For instance, one could take as their fundamental existential axiom 'the reality we experience is real, even though it can't be proven and our ability to perceive it completely is greatly limited'. One could take as their fundamental moral axiom that 'what's good for people and other living things is good, even though it can't be proven to be fundamental and applying it to all possible situations is challenging and tricky.'
I do get that ultimately you drill down to an axiom that can't be proven but has to be accepted as a brute fact. The measure of how good an axiom is, is how many people are willing to accept it, at least provisionally. An axiom that no one else agrees with is not useful. Building on what axioms we CAN agree on might let us move forward for a change.
I do get that ultimately you drill down to an axiom that can't be proven but has to be accepted as a brute fact. The measure of how good an axiom is, is how many people are willing to accept it, at least provisionally. An axiom that no one else agrees with is not useful. Building on what axioms we CAN agree on might let us move forward for a change.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
