Atheism vs. Religion

[milefile]

Originally posted by ///M-Spec
I guess I'm getting aboard this thread very late, but your comment here intrigues me, milefile. Care to elaborate on the parallels between religion and atheism?


///M-Spec

What danoff said is pretty close, the short answer, as it were. It is an observable phenomenon that god is powerful for those who believe. It can't be denied. To say this observable phenomenon doesn't exist is wrong. Evidence of "god's will" is also observable; the sum of believers' wishes does, in fact, occur, insofar as they make it so. For me to claim the reason for these things is something other that what they say it to be is a waste of time and energy, and RER aptly pointed out the results of any such effort above. To obsess one's self to an equal extent with the very same god or gods, pretending that somehow this belief is any different is untenable; it rests on the same foundation and is therefore equally useless in the same ways.

My thoughts and feelings regarding god and gods revolve around this locus of opposites, theism and atheism, see it from all sides, sides those caught up in the fray cannot see, namely, their own. Frankly I am beyond it. In my experience the key to breaking free of all theism is finding a unique, individual foundation on which to build one's own moral universe. Science, as the atheists are so proud to claim ownership of, is merely a substitute for god. The empirical ideal is still only that, an ideal. We are still weak, warm, mushy creatures who need constant rassurance that chaos (the rule in the universe) has been sufficiently organized to make life bearable. This can be done at least as many ways as there are people who will ever try.

Imagine the beauty in that, a world with as many religions as there are people, a world where the individual is the most sacred thing, and nothing outside or above it has any power; then imagine not having to justify this at every turn to someone who demands you submit to a doctrine. Everything is merely a tool... science, religion, technology... all just tools the individual being uses or ignores to make his world his work.

 

[///M-Spec]

Hmmm. I'll have to ponder that one...

 

[Danoff]

Everything is merely a tool... science, religion, technology... all just tools the individual being uses or ignores to make his world his work.

This viewpoint works well if you don't care what the truth is, which I think is part of your philosphy mile. If you do actually care what the truth is behind the underlying principles of the universe, you have to turn to science. It is the only thing that has allowed us to understand the universe well enough so that we could invent microwaves... and warming up a frozen barrito is a good thing.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
This viewpoint works well if you don't care what the truth is, which I think is part of your philosphy mile. If you do actually care what the truth is behind the underlying principles of the universe, you have to turn to science. It is the only thing that has allowed us to understand the universe well enough so that we could invent microwaves... and warming up a frozen barrito is a good thing.

Is the truth the same for the guy who invented the microwave as it is for the guy who'll never invent anything, but uses a microwave every day?

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by milefile
Is the truth the same for the guy who invented the microwave as it is for the guy who'll never invent anything, but uses a microwave every day?

Can you clarify? I honestly have no clue what that means.

Also, if I may take your post above and pare it down to its bare essentials (I tend to have trouble following your longer posts... nothing against you, I just get lost easily when reading) – Are you considering science to be a substitute for god, because they're both based on observations made by individuals?

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
Is the truth the same for the guy who invented the microwave as it is for the guy who'll never invent anything, but uses a microwave every day?

Yes.
How could it not be?

 

[Danoff]

Is the truth the same for the guy who invented the microwave as it is for the guy who'll never invent anything, but uses a microwave every day?

Yup. One of them understands the truth and the other does not. But the truth is the same.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
Yup. One of them understands the truth and the other does not. But the truth is the same.

Then you may as well be a Christian.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Yes.
How could it not be?

God loves you.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Sage
Can you clarify? I honestly have no clue what that means.

Also, if I may take your post above and pare it down to its bare essentials (I tend to have trouble following your longer posts... nothing against you, I just get lost easily when reading) – Are you considering science to be a substitute for god, because they're both based on observations made by individuals?

It's important to remember that there is a difference between correct things, which come into and out of importance, and The Truth, some eternal essence of the state of Being and beings.

If God is disappointed in me because of my beliefs, how does it effect what I do in the next five minutes? If the universe is finite or infinite, how does this matter to me while I drive home from work? If individuality "should" reign supreme, why should it matter that so-and-so disagrees with what I know to be true.

