Perennial Philosophy

[Nick_A]

Simone Weil wrote in a letter to a friend who wanted to know more about her since she had TB so was dying. She remembered when she was fourteen

"..........I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth..........................."

I've read perennial philosophy defined as: "The science of the Absolute and the relative." The Absolute is ONE or no-thing while the relative is many or every-thing. How are they united?

“The divine Ground of all existence is a spiritual Absolute, ineffable in terms of discursive thought, but (in certain circumstances) susceptible of being directly experienced and realized by the human being. This Absolute is the God-without-form of Hindu and Christian mystical phraseology. The last end of man, the ultimate reason for human existence, is unitive knowledge of the divine Ground—the knowledge that can come only to those who are prepared to “Die to self” and so make room, as it were, for God.”
― Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy

Was Simone's life's quest doomed to failure and the return of dust to dust in the domain of opinions? We don't know. We know of one experience when near death:

I had the impression of being in the presence of an absolutely transparent soul which was ready to be reabsorbed into original light. I can still hear Simone Weil’s voice in the deserted streets of Marseilles as she took me back to my hotel in the early hours of the morning; she was speaking of the Gospel; her mouth uttered thoughts as a tree gives its fruit, her words did not express reality, they poured it into me in its naked totality; I felt myself to be transported beyond space and time and literally fed with light.
Gustav Thibon

Maybe some atoms of the Great Beast mature to become human and return home to their origin; who knows? We can contemplate if it is possible.

Obviously secularism and its denial of the ONE or the ineffable Absolute will have no interest and is satisfied with arguing opinions. But if there is another out there who has studied the implications of Perennial philosophy, maybe we can discuss it.

[Tegularius]

So desperate for attention! But give credit where credit is due. It's the forever repeated rubbish, regardless of the OP's title, which elicits the most attention...and that is very strange since you've never debated as in a normal discussion. Your perennial philosophy is to perennially preach and only really discuss - preferably without the point and counterpoint of debate - with those who mostly agree with you.

[Nick_A]

So desperate for attention! But give credit where credit is due. It's the forever repeated rubbish, regardless of the OP's title, which elicits the most attention...and that is very strange since you've never debated as in a normal discussion. Your perennial philosophy is to perennially preach and only really discuss - preferably without the point and counterpoint of debate - with those who mostly agree with you.

It is a very difficult topic and I am looking for someone not into debating details but to compare how we feel the big picture; the lawful unity between the ONE and its devolution into levels of reality leading to every-thing. It's not your thing. You are not concerned with the lawful relationship of the forest to the trees. You prefer to argue from the point of view of different trees.

If philosophy worthy of its name is dead, it means that perennial philosophy must be dead in society and must be discussed in private since those able to discuss it have gone underground. Secularism cannot accept the concept of the ONE. Doing so means they are not secularists. I'm learning the future of public philosophy forums. If they have all gone secular and no longer drawn to perennial philosophy, then the value of philosophy must be kept open in other ways

[Tegularius]

So desperate for attention! But give credit where credit is due. It's the forever repeated rubbish, regardless of the OP's title, which elicits the most attention...and that is very strange since you've never debated as in a normal discussion. Your perennial philosophy is to perennially preach and only really discuss - preferably without the point and counterpoint of debate - with those who mostly agree with you.

It is a very difficult topic and I am looking for someone not into debating details but to compare how we feel the big picture; the lawful unity between the ONE and its devolution into levels of reality leading to every-thing. It's not your thing. You are not concerned with the lawful relationship of the forest to the trees. You prefer to argue from the point of view of different trees.

Let me offer this very surprising observation. It's the details that compose the big picture. Any change in one or more of its outstanding features can modify it irrevocably into different perspectives, or possibly annul it altogether. That, for example, is how Christianity was born...by a single mind-fixed premise, or detail if you will, that Christ rose from the dead according to St.Paul, while simultaneously dismissing the details of that life as superfluous in establishing Christ's divinity and the hope of resurrection. It shows that the inclusion of details in any picture is as fundamental as their exception in calculating its validity.

Is it justified, as an example, to submit to the big picture as you call it without discussing the assumptions which created it, as is common in philosophy? According to its methodologies would this not also be a negation of Plato's methodical dialogues which firmly attest to the discussion element in examining the truth-value of an idea even if it was so very one-sided? You know, the guy you never cease to invoke as the epitome of reason.

Of course, I realize whatever your response, if there is one, is simply going to segue into a complete non-sequitur of how bereft I am of all the wisdom you possess.

