By drop their skepticism I mean dropping their scientific mindset of theories are not facts, an experiment needs to be reproduceable, etc. I don’t believe that science disproves religion but I do believe there are too many unproveable aspects of most religions for me to be too skeptical to believe in fully

Can you point out what specifically makes you think I believe that? If it will clear things up I will give you my opinion about the subject outright, I would say it depends on whether there is a creator or not, does this creator have a physical form, where did they come from, what allows them to create life, and many more questions. This question can’t be answered with our knowledge and it is built on other unanswerable concepts so any answer is just a guess.

Could you explain what that has to do with understanding objective and subjective means? I cannot prove to you that anything exists, I can’t even prove to you that we live in the same reality, or that you are a sentient being and not a figment of my imagination. “I think, therefore I am”, I can observe my reality but I can neither prove my existence nor confirm my observations are correct. The only conclusion that leaves me with is, I know that I don’t know.

I don’t value objectivity over subjectivity unless we’re talking about logic because logic is about overcoming subjective beliefs to find the objective truth, so it should follow that I hold your logic to the rigidity that it’s defined by no?

And again, you are making assumptions about me with no truth behind them.

Logic is reasoning based on proveable facts so no it’s not going to tell you what something is, just how probable something is.

That wouldn’t be the logical conclusion because we are limited as humans. We make mistakes, we don’t understand everything, we misremember, we can even gaslight ourselves such as the mandela effect. If 50 people told me they experienced an alien abduction, that doesn’t make it logically true, now if they were to show me proveable facts of the abduction then I would be more inclined to believe.

I’m not sure what you mean with the last paragraph, you are clearly describing illogical subjective experiences but calling them “very reasonable logic of it’s own”. What you are describing isn’t logic, what you’re describing is the opposite of logic. Someone claiming something they believe is true but can’t provide validity.

Born and raised in north america, went to a baptist church as a kid so I’m fairly familiar with the bible as well as different types of religious people you’ll meet.

As an agnostic now, my only core belief is I know that I don’t know. That’s something I apply to any philosophical question so it’s alien to me that some people can separate logic and religion.

There is a prevelant theory but it’s still an unanswered philosophical question that noone truly intelligent would tell you they knew definitively. Anyone asserting that matter 100% comes before conciousness is on the same wavelength as someone telling you there is 100% a god controlling everything.

So we can at least agree that people who are confident in something unproveable are objectively unintelligent.

Did you grow up religious? Or maybe more specifically, did you grow up around this religious group and established connections young?

I see where you’re drawing the correlation because we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of higher powers the same as I can’t tell you whether you are a brain floating in amniotic fluid running through a simulation or not. People approaching philosophical questions usually reach an impasse because that is the nature of philosophy.

But a religious person would be more akin to someone telling you that they know we are in fact floating brains powering an AI civilization. They can’t provide you with solid proof but you are incorrect if you think otherwise.

Can I ask what religion you practice and what drives you to continue?

Man brains are so weird. Thank you for that video!