You can tell believers in anythng that they are wrong, and your admonitions fall into the abyss. Nobody cares but you. The guy who uses the microwave every day but has no idea how one was invented might believe the food cooked itself. Tell him he is wrong. Laugh at him. It doesn't matter. He knows he's right. You know he's wrong. The only use in peresistently insisting things like this is to feel right. Beyond that, it doesn't matter. So we choose to believe what is true, it is not imposed on us by anything.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by milefile
It's important to remember that there is a difference between correct things, which come into and out of importance, and The Truth, some eternal essence of the state of Being and beings.

[...]

You can tell believers in anythng that they are wrong, and your admonitions fall into the abyss. Nobody cares but you. The guy who uses the microwave every day but has no idea how one was invented might believe the food cooked itself. Tell him he is wrong. Laugh at him. It doesn't matter. He knows he's right. You know he's wrong. The only use in peresistently insisting things like this is to feel right. Beyond that, it doesn't matter. So we choose to believe what is true, it is not imposed on us by anything.

But how is that relevant to what actually is the truth? The man who thinks that the food cooked itself thinks that it's the truth, but that doesn't make it the truth... the "truth" would be exactly what the microwave did (hit the grub with high-energy waves).

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Sage
But how is that relevant to what actually is the truth? The man who thinks that the food cooked itself thinks that it's the truth, but that doesn't make it the truth... the "truth" would be exactly what the microwave did (hit the grub with high-energy waves).

Tell him that. He doesn't care, he never will, and you'll never convince him otherwise. He'll die thinking your wrong. And if the individual reigns supreme . . . or was it only the ones who agree?

Have you ever read 1984? Do you remember Winston's fate?

 

[Duke]

The individual reigns supreme over his oen life. That doesn't automatically mean that any individual reigns supreme over anything, if he chooses to believe incorrect things.

The person who believes microwaves are magic does not affect Truth in any way. Truth is true regardless of the frame of reference.

So we choose to believe what is true, it is not imposed on us by anything.

Your statement here is not true. Truth is determined by what is correct or incorrect. Whether that is believed or not is irrelevant.

The fact that high-frequency radio waves excite the water molecules in a piece of leftover pizza and cause the corresponding increase in their energy state, resulting in a hot lunch IS the "eternal essence of the state of Being and beings". Or at least a portion of it.

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by milefile
Tell him that. He doesn't care, he never will, and you'll never convince him otherwise.

That doesn't make it right or the truth though. It's merely his uneducated idea.

Have you ever read 1984?

Nada. But on that note, I just watched the updated version of Apple's famous "1984" ad. (Notice how they superimposed an iPod on the woman's hip.)

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
The individual reigns supreme over his oen life. That doesn't automatically mean that any individual reigns supreme over anything, if he chooses to believe incorrect things.

The person who believes microwaves are magic does not affect Truth in any way. Truth is true regardless of the frame of reference.

Even when this frame of reference is the entirety of a man's life? This would mean that most dead people were wrong about almost everything they ever thought, and we will be, too.

Your statement here is not true. Truth is determined by what is correct or incorrect. Whether that is believed or not is irrelevant.

It is relevant. Why would anything be more relevant to him than what he believes to be right and wrong? To you it is not relevant, and hat is your belief. Nobody can convince you otherwise and you'll take it to the grave. Unless you change your mind, which does happen.

The fact that high-frequency radio waves excite the water molecules in a piece of leftover pizza and cause the corresponding increase in their energy state, resulting in a hot lunch IS the "eternal essence of the state of Being and beings". Or at least a portion of it.

That's nice. But the guy still took his belief to his grave and never believed anything else. Game over. He died right whether you think so (like it) or not. Your judgement is irrelevant.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Sage
Nada. But on that note, I just watched the updated version of Apple's famous "1984" ad. (Notice how they superimposed an iPod on the woman's hip.)

Well, the reason I mention it is because Winston is busted for thought crimes (which, incidentally, are only possible in a world of eternal, unquestionable truths). He ends up being executed at the end, but not on a stage or in a chamber for all to see. First he was tortured into submission, to the "right" way of thinking. Only then he was killed. It was important to make sure he agreed before he died (admitted he was wrong, loved Big Brother, etc). If he died believing he was right the party would accomplish nothing; their truth would still be false, which couldn't be allowed. A lot of effort went into the brainwashing, only to execute him in the end, because even more than having a monopoly on violence, they needed the monopoly on truth.