[Nick_A]

So desperate for attention! But give credit where credit is due. It's the forever repeated rubbish, regardless of the OP's title, which elicits the most attention...and that is very strange since you've never debated as in a normal discussion. Your perennial philosophy is to perennially preach and only really discuss - preferably without the point and counterpoint of debate - with those who mostly agree with you.

It is a very difficult topic and I am looking for someone not into debating details but to compare how we feel the big picture; the lawful unity between the ONE and its devolution into levels of reality leading to every-thing. It's not your thing. You are not concerned with the lawful relationship of the forest to the trees. You prefer to argue from the point of view of different trees.

Let me offer this very surprising observation. It's the details that compose the big picture. Any change in one or more of its outstanding features can modify it irrevocably into different perspectives, or possibly annul it altogether. That, for example, is how Christianity was born...by a single mind-fixed premise, or detail if you will, that Christ rose from the dead according to St.Paul, while simultaneously dismissing the details of that life as superfluous in establishing Christ's divinity and the hope of resurrection. It shows that the inclusion of details in any picture is as fundamental as their exception in calculating its validity.

Is it justified, as an example, to submit to the big picture as you call it without discussing the assumptions which created it, as is common in philosophy? According to its methodologies would this not also be a negation of Plato's methodical dialogues which firmly attest to the discussion element in examining the truth-value of an idea even if it was so very one-sided? You know, the guy you never cease to invoke as the epitome of reason.

Of course, I realize whatever your response, if there is one, is simply going to segue into a complete non-sequitur of how bereft I am of all the wisdom you possess.

You have no interest in perennial philosophy and its top down reasoning and prefer to mock all those IRL who are interested. You want to argue details, the eternal battle of opinions. It is what you enjoy so you are better off ignoring this thread. Who knows, there may be another still here who would like to compare notes rather than battle opinions.

From William Stoddart's introduction to Ye Shall Know the Truth: Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy. Stoddart writes:

The central idea of the perennial philosophy is that Divine Truth is one, timeless, and universal, and that the different religions are but different languages expressing that one Truth. The symbol most often used to convey this idea is that of the uncolored light and the many colors of the spectrum which are made visible only when the uncolored light is refracted. In the Renaissance, the term betokened the recognition of the fact that the philosophies of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus incontrovertibly expounded the same truth as lay at the heart of Christianity. Subsequently the meaning of the term was enlarged to cover the metaphysics and mysticisms of all of the great world religions, notably, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam.

What is important to note here are two prominent characteristics of the Perennial Philosophy: First, its starting point is an Absolute. It proceeds from the notion that there is a God, which puts it at odds with most modern philosophies. Second, though resting on the principle of an Absolute Reality, it is non-sectarian. When writing of the Divine Truth, for example, Perennialists have no agenda due to their personal religious affiliations. They only search to express that Truth on its own terms, not on the terms of one or another of its earthly expressions. The Perennial Philosophy respects the theologies of the great religious traditions, but points out to us that these all are various "colors," to use Stoddart's image, derived from the same uncolored Source. It is this Source and its nature that is of primary importance to perennialists.

I know it is insulting and elitist to suggest a person can rise above the need to defend opinions in search of truth but some do. Simone did. Being that this is a philosophy forum I was curious to see if there were any others with the need to get to the source rather than battle opinions. If they have all gone away, it is good that I know it now. You are better off just leaving it alone and enjoy your normal battle of opinions.

[chewybrian]

I know it is insulting and elitist to suggest a person can rise above the need to defend opinions in search of truth but some do. Simone did. Being that this is a philosophy forum I was curious to see if there were any others with the need to get to the source rather than battle opinions. If they have all gone away, it is good that I know it now. You are better off just leaving it alone and enjoy your normal battle of opinions.

It seems like the purpose of most philosophy is to help us to rise above opinions and prejudices and see the world as it really is. That is a fine sentiment, but then you should get about explaining how you think you have done so, and how others perhaps could or should. Ironically, this is opinion. Your way of seeking objectivity or higher truths doesn't have any special place in our hearts or meaning unless we assent to it, but can't assent if you won't even spell it out. A proper philosopher like Socrates would remain humble rather than judging most others unworthy. When others asked him to introduce them to various philosophers, he never objected that he was the greater source of insight, even if he probably was. Jesus hung out with hookers and drug addicts. He deemed them all worthy if they were willing to try.

