Faith Without Reason (A Response to Richard Dawkins, et al)

[Belinda]

Ormond I believe that you should credit Greta not me.

[Sy Borg]

Thus, it's entirely correct to point out that "Fundamentalist Agnosticism" is as full of self contradictory conflict etc as any other philosophy. Thus, just as I've claimed that converting from theism to atheism is essentially pointless, so is converting from either of those to Fundamentalist Agnosticism. Jumping from one ideology to another to another is a waste of time because that which all philosophies are made of can not deliver what we're really looking for.

Not by themselves. Reality is multi-faceted, which numerous angles and approaches. Hence the allegory of the six blind men and the elephant.

As I understand it, you want a reality based perspective on such topics. Me too! And so let us observe reality together. And what do we see? The vast overwhelming majority of reality is nothing (or relative nothing if one prefers). Thus, a reality based perspective should be primarily an exploration of experience of nothing.

So you're suggesting that since "stuff" appears to be in the minority it could be harmonious to echo that dynamic? Then again, what we consider to be "nothing" is still something, just less dense than us. To the perspective of a very dense object like a neutron star, the Earth is more or less nothing - a rogue neutron star would pass through us as though we were a cloud. Something is everywhere, even if not noticeable to us..

All philosophies are attempts to create a big pile of conceptual objects, symbolic somethings. Thus, the very process of philosophy, ANY PHILOSOPHY, is inherently at odds with the dominant property of reality.

I see those interrogations as part of reality too. Analysis is just something that we do so as to better understand our environment.

You have repeatedly claimed that thought is inherently divisive....

Have you understood why I keep saying this over and over?? It's because most of the human condition arises from this single simple fact. Should you wish to get to the bottom line, that's a great place to start.

Of course I understand. It's not only obvious in everyday life, and something claimed by many contemplative traditions, but something freely agreed to by most scientists. Of course there's much in life and experience that is beyond thought, for which we don't have adequate words. So, sure, it's a good idea to switch off now and again. I sometimes us a (I suppose, ironic) mantra of "no words" when I tire of thought.

We are better off without a "more is better" relationship with thought for the same reason we don't adopt a "more is better" relationship with food, sleep, sex or any other function of the human body.

Yes, everything in moderation, as the saying goes. However, what is optimal depends on the individual and, often, it depends on one's phase of life. Sometimes "more" of something really is better at various times of one's life.