 

[12sec. Civic]

I don't see this line of thought going anywhere. Milefile, if you feel total despair for anything, because it is all hopeless in your eyes. Doesn't mean the truth doesn't matter. I mean, science is nothing more than a way to solve problems, without tainting the info with human error.

And yes, science is completely objective.


Science opposes most major religions. So, when their beliefs are undercut. These religious people start to label science as a religion. Which is garbage. Because whether or not science had a name to address it by; people would still follow it to some degree.
i.e. I predict that the sun will come up tomorrow, just based on observation. This is a scientific observation.


Science is latin for "to know". All a scientist is doing is trying to know as much as possible. They are not (or should not) be interested in what they want to know. They remain completely objective.


After Einstein proposed the theory of relativity, there was great debate over its credibility, understandably. Subsequently a book was written called "100 scientists against Einstein". Einsteins famous quote after hearing about the book is: "If I had been wrong, it would have only taken one (scientist)".

That is precisely the beauty of science, and why it remains completely objective.


A believer in Science, can only express his loyalty in the Scientific method. Because the very nature of a scientist, is the ability to completely throw out previous beliefs in light of a newer, more unified theory. So, a believer in science, cannot really express any loyalty to the beliefs of science because, they are always anticipating a new theory to wipe out the old one.

However reluctant a scientist is to hold fast to one theory, they would hardly claim hardly anything as fact. I mean, there is a group of people called the flat earth society claiming the pictures of a round earth are government mock ups. But, the round earth is a fact, because humans have looked upon the earth from the moon. But it was ALWAYS treated as a theory until someone viewed the world from above.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by 12sec. Civic



A believer in Science, can only express his loyalty in the Scientific method. Because the very nature of a scientist, is the ability to completely throw out previous beliefs in light of a newer, more unified theory. So, a believer in science, cannot really express any loyalty to the beliefs of science because, they are always anticipating a new theory to wipe out the old one.

Are you arguing against me or for me?

 

[Duke]

I believe he's arguing against you, because he is saying that the particular shape of the specific ideas are irrelevant, as long as you are committed to the underlying method shaping those ideas.

In other words, unscientific people cling to a specific idea, regardless of its provability or correctness. Scientific people, on the other hand, cling to the system that generates ideas, and are willing to discard the ideas themselves when a better, more correct one comes along.

Even when this frame of reference is the entirety of a man's life? This would mean that most dead people were wrong about almost everything they ever thought, and we will be, too.

And, so...? I'm comfortable with that. As long as I am as correct as possible given the current state of scientific understanding, that's the best I can do. I expect to be proven wrong as better information is obtained.

Scientists - at least good ones - look for the mistakes. That's why fundamentalist religious people can't grasp the difference. Religious fanatics are all about proving that what they already believe is right, and should never be changed. Scientists are all about proving that what they have learned so far is wrong, and doing better next time.

The first method actually denies the existence of a Truth, because it denies evidence and observation and understanding. The second method is based on the knowledge that there is a Truth, and recognizes that the process of understanding it is continuous and constantly being refined.

To put it yet another way, Religion is based on Truth being flexible and Understanding being static. Science is based on Truth being static and Understanding being flexible.

So what if the frame of reference is an entire life? What difference does that make to the Truth? You seem to be implying that if someone just believes something long enough and dilligently enough and fervently enough, that the thing will become Truth. That's simply not so. Or am I mistaking where you're going with this?

 

[Danoff]

Mile,

Truth may not matter much to people who will not advance the state of the art in any scientific category, but to those people who are doing research truth is observable. They come up with a theory and they see if it actually pans out in reality. Science is the method by which human beings find out if their perception of the world is correct. To the inventor, absolute truth makes a difference. It is not relative.

Here’s the reason it is not relative…

Two people are trying to invent the lightbulb.

Person A believes that light will be emitted from thin metal if you cool it. So this person spends all of his time trying to cool off metal in a vacuum. Person A’s light bulb never works.

Person B believes that light will be emitted from metal if it is heated sufficiently. This, of course, works and the lightbulb is invented by the person who figured out the truth.

That’s objective truth. What works... What’s observable… What’s predictable... What yields a new invention… Science.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke
In other words, unscientific people cling to a specific idea, regardless of its provability or correctness. Scientific people, on the other hand, cling to the system that generates ideas, and are willing to discard the ideas themselves when a better, more correct one comes along.