It is pretty tedious that you have essentially started the same thread with a dozen different titles without ever really making your point. You have to mention Simone Weil, the great beast, Plato's cave, and then shake your head in disgust when none of us is deemed worthy to join you in a discussion. If just one of us had seen the light that you have seen, then it would be worth putting up with the rest of us, huh?

I am always interested in hearing what Aldous Huxley had to say. There's nothing I've read or seen from him that didn't catch my interest. But, I never saw him talk down to others or tell us that we were not worthy to join him in a discussion. Rather, he had a way of breaking though on difficult topics and making them accessible to a wider audience. If you wish to be considered to be a philosopher, then you should be able to do the same for us, rather than becoming frustrated that we haven't assented to an argument you haven't even made.

[Nick_A]

I know it is insulting and elitist to suggest a person can rise above the need to defend opinions in search of truth but some do. Simone did. Being that this is a philosophy forum I was curious to see if there were any others with the need to get to the source rather than battle opinions. If they have all gone away, it is good that I know it now. You are better off just leaving it alone and enjoy your normal battle of opinions.

It seems like the purpose of most philosophy is to help us to rise above opinions and prejudices and see the world as it really is. That is a fine sentiment, but then you should get about explaining how you think you have done so, and how others perhaps could or should. Ironically, this is opinion. Your way of seeking objectivity or higher truths doesn't have any special place in our hearts or meaning unless we assent to it, but can't assent if you won't even spell it out. A proper philosopher like Socrates would remain humble rather than judging most others unworthy. When others asked him to introduce them to various philosophers, he never objected that he was the greater source of insight, even if he probably was. Jesus hung out with hookers and drug addicts. He deemed them all worthy if they were willing to try.

Actually world history has proven the opposite. Why did Jesus and Socrates have to be killed? Those in power are only concerned with retaining the status quo. Only a minority can remain open to their awakening influence. Why doesn't humanity in general assent to awakening to the reality of the human condition which keeps people asleep in Plato's cave? This is a serious question but foolish for all those who believe they are already awake.


It is pretty tedious that you have essentially started the same thread with a dozen different titles without ever really making your point. You have to mention Simone Weil, the great beast, Plato's cave, and then shake your head in disgust when none of us is deemed worthy to join you in a discussion. If just one of us had seen the light that you have seen, then it would be worth putting up with the rest of us, huh?

There is no disgust. Appreciating perennial philosophy requires starting at the bottom: who am I? The basic question is easily forgotten as soon as people start arguing opinions. It is annoying for those arguing opinions to return to the beginning. Without this beginning there is nothing but opinions. That is why I look for those willing to transcend the joy of arguing opinions to verify through efforts to "know thyself" the reality of human being, what we ARE and the effect of self justifying imagination on it

I am always interested in hearing what Aldous Huxley had to say. There's nothing I've read or seen from him that didn't catch my interest. But, I never saw him talk down to others or tell us that we were not worthy to join him in a discussion. Rather, he had a way of breaking though on difficult topics and making them accessible to a wider audience. If you wish to be considered to be a philosopher, then you should be able to do the same for us, rather than becoming frustrated that we haven't assented to an argument you haven't even made.

There is no talking down on my part. The ideas that I express have always been attacked and those with influence are even killed. Who will agree with Socrates when he said "I Know Nothing"? Yet it is the beginning and the most insulting thing that can be said to a person yet to experience they are in Plato's Cave. Yet it is the necessary beginning for those seeking this pearl of great price in which all opinions exist as one at a higher level. It is frightening to me to experience how violently and with such negativity these ideas are opposed but it is natural as Man begins to lose its connection with its source

[Tegularius]

You have no interest in perennial philosophy and its top down reasoning and prefer to mock all those IRL who are interested. You want to argue details, the eternal battle of opinions. It is what you enjoy so you are better off ignoring this thread. Who knows, there may be another still here who would like to compare notes rather than battle opinions.

All you have ever done is preach, monotonously invoking the same names and philosophies in an endless loop, demanding total acceptance by pre-empting any further examination of what was written or implied in those philosophies. Huxley is a good read with many interesting things to say regarding mystical experiences. Others were too. But one like him should NEVER be read uncritically. For one thing, he never had a mystical encounter that wasn't drug-induced. What he managed to do is create or transmute mysticism into a type of philosophy which the weak-minded like you immediately accept as religion based on insurmountable truths.

What is unconditionally accepted, which is not what philosophy is about, can never be breached by any rendered analysis without receiving a reply like...You have no interest in perennial philosophy, etc. That kind of reply has always been the default response by the cognitively challenged whose brains are permanently glued to a single idea.

