But mebbe you’re right ,if we dont currently know every thing then I guess there is no point in learning anything.

I would point out that observing life the universe and everything is a pretty neat way of putting those observations and indeed ourselves, into context, …but then I probably just hallucinated your entire line of reasoning, so what would be the point.

I’m not sure why you state that our basic ideas about the universe are based entirely on a few unprovable assumptions. What are these basic ideas you talk of and why are the unprovable?

Ignore me here if you don’t feel like discussing this.

But as you say, the only way to learn about the universe is to opperate as though there is objective truth.

While science gives us tools to see beyond our senses, we have no context in which to place anything that we learn through science.

Our unknown unknowns are vast. Beyond vast, infinite. And the consistency of result that science is based on means very little if we are only looking at a tiny piece of the model. There are any number of hidden variables that at any time could shift for any reason. Because they never have is no proof that they never will. Infinity divided by anything is still infinity. We can learn about the universe as though there were objective truth, but that doesn’t mean that what we learn means what we think it means, or that objective truth exists. For the individual, there is no objective truth, as even through science, there is nothing but our own perceptions, interpret them as we will. (On the other hand, it is true that to talk about the individual is as abstract an idea as objective truth because you can’t have an individual outside the human species; there is always the context of the rest of us.)

The basic ideas I mentioned are causality, and the existence of anything outside our own experience.
They are unprovable because, logically, the best we have got is correlation, and the assumption that it isn’t just a hallucination.

You probably think that is an inane point and not worth worrying about. But you must admit, that in such a closed system as human consciousness, we can’t know for sure about anything outside the system. I just try to acknowledge that. I really don’t have any deeply held beliefs. I’m not even really agnostic. I feel like it barely matters considering how fleeting my life is. I am just interested.

@SEM This is an extremely complicated topic…i share your views but,…never underestimate the power of 3.5 billion years of evolution to drive people to seek comfort in large groups who think the same way.

I wish i could elaborate but i am terribly sick and god aint helping.

I’m not sure why you state that our basic ideas about the universe are based entirely on a few unprovable assumptions. What are these basic ideas you talk of and why are the unprovable?

Faith is thinking something is true without evidence. Truth is something knowable you can claim is real based on evidence. As I said in my other post, when I hear people argue over what evidence is and what the concept of truth is, I don’t hear true honest philosophical questions; I hear a scrambling desperate effort to prop-up deeply held beliefs.

@Rick Stiles: I’m not really into the hardcore atheist campaign; especially when a lot of atheists I know subscribe to other forms of pseudoscience and superstitious nonsense. But being agnostic seems, again, pointless…there are a great number of things we can’t say whether we know are true or if they exist, but why be agnostic about all of them? I don’t know of any evidence for or against invisible pink unicorns, but why should I be agnostic about them? Isn’t that a bit tedious? Do you really feel agnostic about these sort of claims, or are you just unconfortable being associated with the term “atheist”?