I have no quarrel with that. It just means science is perpetually self-correcting, another word for wrong.

And, so...? I'm comfortable with that. As long as I am as correct as possible given the current state of scientific understanding, that's the best I can do.

It might not be the best you can do. A question: Why is truth better than lies (misconceptions, fiction, art)? A lie can remain the same forever. But scientific truth is always changing (see comment regarding truth and understanding below). For me, truth or true things are better, which is only to say more useful. But what might be right for me may not be right for anyone else. I don't loose any sleep over people who might be wrong and stand to gain nothing by changing them.

You can never be as correct as possible because it is always possible that this or that correct thing will be disproven or replaced. You have to believe in it, or, you have to believe in not believing in it.

To put it yet another way, Religion is based on Truth being flexible and Understanding being static. Science is based on Truth being static and Understanding being flexible.

I don't think you can separate them. Truth has no value without understanding. To believe it does is no different than believing in gods.

So what if the frame of reference is an entire life? What difference does that make to the Truth?

None. Nor does it make any difference to me. What does it matter that a few or a lot of people thnk somebody is wrong? Unless your knowledge can effect the world it is all empty, free floating concepts, of no value to anything but the feeling of being correect.

You seem to be implying that if someone just believes something long enough and dilligently enough and fervently enough, that the thing will become Truth.

No, just that what you call truth had no use for them, and they got along fine without it.

Why do we need The Truth?

That said, all I mean is that if a guy wants to believe microwaves are magic, and he is scientifically wrong, who benefits from changing his mind? Who is hurt by his believing something else? And why do you care?

I guess if I believe something is wrong I need to change it. And if Joe Religious-guy want's to believe we're all descended from Adam and Eve I could care less, until he starts demanding that I believe it to; that is where it becomes wrong. Like I said above, people's beliefs are like underwear. You know they're there, but 99% of the time you don't want or need to know any more.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
Mile,

Truth may not matter much to people who will not advance the state of the art in any scientific category, but to those people who are doing research truth is observable. They come up with a theory and they see if it actually pans out in reality. Science is the method by which human beings find out if their perception of the world is correct. To the inventor, absolute truth makes a difference. It is not relative.

Here’s the reason it is not relative…

Two people are trying to invent the lightbulb.

Person A believes that light will be emitted from thin metal if you cool it. So this person spends all of his time trying to cool off metal in a vacuum. Person A’s light bulb never works.

Person B believes that light will be emitted from metal if it is heated sufficiently. This, of course, works and the lightbulb is invented by the person who figured out the truth.

That’s objective truth. What works... What’s observable… What’s predictable... What yields a new invention… Science.

Yes.

But now use that method to demonstrate the truth of an existential or religious belief. For instance . . . "where did we come from?" "Is the universe infinite or finite?" "Do gods exist?"

Etc.

 

[Danoff]

Since you’ve conceded my point about the lightbulb, I would like to point out to you what you have conceded -

There are fundamental underlying objective truths about the mechanics universe and science has brought us closer to a full understanding of them. The evidence of this can be seen in the technology that science has uncovered. You have therefore conceded that objective truth does matter and that truth is the same for the guy who invented the microwave as it is for the guy who'll never invent anything, but uses a microwave every day. If you would like to refute this claim, I’d refer you to my previous post about the lightbulb.

But now use that method to demonstrate the truth of an existential or religious belief. For instance . . . "where did we come from?" "Is the universe infinite or finite?" "Do gods exist?"

These are questions that science may be able to answer in the future, but we do not have enough evidence about these subjects to warrant a belief of any kind at the moment. (That is, of course, assuming that the “were did we come from?” question is referring to reality rather than the human species.)

Notice that I say that it doesn’t warrant a belief of any kind. Religion comes no closer to the truth in dealing with these questions than science. Just because science says “I don’t know”, doesn’t mean that the obviously contrived unfounded explanations that religion comes up with are any more correct.

Now, if you concede this post as well, you’ll have admitted that religion has no place in the search for truth to your existential questions and effectively that science is the only valid method in the search for truth.

Check! (move your king)

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by milefile
But now use that method to demonstrate the truth of an existential or religious belief. For instance . . . "where did we come from?"