For you a questioning philosophy is anathema. The only thing you have ever done through thousands of posts is sermonize; as we all know, those who proclaim from the pulpit do not appreciate having their eternal truths contradicted.

[Nick_A]

You have no interest in perennial philosophy and its top down reasoning and prefer to mock all those IRL who are interested. You want to argue details, the eternal battle of opinions. It is what you enjoy so you are better off ignoring this thread. Who knows, there may be another still here who would like to compare notes rather than battle opinions.

All you have ever done is preach, monotonously invoking the same names and philosophies in an endless loop, demanding total acceptance by pre-empting any further examination of what was written or implied in those philosophies. Huxley is a good read with many interesting things to say regarding mystical experiences. Others were too. But one like him should NEVER be read uncritically. For one thing, he never had a mystical encounter that wasn't drug-induced. What he managed to do is create or transmute mysticism into a type of philosophy which the weak-minded like you immediately accept as religion based on insurmountable truths.

What is unconditionally accepted, which is not what philosophy is about, can never be breached by any rendered analysis without receiving a reply like...You have no interest in perennial philosophy, etc. That kind of reply has always been the default response by the cognitively challenged whose brains are permanently glued to a single idea.

For you a questioning philosophy is anathema. The only thing you have ever done through thousands of posts is sermonize; as we all know, those who proclaim from the pulpit do not appreciate having their eternal truths contradicted.

From the OP

I've read perennial philosophy defined as: "The science of the Absolute and the relative." The Absolute is ONE or no-thing while the relative is many or every-thing. How are they united?

“The divine Ground of all existence is a spiritual Absolute, ineffable in terms of discursive thought, but (in certain circumstances) susceptible of being directly experienced and realized by the human being. This Absolute is the God-without-form of Hindu and Christian mystical phraseology. The last end of man, the ultimate reason for human existence, is unitive knowledge of the divine Ground—the knowledge that can come only to those who are prepared to “Die to self” and so make room, as it were, for God.”
― Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy

Obviously if a person is an atheist perennial philosophy is meaningless for since by definition it includes the Absolute or ONE.

There is nothing to believe. I am given a skeleton of objective existence. All the questions are in the attempt to verify it through self knowledge. A person learns the idea that Man is a mini universe. Man's being is constructed in the same way as our great universe but much smaller in scale. The idea could be discussed in terms of philosophy but if the definition of perennial philosophy is rejected and there is no Absolute, it is impossible to proceed

Huxley wrote: the ultimate reason for human existence, is unitive knowledge of the divine Ground—the knowledge that can come only to those who are prepared to “Die to self” and so make room, as it were, for God.”

I couldn't discuss the ultimate reason for human existence and how it pertains to the logic of perennial philosophy when the ONE or Absolute is rejected. So I'm interested to learn if there are others here who are familiar with perennial philosophy or have they all left?

[Sy Borg]

Obviously if a person is an atheist perennial philosophy is meaningless for since by definition it includes the Absolute or ONE.

There is nothing to believe. I am given a skeleton of objective existence. All the questions are in the attempt to verify it through self knowledge. A person learns the idea that Man is a mini universe. Man's being is constructed in the same way as our great universe but much smaller in scale. The idea could be discussed in terms of philosophy but if the definition of perennial philosophy is rejected and there is no Absolute, it is impossible to proceed

I'm not an atheist as such, but close enough, and I think about the similarities of the large and small all the time. I have previously been chipped for saying that reality has a fractal-like nature because the universe is not configured in true fractals, ie. all scales being identical, no matter how far one zooms in. Still, there are elements of commonality between things of different scales that is fascinating.

I am especially taken with how relations between peer entities at all scales follow patterns. Basically certain archetypes such as dominants, sub-dominants, catalysts, victims/food, outliers can be found at any scale of reality.

So no, young Nicholas, eschewing creationism (in all of its forms) does not mean being uninterested in the nature of reality. Quite the opposite. "Secularists" obviously don't all respond as a bloc; it's a diverse group. Still, I'm guessing that most won't tend to observe reality through the lens of Abrahamic mythology, and plenty will want to let nature to tell its own unadulterated story, while accepting that their limited human perceptions create some measure of skew.

[Tegularius]

“The divine Ground of all existence is a spiritual Absolute, ineffable in terms of discursive thought, but (in certain circumstances) susceptible of being directly experienced and realized by the human being. This Absolute is the God-without-form of Hindu and Christian mystical phraseology. The last end of man, the ultimate reason for human existence, is unitive knowledge of the divine Ground—the knowledge that can come only to those who are prepared to “Die to self” and so make room, as it were, for God.”
― Aldous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy

Amazing the revelations of mescaline!

