/lit/ - Literature

>>17712647
You first part cleared it up for me a bit better, and I'd agree that it seems counterintuitive for the answers to metaphysiclal problems to be explained wholly in physical means (and eye cant see itself yeah)
>It doesn't need to be a ground-shattering factor as long as you assume that our minds are fallible.
I may need this to be expanded, because my issue is just because our minds are fallible doesn't mean we can't solve more existential questions, and that each mind is fallible in the same way. Hypothetically (but this can be said as true about religion) the reason why religious documents are 'so true' is because they incorporate hundreds of people's wisdom, experience, and account of events. They effectively cancel out each other's deficiencies in wisdom (the way I heard it explained was by C.S. Lewis who said would you have a made made by 1 person (you) or 1000 cartographers over time that look at each other's maps and make one big one) Hopefully i'm making my point clear but im just trying to say humans have a small but significant "infallibility" built from thousands of years of trial and error built up. but yeah lol ill hear from you later perhaps