Do you think philosophy has an unhelpful tendency toward superlativism - that passes through common sense, but then just keeps on going? — karl stone

Ya think? :smile:

"Are you prepared to give up beef to save the world?" No. I'm willing apply renewable energy technology so that I can eat beef guilt free. And lots of it! — karl stone

There's another angle to beef eating which perhaps you haven't fully considered? If we are willing to torture and kill entirely innocent defenseless animals for no better reason than that they taste good, do we have the "psychological infrastructure" necessary to save the world?

As example, why would a person who smokes be motivated to protect the environment when they are busy knowingly trashing their own most personal environment?

What if saving the world is, at heart, not really a technical problem but a psychological, moral, emotional problem?

I wonder if you're aware of Enemies of the Open Society by Popper. — karl stone

No, not aware. Explain it if you wish, listening.

I have shown that there are legitimate limitations on the rightful authority of science, insofar as, beyond sustainability, no implication can be said to be compulsory. Does that solve your problem too? — karl stone

Limitations on the rightful authority of science, I can vote for that. I might clarify that by editing to "cultural authority". That is, I agree science has great authority when it comes to the process of developing new knowledge. I don't agree that therefore we should develop as much knowledge as possible, a common assertion of science culture.

Trying to steer back towards the topic of this thread....

Let's say we achieve limitless free clean energy, truly an amazing accomplishment of science, which on purely technical grounds can of course be applauded.

But what's the larger picture? Does limitless free energy result in the economy taking off like a rocket, causing us to burn through other finite resources at an ever faster pace? Does it cause human populations to further expand, resulting in an acceleration of species extinction? And so on...

Also, I would prefer that members refer to me by my official title, Professor Party Pooper. Thank you very much.

Another quick interruption.

Having already plugged my sagely wife above, I will now shamelessly plug my own "blowharding to save the world" thread, which can be found here.

While Karl addresses energy and water, my thread addresses another very important component of the world saving project, knowledge.

Karl argues for more knowledge to help manage energy and water resources, a reasonable enough proposition, if one limits the subject to energy and water. There are many challenges before us, and it's very understandable to attempt to leverage the awesome power of knowledge to meet those challenges.

However, when we 1) add all the knowledge growing projects together, and 2) watch as they feed back upon each other, 3) accelerating the overall pace of knowledge development, 4) we arrive at a different picture, which is.....

The solution is the biggest problem.

I know this to be a hard fact, because when I explain this blowharding theory to my wife while we're making dinner she always says, "Ok honey, I'm sure you're right." See? Proof!!!

Sorry to interrupt, but I thought I should report that my wife has the perfect description of philosophy, which she offers with a wink and a smile.

Philosophy: blowharding to save the world

The human is one that must self-deceive at all moments that there is something to do, somewhere to go, and something to be. — schopenhauer1

Generally I agree with this. Humans tend to relate to reality through stories. The ego is a story. Meaning is a story. The past and future are stories. Religion is a story. Relationships are a story.

I agree also that we tend to use these stories to keep the void at bay, for the void is typically seen to be too scary. An experiment can reveal this to those too lost in the busyness of stories to know the fear of the void is lurking underneath the busyness.

Go somewhere in nature where you can get peace and quiet and be alone all day. Bring only a chair, water and food, nothing else. Get there at dawn and stay until sunset. Watch one day of your life unfold. Before long the busy busy busy story machine will probably start thinking of a thousand reasons why you need to be doing something else, something busy, something to feed the stories. If the reasons don't work, the story machine may start threatening you with various sadness emotions.

What seems to be missing from the Schopenhauer religion (referring to the famous philosopher, not the poster) is the understanding that if we refuse to be bullied by the story machine, if we stick to our guns and patiently wait it out, the story machine gradually gives up. Over time the mind will adapt itself to the new low stimulation environment and like the bird you referenced above, the becoming story machine experience gives away to just being, to silence. That is, our focus shifts from abstractions to the real world.

The real world has what we're looking for. And to the degree we find what we're looking for, the fear of the void fades, and the need for stories recedes.

The Schopenhauer religion is just another story being used to push away the scary void. Perhaps this story could be useful if it encourages us to turn and face the void, which would of course include saying goodbye to the Schopenhauer religion.

