We think. We say. We confine things into a framework we can understand.
Religious people live in a religious framework. Its experience requires one to believe in a doctrine on faith.
Scientist live in a rational framework. Its experience requires one to believe in the utility of the scientific method.
In my opinion, religious framework is certainly less useful than the rational framework. At least in the small timeframe that I live in. However, rational framework still is a framework. By definition it has an agreed upon definition. This definition is made up by our collective minds agreeing with each other.
With that in mind, the rational framework itself though follows a true reasoning can never be traced to a fundamental truth. It will necessary lead to, if you reason far enough, an assumption. In contrast, the assumptions of religious views are easy to trace: God is true.
Rational framework is useful but it must not be mistaken to be true. It's a description that has more depth than religious views. Rational framework must not elude itself having a fundamental ground, real and truth, that it stands on. Just like religion, it has no ground. It, if you trace far enough, is still a belief based on faith.
Comments