[chewybrian]

I'm not an atheist as such, but close enough, and I think about the similarities of the large and small all the time. I have previously been chipped for saying that reality has a fractal-like nature because the universe is not configured in true fractals, ie. all scales being identical, no matter how far one zooms in. Still, there are elements of commonality between things of different scales that is fascinating.

I am especially taken with how relations between peer entities at all scales follow patterns. Basically certain archetypes such as dominants, sub-dominants, catalysts, victims/food, outliers can be found at any scale of reality.

So no, young Nicholas, eschewing creationism (in all of its forms) does not mean being uninterested in the nature of reality. Quite the opposite. "Secularists" obviously don't all respond as a bloc; it's a diverse group. Still, I'm guessing that most won't tend to observe reality through the lens of Abrahamic mythology, and plenty will want to let nature to tell its own unadulterated story, while accepting that their limited human perceptions create some measure of skew.

I don't see anything contrary to philosophy, for example, about viewing the allegory of the cave from a secular stance. The lesson is then that we need to seek knowledge and prefer it over belief. We need to keep in mind how easily our prejudices and habits can hide the truth from us, and how our senses and even our reason can fail us at times, as in seeing that the sun revolves around the earth, rather than understanding through a lot of observation and calculation that it is actually the other way around. I would say this is an early description of the cognitive bias of the illusion of objectivity, and has serious impacts on the way we should proceed, especially when judging others. We can learn the importance of using the scientific method, and withholding judgement until all the facts are in, even if it means withholding it for our entire lives. Still, there is nothing wrong with forming an opinion about what we expect to be proven true in the end, as long as we understand it is only a sort of guess, and could be and often is spectacularly wrong.

I do still see that the door is open for God, and I won't discount the possibility. But, I don't see any basis for confirming or denying God, so He stays in the "I simply don't know" pile, a bit closer to the "I doubt it" side than the "it's probably true" side.

Perhaps none of this feels like "doing" philosophy to Nick, but that is what it feels like to me, contrary to whatever he is doing, running everything out to his preferred conclusion without even marking the steps along the way, much less showing how it could or should be true.

[Nick_A]

Obviously if a person is an atheist perennial philosophy is meaningless for since by definition it includes the Absolute or ONE.

There is nothing to believe. I am given a skeleton of objective existence. All the questions are in the attempt to verify it through self knowledge. A person learns the idea that Man is a mini universe. Man's being is constructed in the same way as our great universe but much smaller in scale. The idea could be discussed in terms of philosophy but if the definition of perennial philosophy is rejected and there is no Absolute, it is impossible to proceed

I'm not an atheist as such, but close enough, and I think about the similarities of the large and small all the time. I have previously been chipped for saying that reality has a fractal-like nature because the universe is not configured in true fractals, ie. all scales being identical, no matter how far one zooms in. Still, there are elements of commonality between things of different scales that is fascinating.

I am especially taken with how relations between peer entities at all scales follow patterns. Basically certain archetypes such as dominants, sub-dominants, catalysts, victims/food, outliers can be found at any scale of reality.

So no, young Nicholas, eschewing creationism (in all of its forms) does not mean being uninterested in the nature of reality. Quite the opposite. "Secularists" obviously don't all respond as a bloc; it's a diverse group. Still, I'm guessing that most won't tend to observe reality through the lens of Abrahamic mythology, and plenty will want to let nature to tell its own unadulterated story, while accepting that their limited human perceptions create some measure of skew.

I agree with you as to the great similarities between the microcosm and the macrocosm within which all the microcosms have their importance. However the perennial philosophy seeks the source which transcends these levels of reality that are often secularized as opinions formed by the world.

The central idea of the perennial philosophy is that Divine Truth is one, timeless, and universal, and that the different religions are but different languages expressing that one Truth.

Appreciating fractal relationships are one thing but opening to the source of their existence is another without secularizing and limiting oneself into beliefs is another. What is the white light within which all the colors exist as One?

Modern philosophy has devolved to forget the one truth and be satisfied with arguing opinions. I would like to meet those who have not forgotten and still consciously contemplate the ONE; the initial white light.

“The danger is not that the soul should doubt whether there is any bread, but that, by a lie, it should persuade itself that it is not hungry.” ~ Simone Weil

The advances of technology appealing to imagination have caused the human soul or what is sensitive to higher wholeness; to lose its hunger and its potential for conscious contemplation as its energies in life and death serve only the earth. Now more than ever humanity needs these increasingly rare individuals who have not forgotten and are still drawn to return to their source beyond opinions and keep the vertical inner path open.

