[quote pid='1231011' dateline='1458757119']
Yes, it may be true that reason may not work in all of reality. I'm not sure how that would happen, but for arguments sake, I'll go with it.
That still does not answer the question, what other, better method do we have?
[/quote]
I'm not selling anything other than reason. We're on the same page in that regard. So let's reason together.
1) There is no proof that holy books are qualified to make credible statements about the fundamental nature of all reality. So until such proof is provided, we decline to believe in such an ability.
2) There is no proof that human reason is qualified to make credible statements about the fundamental nature of all reality. So until such proof is provided, we decline to believe in such an ability.
See? This is very simple reasoning. No fancy anything required. All that's needed is to apply a sensible challenge in an even handed manner to all authorities. That is, all that's needed is reason. Not ideology. Reason.
So let's keep reasoning. What's next?
Some people may be happy to stop here. They will say, if we can't know anything about gods one way or the other, let's focus on something we can know something about. There's nothing wrong with such a decision of course. Let's call these folks agnostics.
Other people will want to keep on going. Here's how we might do that. Embrace the fact of our ignorance. Stop chasing fantasy knowings of various theist or atheist flavors, and mine what we actually do have, our ignorance. Atheists are always talking about facing reality etc, so this should not be such an unfamiliar concept.
I call this the fundamentalist agnostic position, for lack of a better phrase. The fundamentalist agnostic doesn't just reject theism or atheism. They reject the point of agreement that theism and atheism both share, the notion that the goal of the inquiry should be to establish a knowing.
The fundamentalist agnostic observes that there is no evidence that a knowing is available by any means. Thus, the endless search for a knowing by all parties to the theist/atheist debate is seen to be irrational.
What is rational is to make the best possible use of what we actually have in abundance on this subject, ignorance. This is not as odd as it may at first seem.
What makes childhood such a special time of life? Ignorance.
What makes romance such a special experience? Ignorance.
Ignorance is actually a very important asset to human life. A lot of what we cherish arises from it. One needs only reason to see it.
Yes, it may be true that reason may not work in all of reality. I'm not sure how that would happen, but for arguments sake, I'll go with it.
That still does not answer the question, what other, better method do we have?
[/quote]
I'm not selling anything other than reason. We're on the same page in that regard. So let's reason together.
1) There is no proof that holy books are qualified to make credible statements about the fundamental nature of all reality. So until such proof is provided, we decline to believe in such an ability.
2) There is no proof that human reason is qualified to make credible statements about the fundamental nature of all reality. So until such proof is provided, we decline to believe in such an ability.
See? This is very simple reasoning. No fancy anything required. All that's needed is to apply a sensible challenge in an even handed manner to all authorities. That is, all that's needed is reason. Not ideology. Reason.
So let's keep reasoning. What's next?
Some people may be happy to stop here. They will say, if we can't know anything about gods one way or the other, let's focus on something we can know something about. There's nothing wrong with such a decision of course. Let's call these folks agnostics.
Other people will want to keep on going. Here's how we might do that. Embrace the fact of our ignorance. Stop chasing fantasy knowings of various theist or atheist flavors, and mine what we actually do have, our ignorance. Atheists are always talking about facing reality etc, so this should not be such an unfamiliar concept.
I call this the fundamentalist agnostic position, for lack of a better phrase. The fundamentalist agnostic doesn't just reject theism or atheism. They reject the point of agreement that theism and atheism both share, the notion that the goal of the inquiry should be to establish a knowing.
The fundamentalist agnostic observes that there is no evidence that a knowing is available by any means. Thus, the endless search for a knowing by all parties to the theist/atheist debate is seen to be irrational.
What is rational is to make the best possible use of what we actually have in abundance on this subject, ignorance. This is not as odd as it may at first seem.
What makes childhood such a special time of life? Ignorance.
What makes romance such a special experience? Ignorance.
Ignorance is actually a very important asset to human life. A lot of what we cherish arises from it. One needs only reason to see it.