If the Schopenhauer story is being used to just endlessly wallow around in dreadful dank dreariness, then hopefully it's just a college sophomore dorm room hobby that will soon pass. As example...

When I was late high school - early college age I read a lot of Solzhenitsyn books about the Russian gulag. I was a sheltered little suburban white boy, and so the discovery that evil existed in the world was dreadfully fascinating. In time I got over this interest and went on to better stories.

Yeah; but, I have you to cheer me up with some Skinnerian behaviorism. — Posty McPostface

You did have that, past tense.

Great, another idea I want to endlessly post about. — Posty McPostface

It's ok to endlessly post. Just keep in my mind that you're trying to engage readers in a story which has no arc, a strategy which is likely to lead to having no readers. That said, the Internet is a big place.

we are in a constant state of having to believe that any move or decision is one even worth making. — schopenhauer1

Why is this any more interesting than being in a constant state of needing access to food?

By this I mean that we have to deceive ourselves that what we are doing is meaningful — schopenhauer1

We have to eat every day.

We have to sleep every day.

We have to go to the bathroom every day.

The brain is just another mechanical apparatus of the body with it's own maintenance requirements.

If we want to have a healthy life, we have to take care of business.

Why complicate it beyond that?

you do have to understand that philosophical pessimism is also a respectable field of study into human nature. I don't quite get your gripe with it though. — Posty McPostface

Is philosophical pessimism working for you? Is it taking you towards the day when you won't bother posting on this topic any more because you've solved the problem and moved on to greener pastures?

My idealized dream is to live alone in some forest away from people — Posty McPostface

Ok, I can relate to the forest dream. There's a wonderful state park only 4 miles away from our house, a 7 minute drive. I spend a LOT of time in the park when weather permits, and am enthusiastically awaiting the imminent arrival of the winter hiking season.

I can relate to the hermit thing too, though I'd put it somewhat differently.

What do you say to the misanthrope, that I am? — Posty McPostface

1) As you know by now, what I could really relate to is some kind of specific action plan which moves you closer towards reaching your dream. Modest movement is ok, so long as it is actual movement.

2) Your post seems to suggest you are running away from people. I agree that many people merit running away from. However, I would suggest a shift of focus. Instead of a negative motivation, aim for a positive motivation. Make it less about what you are running away from, and more about what you are running towards. Which brings us to...

3) Do you spend time in the forest or other nature environments now? Whatever your current relationship with nature is, it would likely be worth your time to focus on enhancing it. This could easily be a thread of it's own, but a good place to start is simply to spend more time in whatever nature is available to you.

I have read and indulge in a fair share of philosophical pessimism and Schopenhauer. — Posty McPostface

So for instance, this could be the first thing on the chopping block. Way less time with Schopenhauer, and way more time with chipmunks. Way less time with pessimism, way more time falling in love with reality. Way less of reading books, way more of watching clouds. Way less abstraction, way more of the real world.

but, the misanthropy feels like it's getting more and more debilitating or increasing in magnitude in my ability to interact with other people. — Posty McPostface

We all need to bond with something, but it doesn't have to be people. If bonding with people isn't working out, we can become expert at bonding with something else.

There are no convincing arguments for or against God's existence... — StreetlightX

And....

There's no convincing evidence that we even understand the concept of existence well enough to make the God debate question meaningful.

As example, the overwhelming vast majority of reality at every scale is space. Does space exist? At the least this is debatable. More likely, the phenomena of space transcends our simplistic yes/no definition of existence.

Here's a summary of the God debate.

1) Does God mangobombka?
2) What does mangobombka mean?
3) We have no idea.
4) Ok, let's debate mangobombka!!

But in a great deal of modern philosophy, there is an assumed conflict between faith and reason... — Wayfarer

Agreed of course.

Doesn't it depend on how the job is defined? If we define the mission as developing facts about reality, there is a conflict between faith and reason. If on the other hand we define the mission as enhancing our relationship with reality then there is no conflict. Which brings us to...

Seek out a way of looking at things - a perspective - that embraces both. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, because both are needed. We don't necessarily need religion, but we do need methods of enhancing our relationship with ourselves, each other and reality, because if we don't succeed at that then we'll inevitably destroy ourselves using the vast powers being developed by reason/science.