[Nick_A]

Chewybrian

any basis for confirming or denying God, so He stays in the "I simply don't know" pile, a bit closer to the "I doubt it" side than the "it's probably true" side.

Perhaps none of this feels like "doing" philosophy to Nick, but that is what it feels like to me, contrary to whatever he is doing, running everything out to his preferred conclusion without even marking the steps along the way, much less showing how it could or should be true.

This is the modern way; belief vs denial. The eternal struggle of duality.

Perennial philosophy begin with a premise of this one eternal truth beyond the senses. Man by deductive reason follows the descent by lawful involution into every-thing.

A person may ask what is lost by losing the ability for impartial conscious contemplation of the ONE beyond the limits of time and space and replacing it with conditioned beliefs, computer knowledge, and the imagination it inspires? Who in modern times can answer these questions. Who knows the value of avoiding conclusions for the benefits of conscious contemplation?

[Sy Borg]

... eschewing creationism (in all of its forms) does not mean being uninterested in the nature of reality. Quite the opposite. "Secularists" obviously don't all respond as a bloc; it's a diverse group. Still, I'm guessing that most won't tend to observe reality through the lens of Abrahamic mythology, and plenty will want to let nature to tell its own unadulterated story, while accepting that their limited human perceptions create some measure of skew.

I don't see anything contrary to philosophy, for example, about viewing the allegory of the cave from a secular stance. The lesson is then that we need to seek knowledge and prefer it over belief. We need to keep in mind how easily our prejudices and habits can hide the truth from us, and how our senses and even our reason can fail us at times, as in seeing that the sun revolves around the earth, rather than understanding through a lot of observation and calculation that it is actually the other way around.

I would say this is an early description of the cognitive bias of the illusion of objectivity, and has serious impacts on the way we should proceed, especially when judging others. We can learn the importance of using the scientific method, and withholding judgement until all the facts are in, even if it means withholding it for our entire lives. Still, there is nothing wrong with forming an opinion about what we expect to be proven true in the end, as long as we understand it is only a sort of guess, and could be and often is spectacularly wrong.

Yes, Plato was saying we were in the dark, although the fire for him had mystical connotations (as could be expected at that time in history). The idea is not miles from the hypothetical holographic model of the universe, where the 3D reality we know is a holographic projection of an unseen 2D surface.

I do still see that the door is open for God, and I won't discount the possibility. But, I don't see any basis for confirming or denying God, so He stays in the "I simply don't know" pile, a bit closer to the "I doubt it" side than the "it's probably true" side.

Perhaps none of this feels like "doing" philosophy to Nick, but that is what it feels like to me, contrary to whatever he is doing, running everything out to his preferred conclusion without even marking the steps along the way, much less showing how it could or should be true.

I also remain agnostic. Given the many cultures of the world and their disparate ideas of God, or gods, it seems possible that they are all wrong, but each points to aspects of reality that are currently beyond human understanding.

Nick's attempt to invalidate aspects of philosophy not concerned with religious ideas is just a game of "No real Scotsman ...". What unquestioning belief does is create a parallel bodies of knowledge, based on these beliefs. It's basically world-building, not unlike LOTR, Dune and the many series that followed in their stead.

When a metaphorical fantasy world is built, then a lore is then created - separate from the lore based on scientific bodies of knowledge. Thus we have religious philosophers whose ideas are based on, for instance, Biblical mythology. It is this kind of religious scholarship, coupled with with evangelical experientialism, that Nick claims is missing from "secularists".

While that may be true in general, it is a huge and naive generalisation to posit that a billion or so people are almost identical in this respect. For instance, very many secular people come from a religious upbringing that they later reject. Plenty of secular people are interested in the spiritualism and/or the occult. And, when push comes to shove, putting aside the aggressive bravado needed to fight natural instincts, pretty well everyone wants to know what happens when they die. When it comes to death, a strict focus on the objective can distract from disquieting thoughts about the subjective aspect. Theists, of course, are so concerned about death that they create stories to take away the sting.

So, if we put together atheists determined to avoid memento mori with fanatical believers determined to live forever and you get the kind of emotional divisions currently seen in the US and Europe. Instead of talking about killing each other, they'd do better to talk about how it will feel for them personally as they lie on the deathbed, leaving behind everything they thought mattered.