Holy Epistemology

Intro

The text below is a philosophical exploration of religion, theology, and cosmology - all through the lens of epistemology. I’ve written this piece with my book in mind, but given my progress on it… yeah, better just publish this single chapter as a standalone post.

The beginning is a bit direct and unapologetic, but later it spirals into something you haven’t seen before. Trust me, it’s worth it.

Ahem.

Holy Epistemology

Bender: “You know, I was God once.”
The Universe: “Yes, I saw. You were doing well until everyone died.” ▓

~ Futurama, S03E20 “Godfellas”

Don’t worry - this isn’t criticism of religion itself, but of:

• blind dogmatism,
• lies of religious organizations,
• hypocrisy of religious authority,
• attempts of subverting scientific discourse by theology,
• and the idea that faith can be used to infer knowledge of our world.

All I care about is verifiability of claims presented by various groups of people. This goes against the very premise of my book, you see. Let’s use epistemology to find out how it all holds up.

Epistemology - a branch of philosophy, known as “the theory of knowledge”, that aims to explain the limits of understanding. In practice, it employs empiricism (real world data and experiments), theoretical models, logic, and critical thinking to establish whether a piece of information should be considered a provable, testable claim, rather than one’s opinion. This applies to all things in existence, as well as hypothetical or abstract models.

One of the core aspects of religion is being not falsifiable. This, by extension, is also applied to the concept of theology. Theological claims are based on subjectivity rather than objectivity, allowing empiricism and logic to be replaced by unquantifiable: emotions, experiences, faith. Always open to interpretation, ready to be twisted in some other way when new scientific data contradicts it.

Any attempts to argue with theologians from a scientific perspective are pointless. They use the argument of faith, shaping the discussion the way they want, or shutting it down entirely with simple “You don’t have faith, so you don’t understand”. They call it “science”, but it’s actually three logical fallacies under a trench coat.

I also want to broaden your horizon by showing you various philosophical concepts that suggest alternative answers. I don’t expect you to just latch onto them - just think, for a moment. From cosmology to existentialism, stripping sacrum down to profanum. Some horrors and nice views along the way. All I’m asking for is an open mind.

Due to my cultural background, the only religion I had any significant contact with was catholicism. Because of that, some parts of my critique are presented through the lens of christianity. That, of course, doesn’t mean other religions are any different - it’s just the one I’m most “fluent” in, and where I know what kind of “tricks” to expect.

Sounds good? Let’s get started then.

Lost, alone, in an endless void

Sit, sit. We have a lot to talk about.

Religion is an abstract concept, invented by humans to explain the unexplainable, and make sense of the world around them. Enough to make it seem compelling, but not complex. Just enough to scratch that uncomfortable itch of our anxious monkey brains, but not enough to question your reality (a big no-no).

The problem isn’t belief, but the fact that religion requires you to take its core at face value. They label it as “sacred” to prevent logical fallacies from being exposed. When you dig too deep, what do you get? A dismissal of your curiosity. This is required so the myth can keep on living.

Religion aims to provide answers about us, and our place in the Universe. But when you take away sacrum, what’s left are just some basic cosmological concepts loosely linked together. As our technological progress went on, more and more cracks started to form. More blanks appeared. Awkward questions arose, and the myths stopped being literal - they became metaphorical, to be interpreted. Even the Catholic Church accepted the theory of evolution at some point, because it was starting to become too difficult to pretend otherwise.

How was the world created? As the book says:

• T=0: God was inferred into existence
• 1st day: the light
• 2nd: the sky
• 3rd: dry land and plants
• 4th: the Sun, the Moon, and the stars
• 5th: flying and swimming animals
• 6th: land animals, and (finally) humans
• 7th: God rested

If you look at it closely - doesn’t it seem off, but in a very specific way?

The story captures misunderstanding of:

1. Physics - creating light before the Sun
2. Astronomy - conceptual separation of the Sun and the stars
3. Biology - separation of flora and fauna despite their symbiotism, flora before the Sun
4. Heliocentrism - counting days before the Sun existed
5. Perception - creating “the sky”, as if the horizon was something physical
6. Itself - as it tries to convey an origin story, but simply creates a god with no explanation so it can proceed with Earth’s creation

Doesn’t it show a very… human perspective?