We don't necessarily need religion, but as people of reason we should examine the evidence in a detached objective manner and realize that religion has been the operating system of many or most societies for a long time and we shouldn't just be casually tossing it over board until we can replace it with something better.

Science culture is not the something better, in terms of enhancing our relationship with reality. Science culture is great at developing data, but data alone is going to get us all killed. We need some kind of effective governing mechanism that is wise enough to know when we should reach for some knowledge, and when we should not. We don't have that now, a problem that if unaddressed will likely make the whole debate between religion and science a moot point before too much longer.

Seems like fair game to me, though perhaps investing this much effort in debunking takes the targets more seriously than is merited.

I got an education in to philosophical academia after spending a few months on a group blog for academic philosophers. It seems every third article was about diversity in journals, and there was a lot of political correctness mantra chanting going on.

Academics seem to excel at crafting polished presentations, playing the philosophy business game, projecting the image of authority etc. But when it comes to the quality of thinking, I prefer this site.

That's not really what I'm saying. What impressed me when I was given the Eastern books that I mentioned - Watts, Suzuki, etc, very popular in the 1960s and 70s - was that there was something in them that simply *wasn't* found in religion, as such. — Wayfarer

"Die to be reborn", a key Christian teaching, seems very similar to the Eastern books you are referencing. I would agree that when "die to be reborn" is just a chanted memorized ideological concept it's not so similar. But not every Christian relates to it in that way. Some people actually focus on experiencing "die to be reborn" in service to others etc. What is "enlightenment" if not "dying to be reborn"?

But I still believe there is a fundamental distinction between the 'believe-and-be-saved' attitude (which is especially characteristic in Protestantism) and the 'experiential realisation' approach which you find in both Eastern and also 'new age' movements. — Wayfarer

I agree, but there's more to Christianity in general and Protestantism in particular than "believe and be saved", at least in some cases. Some people believe specifically because they have personally experienced the power of love.

Love is an act of surrender.

Meditation is an act of surrender.

Whatever ones calls it, however one gets there, an act of surrender, a dying to be reborn. East and West, largely the same thing underneath the surface cultural differences.

I think the fundamental issue in Western culture has been the role of dogmatic authority in religion. The way it has been formulated, you were told either ‘believe and be saved’ - or you were outcaste and damned. — Wayfarer

I'm not really arguing with this, but feel the need to remind readers that the role of ideology in religion seems greatly exaggerated on philosophy forums. As example, if we were to attend the typical Christian church and mingle with the crowd the conversations we'd be hearing would likely not be dominated by ideological issues. It's true that SOME religious people are highly ideological, but most are pretty casual about such things, just like most atheists.

So since The Enlightenment there has been a strong (but often tacit) element of "Anything But God" underwriting philosophy; the 'confict thesis' comes out of that. But the causes of this attitude are often suppressed or forgotten, resulting in a kind of pathological distrust of anything that sounds religious — Wayfarer

We can all agree that there have been many abuses within religion that are fairly rejected, sometimes with enthusiasm. But it's not exactly enlightened for us to forget that within any group of people as large as religion, various abuses will inevitably exist. As example, atheist Marxists spread a whirl wind of mass murder across large segments of the world in the 20th century.

Anyway, long story short, I enrolled in Comparative Religion at University. I formed the view that the experiential side of spirituality, the search for enlightenment, which is still preserved in those sources, was lost or suppressed early in the Christian Era. — Wayfarer

Not arguing with this either, but again, let's keep in mind that philosophers are typically ignoring the experiential side of Christianity to focus almost exclusively on ideology. As example, while there are somewhat of a tsunami of religion threads flooding the forum, pretty much none of them address the experience of love to any serious degree, or any degree at all. It's not reasonable for us to claim an experiential side to Christianity doesn't exist just because we are determined to ignore it.

But to answer your question - the original impulse behind philosophy as such, was just this kind of quest for individual enlightenment, but through reasoned analysis rather than devotional religion — Wayfarer

Ok, sounds good. And so let's keep going with that if you wish. I would argue (perhaps you would as well?) that a reasoned analysis followed far enough will lead to the experience of devotion, or if readers prefer, an enhanced emotional experience of reality.