That's what anthropologists, archeologists, paleontologists, and biologists have been working on for the past several hundred years. We're working on it and gaining more knowledge every day.

"Is the universe infinite or finite?"

Take some graduate courses in astrophysics. That should give you a pretty good understanding of the current state of knowledge.

If you cannot accept the fact that it is OK to be "as correct as possible" at a given moment, consider this example: buying a car. Pick the best car you can think of, at any cost. Does it suck, just because the cars that are made 20 years from now will be much better? No. It is still a high-performance machine, and is an order of magnitude better than the performance of 20-year old cars. The fact that it will become obsolete does not invalidate it.

"Do gods exist?" Etc.

Now you're venturing out of the realm of Truth and into the realm of fiction/lies/art. There is plenty of room for fantasy in the world - a desire to see how things [/i]might[/i] be, how they could be, how you want them to be. That's wonderful in and of itself. But when those things become championed as fact rather than fantasy, then problems occur.

I don't think you can separate them. Truth has no value without understanding. To believe it does is no different than believing in gods.

You're 100% correct - Truth has no value without Understanding. I never said it did; quite the opposite in fact. That's why the scientific method will always be better: because the understanding is in a constant state of improvement, in better service of Truth.

The reason this is important is that human beings need something that is constant and understandable so that we can relate to each other. You need some objective criteria on which to make your own subjective value judgements. If all is subjective, you and I have zero way to relate to each other. But if the world exists objectively, and we both understand that, it can be used as a frame of reference to understand how your values compare to mine.

This is where the critical nature of objectivity is highlighted, and how the refusal to acknowledge the existence of objectivity is damaging to mankind, no matter how innocent the example.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff


Now, if you concede this post as well, you’ll have admitted that religion has no place in the search for truth to your existential questions and effectively that science is the only valid method in the search for truth.

Check! (move your king)

Not really. People do what they need to do. If you want to tell people that they will be better if they have no belief than they are with the one they have they will scoff and take their belief to the grave. Again, game over. What may be true for them may not be true for you, and vice versa.

I think my analogy of the microwave may have made my point more specific than I wanted it to be. But the microwave will cook his food whether he knows how it works or not, it's just not important and also doesn't warrant any belief.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by neon_duke


You're 100% correct - Truth has no value without Understanding. I never said it did; quite the opposite in fact. That's why the scientific method will always be better: because the understanding is in a constant state of improvement, in better service of Truth.

The reason this is important is that human beings need something that is constant and understandable so that we can relate to each other. You need some objective criteria on which to make your own subjective value judgements. If all is subjective, you and I have zero way to relate to each other. But if the world exists objectively, and we both understand that, it can be used as a frame of reference to understand how your values compare to mine.

This is where the critical nature of objectivity is highlighted, and how the refusal to acknowledge the existence of objectivity is damaging to mankind, no matter how innocent the example.

But without a human being there to perceive and interpret and understand there is no truth. You seem to be saying that truth exists independent of understanding, independent of the human being who found it. If you are saying that then you are also saying truth is greater than us, that we must measure ourselves against it and revere it. I say it happens because of us and only then comes into being.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there does it make a sound? Of course it does. The physical processes that create sound occur. But nobody hears. The fallen tree exists only in an interogative sentence.

 

[Danoff]

Not really. People do what they need to do. If you want to tell people that they will be better if they have no belief than they are with the one they have they will scoff and take their belief to the grave. Again, game over. What may be true for them may not be true for you, and vice versa.

Most of this is correct. People do what they need to. I didn’t say religion wasn’t useful, just not truth. It’s your statement that “what may be true for them may not be true for you” that bothers me. Neither one of us may know the truth but it does exist. Science has proven time and again that an objective truth exists. Just because science hasn’t answered every question doesn’t mean that there isn’t a true answer to those questions that can be known. The mentality that there is no right answer to these questions goes against every fiber of humanity and would fight the centuries of progress that we have made as a species - progress like medicine that allows us to live longer and technology that allows us to understand and interact in new ways.

I think my analogy of the microwave may have made my point more specific than I wanted it to be. But the microwave will cook his food whether he knows how it works or not, it's just not important and also doesn't warrant any belief.