Doesn’t it sound just like some ancient dude looking at the night sky, thinking how it could’ve been? Using their very limited knowledge of the world around them, trying to paint a picture of a larger, cosmic perspective? Making believable, but ultimately wrong guesses, guided by their own perception and slipping on their assumptions and biases?

I know, this is just a story, not literal. It is, however, a story from a book allegedly inspired by an alleged god - while its meaning might be obscured, shouldn’t it at least be logical? If a metaphorical story contains contradictions, is it even possible to figure it out?

If a god was to write this, would they be using a flawed story of world creation to explain world creation, even if metaphorically? Would they be focusing on “how”, which conveniently answered a pressing question back then, but ignored much more interesting aspects like “why” or “from what”?

If you think it’s deliberately cryptic or misleading, that’s fine. But: at what point does a scrambled information become random noise? I know there’s no answer, and because of it I can’t consider such possibility. It’s just not logical.

Eden story is interesting too. Right after creating first humans, god sets up rules and expects them to be followed, no questions asked - done in a way that implies humans are too stupid to understand. And so, the forbidden fruit is introduced. God-made humans fall into a god-made trap, Satan - also created by god - wins. Like, who’s there to blame? Humans, of course, because of their god-given free will, so they get god-punished.

Is that paradise?
A botched phenomenological study?
A prison experiment gone wrong?
Some fucked up version of Matrix? ▓

This isn’t even a joke. It’s just what it looks like through the lens of determinism. Just a possibility, one of many, but here a god-created world is a much worse scenario than a godless one.

Determinism - a philosophical notion in which all events, including human actions, are pre-determined by preceding events. In a deterministic world everything is bound to happen, and free will gets thrown out of a window.

No matter how many points I raise here, some theology fanboy could come up with something to counter and devalue them. This would be fine, welcomed even, if it came from a place of rationality. In their case, unfortunately, what usually follows is mysticism backed by their faith. And if you’re not a believer yourself, you can’t even respond to that in any meaningful way. It’s like speaking two different languages that share some similarities, but one still can’t understand the other.

I will show you why they’re so difficult to work with.

Lost, alone, in their own myths

Theology is alleged by many theologians to be a field of science. That’s nothing but wishful thinking.

First, I would like to propose following hypotheses:

1. Theology is not a field of science.
2. Theology is a branch of philosophy, built around thinking about religious belief and what faith means.
3. Theologians-preachers, who claim scientific implications of theology, exhibit ideological affinity to their religion. They will 100% go to hell.
4. Theologians-philosophers, who don’t claim scientific implications of theology, are rational and keep their bias in check. They’re cool dudes, albeit rare, and deserve recognition among them all.

How did I arrive at these conclusions? I decided to do a little research. With our friend epistemology in mind, I looked not only at their ideas, but behavior as well, to determine how they construct their concepts and formulate their arguments. And it certainly paints a picture.

Unlike other fields of science, theology gives itself certain liberties when it comes to argumentation. They say faith is different from everything else. That one can know things based on that faith. They use emotions and experiences to make their concepts cohesive. This renders theology as unprovable, not empirical, and not examinable by the scientific method.

What’s worse is that they use this to discredit purely scientific arguments, hiding their heads in the sand instead of debating. Not because they are afraid - but because they just… can’t. Unable to use faith as an argument, their whole “field of science” collapses like a house of cards. So they deflect - it’s all they can do.

How theology utilizes their arguments:

• Unclear. I have noticed that they sometimes publish papers, but the language and citations they use are extremely self-referential, meaning there’s not much information exchange with non-theologians.
• They also don’t seem to build arguments based on other theologians’ work, instead each one is doing their own, unrelated thing.
• The citations they include are often mentioned to add some gravity to their writing by mentioning concepts that seem similar enough, but are not directly related to the main topic.
• It looks like this: “X said A, Y claimed that B, good old Z always thought that C, and here’s what I think: D”.

Doesn’t it sound to you like something? Hm? Starts with an “I”.

As I was doing research, I came up with these 5 categories of theological invention that can be used to classify all of their stuff. Take a look:

Lost, alone, in a society

My Personal Experience

Sometimes I wonder how Christians would feel about their holy book turning me into an atheist.

The only time I’ve read it whole I was 13. I couldn’t comprehend how a collection of simple stories like these is the foundation of the largest religions. And it felt like everybody around me was in on some long-con joke.

I didn’t understand why so many people cling to religion despite all of that. But I understood immediately why they don’t want to abandon it altogether - because they’d start doubting themselves. And that’s scarier than any metaphorical threat.