I think it's perfectly sensible for a person who is allergic to religion to walk away from it. It's less sensible to cling stubbornly to religion so as to have something one can perpetually reject.

In any case, I would argue that both reason and faith, philosophy and religion, can lead to the same kind of important experiences if one walks far enough down one's chosen path. Thus, the rational approach would be to drop the endless debate about these methodologies, pick the one that works the best for us personally, and explore the method we've chosen to the greatest degree we're capable of.

Messiah? — Pattern-chaser

Merely Messiah? You apostate blasphemer!!!

not to hijack the thread — Jake

Well actually, bashing clerics would probably be in the spirit of the intended purpose of this thread. :smile:

[Me too.] — Pattern-chaser

Ok then, it's agreed, we accept Wayfarer as our personal savior. :smile:

Please, this is not fair. Just like teachers, sports coaches and (school) bus drivers, the clerical profession is infiltrated by paedophiles when they can, to gain access to children. None of those professions bear the blame for this; the paedophiles are the guilty ones. — Pattern-chaser

Um, not to hijack the thread, but can you list any other organizations who have experienced the mass child rape phenomena to the same degree as the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church became party to the crime when they deployed an ongoing systematic system for hiding the crimes, thus putting more children at risk. The laity became party to the crime when they knowingly kept sending money to those who covered up the crimes.

Just as a haiku is limited to 17 syllables. It concentrates the mind. — Pattern-chaser

In the near future the only word typed on the Internuts will be "me". But then people will complain that requires too much typing, so it will be shortened to "I".

All of Facebook can be summarized by a single letter. :smile:

Wow Wayfarer, great post! :up:

In any case, in any of the traditional schools of wisdom, there is an understanding that the mind has to clear itself of obstructions and hindrances so as to see the true ‘object of knowledge’. — Wayfarer

Yes, and the real obstruction isn't incorrect thoughts in particular, but the medium of thought itself. The obstruction, a profound bias for division, is built in to the medium so the very act of trying to think one's way past the limitations confines one within those limitations.

As example, let's propose for the moment that nature is a single unified reality, in much the same way the human body is a single unified system. If such a unity exists, that unity is going to be impossible to experience through the lens of a medium whose primary purpose is to break a single unified reality up in to conceptual parts. Thought is simply the wrong tool for that particular job.

But we have lost sight of that, for complex historical reasons, the main one being the reduction of everything to language and symbolic abstractions. — Wayfarer

Yes, thought is such a powerful tool and has brought so many benefits that we moderns are understandably leaping to the unfounded assumption that it is therefore the best tool for every job. And so, as we moderns make thought in to a new kind of "god" we become both ever more powerful, and ever more insane. It's this relationship which will drive our future.

What you - again not just you - are caught up in, is the Enlightenment reaction against ecclesiastical religion. — Wayfarer

Yes, agreed. And there are many good reasons to reject ecclesiastical religion, mass child rape by clerics coming immediately to mind.

The rational act for the atheist is to go ahead and reject ecclesiastical religion, get it over with already, and then keep moving. Don't stop at the rejection and build a little fort, thus replicating some of the worst aspects of religion. Keep on moving past the rejection towards useful questions like.....

How do we construct the most positive possible relationship with this mysterious place we find ourselves in?

How do we so arrange our experience so that a handful of dirt fills us with delight? How do we so arrange our experience so that a sunrise makes us fall to our knees weeping tears of joy at the awesome beauty of star emerging over the horizon? How do we so arrange our minds so that the miracle of life is experienced as an ongoing wondrous joyful mystery?

These are extremely practical emotional challenges which few philosophers are brave enough to confront, and so we hide from the challenge in fancy intellectual abstractions.

1) Reject religion, and get it #$%^ over with, and then...

2) Keep moving.

Isn't there supposed to be a meaningful difference between theism and atheism? — S

It can be argued that both faith and reason can lead to the same place if followed far enough. Perhaps what creates the supposedly huge gap between theism and atheism is that most of us only follow our chosen path a short way down the trail, and then we stop, and build a fort.

Returning now to the thread title, "evidence for the supernatural".

