species do not kill their own kind directly, rather, it is through indirect means (competition for resources and food). Yes, animals kill their own species sometimes (I'm talking directly here), but again, it is most likely still over resources. Humans do not have this necessity to kill directly or indirectly over competition for resources, food, or shelter (at least in the industrialized world). If I were from an unindustrialized nation, I may have a different opinion on this, but quite honestly I think I would keep the opinion that the person has a right to live.

Murder is still completely unnecessary, no matter how you look at it in my opinion.

Note: I'm not sure if there's actual differences between the words "kill" and "murder," so what I mean by "kill" is: to defeat competition; competition dies. What I mean by "murder," is to take a life willingly, but for no reason (think serial killer).

I hope that clears everything up if anyone was confused.

I've heard this countless times before, and it appears more incredible each time I seriously think about it.

Science relies on faith just as religion (in particular, Christianity since that's most topical in our milieu) relies on reason. For one, the scientific method demands faith in itself, faith that we can indeed learn things about the world we live in and that the scientific method is capable of providing us with that knowledge through experience. Similarly, if reason had clearly suggested Christians that Jesus was never a historical person, or that he was an ordinary bloke who died like the rest (archaeology testifying that his body was buried here or there, or something, and that there was no resurrection to speak of), there would be no point in treating the Bible as anything but an elaborate allegory from one of the greatest humanists and there would be no Christianity and no Christians. But it just happens that you have all those people who are convinced in the historical authenticity of the events described in the Bible, and who have the experience of communication and life in faith to make it something more than awareness of facts, or a gnosis of some kind.

By that logic, objective observations, evidence, and data all require faith. This is just not true. The scientific method is merely a method that we use to objectively define the Universe. I understand your point that we have to have "faith" in it, but that is presupposing that the method is untested and cannot be proven to work. It works brilliantly.

If the Bible is based upon reason, why must religious people convince themselves that what they read is fact? They shouldn't need to convince themselves, for they would be able to observe and test for themselves if reason were involved at all. Your example assumes the fact that Jesus was an abnormal person with miracle-powers, relying faith to believe, not reason. Christianity, or any religion for that matter, does not require reason at all. Scientology is based on no facts, just stupid guesses about our origins that make no sense (therefore not reasonable).

I'm not doubting that specific representatives, both Christian and secular, are capable of finding beauty in their world view and sharing it with the world in a convincing manner. It's still necessary to remember that much of this was born in polemics, out of necessity to persuade or convert. Omar Khayyam is another scientist-poet (one who, I'll confess, interests me quite a bit more than any contemporary personality), not to mention a Muslim-poet as well. I'm not accusing every single person with either belief system of literary, artistic or aesthetic impotence - you don't know me, but trust me when I say I know better than that - I'm saying theology and the scientific method as such do not leave any place for any kind of poetry. The reason we see it is because there is an effort to have some of it too.

The beauty is implied within them. Meaning, one finds true beauty in knowing how and why things work. One finds beauty in spiritual fulfillment. One finds poetic beauty by being religious or scientific, or both. Expression of feelings through poetry comes from oneself, after experiences.

[Aere]

For the record, Adam Smith believed government existed for the protection of three NATURAL rights; Protection, keeping peace, and maintenance. I think Protection falls here, as killing in self-defense is the only example of 'killing', as murder is premeditated and on purpose.

Personally, I believe one may only take another's life if there is a danger to your own if you let the opposition live.

[eclipse]

Note: I'm not sure if there's actual differences between the words "kill" and "murder," so what I mean by "kill" is: to defeat competition; competition dies. What I mean by "murder," is to take a life willingly, but for no reason (think serial killer).

I hope that clears everything up if anyone was confused.

For the record, Adam Smith believed government existed for the protection of three NATURAL rights; Protection, keeping peace, and maintenance. I think Protection falls here, as killing in self-defense is the only example of 'killing', as murder is premeditated and on purpose.

Personally, I believe one may only take another's life if there is a danger to your own if you let the opposition live.

What about the person who gets drunk, gets into a fight, and kills someone? Or the jilted lover who takes the life of his/her significant other and himself/herself afterwards? Or the unwitting doctor who prescribes an antibiotic to his/her patient, and the patient has a very swift, fatal allergic reaction and dies? Or the inattentive driver who can kill people in several different unplanned ways?

Not all killings are for self-defense, and not all non-self-defense killings are premeditated. I think something like taking lives unnecessarily is something that's innate, and shouldn't be attributed to religion (as most atheists and theists agree that it's probably not a Good Thing).

[Phoenix Wright]

What about the person who gets drunk, gets into a fight, and kills someone? Or the jilted lover who takes the life of his/her significant other and himself/herself afterwards? Or the unwitting doctor who prescribes an antibiotic to his/her patient, and the patient has a very swift, fatal allergic reaction and dies? Or the inattentive driver who can kill people in several different unplanned ways?

Not all killings are for self-defense, and not all non-self-defense killings are premeditated. I think something like taking lives unnecessarily is something that's innate, and shouldn't be attributed to religion (as most atheists and theists agree that it's probably not a Good Thing).

It's a murder. I never said it had to be premeditated, I just said it had to be for no reason (meaning, it's not over competition). Or it could be involuntary manslaughter*

That's premeditated murder. The person has no right to kill their significant other.

The other two are involuntary manslaughter.

*So I'd divide 'kill' into two categories: Self-defense, and manslaughter (which is divided between voluntary and involuntary)

Edited September 14, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Kriemhild]

By that logic, objective observations, evidence, and data all require faith. This is just not true. The scientific method is merely a method that we use to objectively define the Universe. I understand your point that we have to have "faith" in it, but that is presupposing that the method is untested and cannot be proven to work. It works brilliantly.

None of those can be considered truly objective though. The scientific method is the best we have for defining the Universe, but it can't be truly objective. Human beings cannot arrive at any objective truth all by themselves. All the data that human beings collect rely on the perception of the five senses, which is limted. Even though I believe that they are reliable, I cannot objectively claim that they are. This becomes even more apparent when we scientifically consider how we are able to perceive the world. For example, everything that we see are merely images that are produced by the brain by reacting to the light rays that are detected by the receptors in our eyes.

We can't claim that our five senses alone are enough to give us a complete and objective view of the world and so, the scientific method which relies on those cannot be considered truly objective. While there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of its results, this does NOT necessarily imply that it is, indeed, an objective view of the universe.