I didn’t dismiss what I felt. I started to pay more attention. I think I was 15 when I learned what atheism is (seriously, because rural Poland). That was the first external validation of my suspicions, and it was truly eye-opening. Things started to make sense.

The contrast was always stark, especially in school. Some geography, some chemistry, math, then bam, religious indoctrination. The only lesson where you weren’t supposed to learn why. Yet another place where all I could do was exist, detached from understanding.

I saw people in churches. It seemed like nobody understood why they’re there. Like it was just a performance. If some new part of a sermon was to be introduced, without them knowing beforehand - would they know how to react? Stand up, kneel, pray, sing?

Only when I became an independent adult I was no longer burdened and was able to shake this feeling off. And since then, I’ve never felt compelled to “do religion”.

Now, all I want to tell you is: it’s okay to doubt yourself. Especially so when it comes to the unprovable.

Lost, alone, in an unknown world

Most people don’t look for logic in stories. They don’t remember details. They probably don’t even understand their actual meaning in the first place.

The only association in their heads is how these stories make them feel. And if you can make people feel good, they’ll follow you - sometimes too eagerly. There’s not much secret to it, really. You could probably start your own religion too. Whether it’s through a shared myth Many did.

The myth they share - it’s just vibes. A soundtrack of their minds. A part of them they don’t want to abandon. Sunk cost fallacy.

When shared by many, it starts to dominate the society. All religions have their own set of rules, beliefs, and practices meant to guide their followers through life and nudge them towards making the “right” decisions. For better or worse.

It just so happens that the Abrahamic religions are the most popular ones that have spread around the world through… various means. I think this is the only place where I can feel something akin to so-called “colonizer’s guilt” - despite not being a colonizer, nor religious. Interesting, isn’t it?

Consider this: how many people would be religious, if they weren’t indoctrinated by their parents? If they had no assumption of what is “right” to believe - how many of them would be interested in exploring spirituality? Out of them, how many would feel inclined to join any kind of organized religion?

How many would choose one that uses fear as a motivator?

Want to see why they’re doing this?
I’ll show you. Take my hand. Or maybe not, ew.

Lost, alone, in an unknown Universe

…

(leans in)

…

Can you feel the emptiness of this endless void around us?

Isn’t it unsettling?

(smirks, leans back)

Who knows what’s out there.

What does one get at the end of Everything?
Could it be salvation? Or damnation?
A “YOU DIED” screen shoved in your face? ▓

…

What do you think the decay sounds like?
The same as radiation tastes, just without its asphyxiating smell of death?

Or maybe like nothing at all - as everything once created eventually succumbs to cosmic hypothermia, dissipating into what it once was, as if it never happened?

Neither - it’s just The Universe. It’s not out to get you. It’s just… there.

It doesn’t care about anything. Gods? Bad news - they’re too human to be Universal; not compatible, so they don’t get to play. Unless you can somehow tell the difference between a god and the owner of the simulation, that is.

Why would anyone think we’re a simulation though? It’s not like they could prove it. ▓
Where are the glitches, bugs, errors?

▓

Huh? This again? Sorry, let me just—

root@_# reboot &

Now, please, be grand and imagine the sounds of your old PC.
We vibin’ here, right?

… right?!

!

Oh, thank god. Home sweet home.

Just don’t look too far until everything fully loads.
You don’t want to become a null reference, do you?

Now, where were we…?

Lost, alone, but where?

…

Where does one go for solace when myths around them crumble?
A different temple? Their family?
Kabuchiko? Bieszczady?

What kind of journey can one embark on?
Inward? Outward?
Metaphysical? Psychonaut?

You know it doesn’t matter.

What matters is you and your unique perspective.
Your very own human experience.

You are not lost. You are home.

No myth ever can take that away from you - unless you let them, fool.

And, hey - ain’t that something worth realizing? Cherishing, even?

Conclusion

Just this once, pass - write your own conclusion.

I just wanted to show you around the cosmic neighborhood.

…

▓

Get in Touch

Below you can find a comment section provided by giscus. A GitHub account is required to comment.

You can also message me directly via Session: 0508b17ad6382fc604b42c3eccac44836ce9183bd4fbae0627b50aead32499b242. However, I do not promise to respond quickly, or at all. Depends on my current state of mind.

Follow me on X or subscribe to the RSS feed to stay updated.