The leading theory in my mind is that the supernatural concept is referring to real phenomena within the laws of nature that are so far outside of our current ability to grasp that they SEEM to be outside the laws of nature.

As example, for the vast majority of human history we had no knowledge of the microscopic, atomic and quantum realms. Those realms were always there right in front of our faces, but for a long time we couldn't see them. So if we were to attempt to explain the quantum realm to an audience from 1,000 years ago it would surely SOUND supernatural to them, because such things would be so far beyond their own experience and knowledge. But as we now know, these realms are not supernatural, but instead just an example of reality being far more interesting than even our imaginations can sometimes grasp.

As a thought experiment, imagine that the complexity of reality was explained by a number scale going from 0 - 1,000. Over the last 500 years we've made remarkable progress in understanding, which when compared to previous understandings make we moderns feel like geniuses. But maybe we're progressed up the complexity number scale from 7 to 23. There may be vast territory as yet not even imagined, let alone explored or understood.

In a clumsy childlike manner the stories about the supernatural may be referring to this vast realm of unexplored reality.

One problem (on every board, not just this one) with many of the longer threads (hundreds of posts) is that they are often generated and dominated by a small number of people who appear to be having an ego-contest. So everything ends up revolving around the agenda that these people set, — yazata

Good point, that's true.

It would be interesting to have a forum feature that limited members to posting only say, once a week, in selected threads. And perhaps limited the number of words one could type too. So if we wanted to impress our friends with our awesome sageness etc, we'd have to cut the crap and get right to it.

Before the Internet went public I used to feed my typoholic addiction by submitting letters to the local paper. The paper had a 300 word limit for letters, because the space available was limited. At first I rebelled at any rule which limited my ability to type. :smile: But over time I came to see the 300 word limit was forcing me to slow down and really focus on finding the heart of what I wanted to say.

Also, the letters were edited. Although this didn't always work out to my satisfaction, sometimes the editors performed miracles upon my words, performing laser surgery to carefully remove my sarcasm and other such emotional garbage, leaving my points intact, thus making me look a much better writer than I actually am.

The gods were invented and their supporting literature was composed by mortal men who worked subtle and plain themes into compelling, inspiring, (sometimes readily) believable tales whose themes have endured for at least 5 millennia. — Bitter Crank

Yes, agreed.

1) We might reflect upon the spectacular success of these mortal writers in creating tales which have survived the test of time. As example, no collection of words from science is likely to match this accomplishment.

2) The agreed upon fact that mortal men wrote these tales tells us little about whether something like gods exist. Or rather it tells us little about whether something unseen exists which tribal mortal men from thousands of years ago could only describe by referencing the King concept which was dominant during their time.

Hi Bitter,

Your post sketches the history of religion being a powerful force, which like any powerful force, was often hijacked by those concerned primarily with exercising power. Sometimes the power trippers were political types, and sometimes the power trippers were clerical types, and as you say, these two power tripping groups often forged alliances. Agreed.

What your post doesn't address is the question of why religion is such a powerful force. Well, you do in part by reminding us religion has often been backed up by the power of the state, clearly an important factor in expanding the influence of religion.

But still the question remains unanswered. How did religion accumulate such power that it became a valuable property which the state would want to hijack?

There are many ways to answer this but as we dig down through the pile I believe the bottom line we arrive at is the impact of religion at the personal level, with social/political phenomena being symptoms of the underlying personal level experiences.

As example, Marxism is just one of many political ideologies which have come and gone over the course of Judeo-Christian history in the West. Marxism was a powerful ideology hijacked by the state in two of the world's largest nations, but it has already faded away in influence, while Christianity remains still standing, as it has so many times before.

Point being, there must be more going on with religion than just another ideology being hijacked by power trippers to serve their own agendas.

As someone who has been a member of this forum, as well as the old forum we inhabited, for many years, and as someone who was a moderator here for a couple of years, I feel that I've got a pretty good grasp of these things, and don't need them pointed out to me. — S

I bet I've been doing this daily since around the time you were born. So there. :smile:

So, to boil all of that down, basically, you say we don't know, we're ignorant, and ignorance can be good. — S

That's a beginning to it, yes.