This goes back to arguing about the light bulb. I thought you had conceded that. It is important how the microwave works and does warrant belief, because the microwave does in fact work. The evidence is there that our world behaves in that way. It doesn’t really matter to me that someone else believes something different. Maybe it doesn’t even matter to them, but they’re still wrong. How do I know they are wrong? Their belief system couldn’t build a new microwave. That’s the objective test. Can you use your “knowledge” of the world to invent and predict. If the answer to that question is no, you don’t have real knowledge. It’s objective, it’s cold, and it works well. If the answer is yes, you have some understanding of the universe, but your reasoning may be somewhat flawed.

Some incorrect beliefs will still yield correct predictions and new invention. Some of my “understanding” of the world may in fact rest on incorrect beliefs that will be uncovered later. All I know is that science is the most correct system of understanding of our world that we have right now. Maybe that doesn’t matter to the guy who thinks that microwave is magic, but most of us are born with a desire to understand to the best of our ability and to creatively solve problems.

The statement has been thrown around here that truth is nothing without understanding, but I disagree. I think that truth is somewhat useful even without understanding.

But without a human being there to perceive and interpret and understand there is no truth. You seem to be saying that truth exists independent of understanding, independent of the human being who found it. If you are saying that then you are also saying truth is greater than us, that we must measure ourselves against it and revere it. I say it happens because of us and only then comes into being.

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there does it make a sound? Of course it does. The physical processes that create sound occur. But nobody hears. The fallen tree exists only in an interogative sentence.

Yup, truth is independent of understanding and independent of the human being who found it. It is greater than us and we must measure ourselves against it and revere it. We cannot create truth. We can only strive to discover it. How can I prove that we cannot create truth? Look at the lightbulb example. Re-read it. The person who believes that cooling metal gives off light is powerless to make that statement true.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff



This goes back to arguing about the light bulb. I thought you had conceded that. It is important how the microwave works and does warrant belief, because the microwave does in fact work.

If you're inventing it, yes. Otherwise, no.

Yup, truth is independent of understanding and independent of the human being who found it. It is greater than us and we must measure ourselves against it and revere it. We cannot create truth. We can only strive to discover it. How can I prove that we cannot create truth? Look at the lightbulb example. Re-read it. The person who believes that cooling metal gives off light is powerless to make that statement true.

You don't give the human much credit then. We're just an instrument of truth.

 

[Danoff]

If you're inventing it, yes. Otherwise, no.

This makes almost no sense. If you are the inventor you care about knowledge, but if you are not the inventor you do not. Lots of people care about the way lots of things work for no reason other than pure curiosity. It’s human.

The only way this statement makes sense is if you claim that it means only the inventor has to care about truth. Which would be a correct statement, but built into this statement is the admission that objective truth exists without humans. You have admitted that the inventor must submit to the universe (rather than the other way around)

You don't give the human much credit then. We're just an instrument of truth.

I disagree. I give much credit to the human. Also, we’re not an instrument of truth. Truth has no objective. The principles of the universe do not want to be found, they have no conscious desire. If they did, I guarantee they would find many willing recipients among human scientists wanting to make a fortune on their next invention.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff
This makes almost no sense. If you are the inventor you care about knowledge, but if you are not the inventor you do not. Lots of people care about the way lots of things work for no reason other than pure curiosity. It’s human.

It's also human to not care. I know lot's of people who only want things to work, never think about how they work, and never will. I know there are many more.

The only way this statement makes sense is if you claim that it means only the inventor has to care about truth. Which would be a correct statement, but built into this statement is the admission that objective truth exists without humans. You have admitted that the inventor must submit to the universe (rather than the other way around)

Explain how. I don't see it.

I disagree. I give much credit to the human. Also, we’re not an instrument of truth. Truth has no objective. The principles of the universe do not want to be found, they have no conscious desire. If they did, I guarantee they would find many willing recipients among human scientists wanting to make a fortune on their next invention.

And yet...

Yup, truth is independent of understanding and independent of the human being who found it. It is greater than us and we must measure ourselves against it and revere it. We cannot create truth. We can only strive to discover it. How can I prove that we cannot create truth? Look at the lightbulb example. Re-read it. The person who believes that cooling metal gives off light is powerless to make that statement true.

How can something with "no objective" be what we must measure ourselves against?