Seems the tone of our exchange is becoming a little sour. Is there anyway we can keep it jovial?
>>>Fine, let’s use the word ‘accommodate.’ By its very nature, a religion cannot *accommodate* anything less than total belief. You show me a religion that accommodates ~99.999..999%, and I’ll show you the last digit of pi.>H: ”Philosophy is what we are discussing in general both here and in the blackhole forum.” L:
Where is this in the rule written?H: Science establishes itself upon the notion that *nothing can justify the ontological meaning of anything.*... I don't think your (distinction) between scientific and metaphysical justification holds water.” L: Probably because I haven’t made this distinction. I simply confirmed there is one.>>H: ”Have you really accepted my premise that we must treat certain assumptions as true?” L: As we have somehow reverted to our initial discussion, I have no misgivings citing it. Recall that my first response to you included this statement: “No one ‘knows’ reality, outside of some fundamental assumption, i.e., some theory.” Later in this discussion I said, “since maths is our best facsimile of ‘the ultimate language,’ then it makes no sense -- in a discussion forum geared towards science -- to look for a meaning beyond mathematics itself.”>>Throughout your entire paper you illustrate with unqualified clarity that you cannot maintain the following: The agnostic principle asserts that gnosticism is impossible. As such, *everything* is tentative.>1. You forget the agnostic principle when you second-guess the agnostic’s frame of mind.>2. Thus, your interpretation of a scientist’s apparent enthusiasm mirrors your own feeling of enthusiasm.>3. Therefore, you confuse a scientist’s curiosity with your own ‘desire to believe’ something (“the things that many agnostics/skeptics want to believe... directly contradict the assumptions they challenge on the things they may not want to believe”).>For example: given event x, such that x is a revolutionary event (first communication with ET); if I think the odds of event x occurring are considerable, then I will be curious as to when, how, under what circumstances, etc. this event will occur. If I perceive this event as a possibility not yet sufficiently investigated by science, then I may desire to be one of the first to realize the occurrence of event x. On the other hand: given event y, such that y is a revolutionary event (God holds a press conference); if I think that the odds of event y occurring are slim, then I will *not* be as curious as to when, how, under what circumstances, etc. this event will occur. Further, I know that millions of investigations into event y have taken place, and that each and every investigation has proven scientifically futile. Thus, I'd probably not be as eager to pursue the realization of event y as I'd be to pursue the realization of event x.>Harv, science is the only major field of intellectual pursuit that works from an understanding that reality can *not* be fully known. Yours (philosophy) is but one of dozens that attempt to knock science off its rightful throne as 'supreme data supplier,' but so far none has succeeded.>Philosophy may call it “ontology,” Christianity “enlightenment,” psychic healers the “astral plane,” and Buddhists “Zen,” but it is all the same, futile endeavor. Gnosticism cannot be truly achieved, and many that practice these quacksalveresque ventures go so far as to admit the same! So why try?>Simple: fear of the unknown. A fear that causes many who experience it to reject those who embrace the unknown.>Philosophy is religion without the spurious miracles, numerology without the contrived matrices, and Voodoo without the beheaded chickens.