But the question then is obviously what do we know and what don't we know, how much do we or don't we know, what is the extent of our ignorance, what are we ignorant of and what aren't we ignorant of, and of that ignorance, what counts as the good kind and what counts as the bad kind. — S

One could explore in that direction. And/or, one could ask..

We've discovered all this ignorance through a long investigation. What constructive use can be made of this abundant asset?

It's justified through reason. It's more reasonable to go with a theory with far superior explanatory power than a theory with nothing going for it which clashes with everything that reason has lead me to believe. Reason has lead me to believe that this isn't a world where anything goes, full of contradiction, that makes no sense whatsoever. — S

Yes, reason has led you to believe this, reason has led you to believe that. But you never apply the processes of reason to reason itself. You're accepting the unlimited qualifications of human reason as a matter of faith, taking them to be an obvious given. This faith position is easily challenged given how incredibly small human beings are in relation to the arena which god claims address, the fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

Your position is like an unchallenged assumption that bacteria could understand the Internet. You're not standing on a solid rock as you appear to believe.

By the way, in your defense, you are in very good company in making these faith based assumptions.

But you're not really challenging me, because I already have that challenge. That's there by default. I've already considered my position, and this is where I'm at. Now, you might have noticed that I have yet to abandon it. Perhaps consider why that is? Could it be that, instead of being ideologically or emotionally attached to it, which is how you're spinning it, rather, in my reasoned assessment, I have found it to be better than the alternatives? — S

You love to do this typing back and forth, back and forth, but you never quite get around to questioning your own chosen authority in the same way you reasonably question the theist's chosen authorities. Your "reasoned assessment" is always aimed outward, at somebody else's process, somebody else's chosen authority, somebody else's conclusions. How can you "find something better than the alternatives" if your lens is aimed only in one direction?

I do have pretty incredible hair. — Michael

See? That's what I'm saying! And nice shoes too, and wow, I really like that tie.

If no pretending is necessary, then how am I supposed to act as though I have no dog in the fight when I do have a dog in the fight? Wouldn't that involve a kind of pretence? — S

It could, but isn't required to. Take something easier as example. Let's say we're not all that political really, but we lean left. We can honestly disclose that we lean left, while at the same time pointing to problems within the Democratic Party. Ok, so this gets harder as one addresses issues that are more important to us, but it''s still possible.

I've told you that I'm not interested in trying to pick apart my own position singlehandedly. I don't need you or anyone else for that. But you keep pressing for me to do what you want, irrespective of what I've said. — S

Yes, I'm a reason evangelist, and like all evangelists (we won't mention any other names here) I'm annoying. Not only annoying, but truly illogical too, because none of this is ever going to lead to much of anything, thus I'm mostly wasting my life typing to hear myself talk. But please recall, the glory of this medium is that we can simply scroll right on by annoying people.

Yes, you've challenged me to challenge myself, so that you don't have to. — S

So I don't have to? Have you noticed that I'm investing a lot of time in to challenging you? I'm just not challenging you the way you want to be challenged, that's all.

It's possible I'm three times your age and am going too fast. Ok, if that's the case, then feel free to scroll right on by me, no offense will be taken.

It just means that I'm now more wary of what you moderators might do to a discussion of mine. — S

When I first arrived here I put a great deal of thought, time and energy in a thread which engaged many readers, only to see that thread entirely vanish without warning, explanation of apology. I took a break, got over it, and returned.

The thing is...

1) Forums without moderators inevitably become pointless trash piles in the pell mell rush to the lowest common denominator. Yea, philosophy forums too. Yea, philosophy forums hosted by leading philosophy print magazines too.

2) Moderators are human beings working for free, so perfection is not to be expected.

3) Sucking up to the mods may be the most effective method of protecting your threads, which is why I personally feel the mods here on this forum are doing the most excellent job I've ever seen, and they have very handsome haircuts too. :smile:

It's worthwhile to note that the forum has been bombarded with new threads promoting theism or atheism recently, which is very annoying to those that see such interminable arguments as borderline philosophy at best. — andrewk

Such debates have the potential to be useful and interesting (imho) if the conversation matures beyond challenging this or that position within the God debate to challenging the God debate itself. I agree this rarely happens, and that the process of rarely getting there can be tedious.

