The switch to interpretation

During debate religious people switch ‘at some point’ from observation to interpretation. It is like ‘playing a game of cards, when suddenly someone decides to change the rules’.

In finding truth, the method depends on the subject. A circle can argued to be a square. But to call a circle a square, when both the object and the meaning of the word ‘square’ have the characteristics of a circle, is nonsense. Why is it nonsense? Because our vision examines objects. The observation is put into words. The words are a description of what we see. As a result, when someone describes a square, even though we don’t see the square, the description leads to the imagination of a square. So the combination of our observation and descriptive charactistics of what we see is a method for examining objects.

However, our vision and words are limited; we cannot measure the lenght and angles of the square. But we have learned to increase the quality of our observation by adding tools and math up to a very detailed level, to minimize coincidence in our observations.

This method works for the entire visible world; it is called science.

If we apply the method of observation to the invisible world (everything), we can make detailed and abstact descriptions of what we observe, feel, think, want, etc. This is where science stops.

Science is verifyable observations.

But humans are not observation machines, we are existential beings. We experience morality, holiness, meaning, purpose etc. These experiences are rather prescriptive (morality, holiness and meaning all include ‘you should, or should not’) as opposed to scientific observations (it just works like this).

The question is: what guides morality, holiness and meaning? What is, or should be the source of my definitions and bases for my actions?

Because science cannot guide (only observe) morality, holiness and meaning, we might very well turn to interpretation. From religious books. Or from philosophers. Or from our parents, or local priest.

Our guidance, argumented, but not observed, is an ideology. Or, as Oxford Language states: “a system of ideas and ideals..”