On the other hand, if it's true that many or most posters on philosophy forums are young men, (is that true?) then it's not reasonable to expect someone who is 22 to immediately leapfrog over the repetitive patterns which have obsessed humanity for centuries.

So through a reduction to absurdity, I can demonstrate that a rejection of a God which can violate the law of noncontradiction is justified. — S

It's justified emotionally. We all have the right to seek comfort where ever we can find it. And we all have the right to reject or ignore inconvenient posters such as myself who put that comfort at risk.

To the degree that one wishes to walk the path of reason, one sacrifices this right as the price of doing business. In the purest sense (which few of us ever realize) reason is just like faith, it's a process one surrenders to. We aren't the driver of the bus, but merely a passenger. We don't get to choose the destination of the bus, we don't get to use the bus of reason to travel to our preferred destination.

All of these problems are removed if one is honest enough to simply declare oneself an ideologist. In that case one is not bound by the process summarized above and is free to drive the imaginary bus to any glorious imaginary destination one desires. Thus, ideology is very popular.

I accept that I could be wrong, but if the law of noncontradiction can be violated, then anything goes, literally, as per the principle of explosion. And that's a really big problem. — S

Aha, now you are getting somewhere, bravo.

Yes, whether one is a theist or atheist, the possibility that there might not be any authority which we can place our trust in can be troubling indeed. Imagine that we don't know the laws of the country we live, and have no method of learning those laws. This is a perilous position, as we could be arrested at any moment and not even know why. And so many or most people reject this possibility for the simple understandable reason that they don't want to deal with uncertainty. And then they turn to some authority or another to tell them how to think.

What I've been attempting to articulate in many of posts is that the God debate is the biggest longest investigation in human history, and it has yielded useful information. The evidence clearly shows that nobody can prove anything. So if we are people of reason, if we listen to the evidence, we don't really have any choice but to accept that on these subjects there is no proven authority that we can reference.

Is this a really big problem? No, because as the evidence clearly shows theists, atheists and agnostics have all proven they can have rewarding lives without having a proven authority to reference. Many people have a rewarding life in one position, then change that position, and go right on having rewarding lives.

Ignorance is not automatically a problem, as the following example will hope to illustrate.

Let's say you've met some guy or gal at the bus stop and they've invited you home for lunch. A few hours later you're walking hand in hand in to the bedroom. What makes this a special event which you may remember for the rest of your life? Ignorance!

Now let's say that you marry this person and 30 years later you're walking in to the bedroom with them again. What makes this an experience you may not remember until next Tuesday? Not enough ignorance!

Ignorance is much of what makes life a rich experience. If we can examine the God debate as people of reason, and not as ideologists honking memorized slogans, we might see that the God debate is trying to teach us something important.

We don't know.

And that can be a very good thing.

Perhaps this becomes easier to see as one ages. Some aspects of life which would engage a younger person become boring over time because we've already seen those same human ego melodrama situations a million times.

What typically happens to make a person an ideologist is that they use an ideology to enhance their self image.

This process is easy to see in some of the more annoying nose in the air theists. "We are the chosen people, we are saved, we are holy, we are morally superior, we have God's ear etc." The purpose of such statements is to position the speaker as being above somebody else.

We're probably all guilty of this emotional agenda to some degree or another, but some folks get really carried away with it. To the degree that this happens we tend to become imperious to reason because our primary focus is not really the topic itself, but our relationship with ourselves.

So being intellectually honest involves being intellectually dishonest by pretending that one doesn't have a dog in the fight when one does have a dog in the fight. — S

No pretending is necessary, as you could easily figure out for yourself if your ideologist's mind wasn't set on auto-rejection mode.

"Although I would label myself as an XYZ, in this thread I'd like to spend some time examining any possible weaknesses in the XYZ position."

Isn't this just what you'd hope theists would do? If a theist did that they would gain credibility with you, right?

So present a challenge. Or quit pestering me. — S

I've just presented a challenge to you in my last few posts above. You're not up to meeting that challenge, so you're running away in fear. And BTW, I don't have the power to pester you. If you don't wish to read my posts, don't read them, no problem.

PS: Everybody obviously has the right to be an ideologue. We just don't get to call that reason, that's all. Well, we can call it reason if we want to, at the cost of losing credibility.