Philosophical Subject of the Moment

[rusmeister]

If one thinks atheism is objectively true, then the sense of reward is as genuine for them as the sense of reward anyone else has found from the truth that they think is objectively true.

Obviously. But a million people thinking a million different things does not make those things true. What the objective reality is remains to be determined. IOW, the question of 'Who is right?' remains. If I, as a believer, feel a sense of reward that turns out to be false, then not only does that sense not mean anything, nothing else means anything, either. Meaninglessness.

On that topic, what would you say to someone who was on vacation in, say, the Bahamas for two weeks? If they held that that was all there was, and there was no life beyond that two-week vacation (heck, they are enjoying their vacation NOW), and you try to tell them that they will have to face a reality beyond that vacation, what can you say to them?

That should probably be moved to the 'meaninglessness' thread. But that's what atheism ultimately means. That there is no meaning beyond the two-week vacation - and there will not even be anybody around to remember that vacation.

[Avatar]

Don't you see? It doesn't matter if anything is actually objectively true. You act as though what you think is objectively true, and I do the same. As far as our actions are concerned, it's exactly the same as though what we thought was true.

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Don't you see? It doesn't matter if anything is actually objectively true. You act as though what you think is objectively true, and I do the same. As far as our actions are concerned, it's exactly the same as though what we thought was true.

--A

I can see what Avatar is saying. If I point a gun at you, you are going to act as if it were loaded whether or not the gun is actually loaded.

The question of objective truth is, like belief in the existence or non-existence of God, up to the individual person.

[Fist and Faith]

What the objective reality is remains to be determined. IOW, the question of 'Who is right?' remains.

If there is no way to determine what the objective reality is, then, as Av said, it doesn't matter. Life does work if one operates under my beliefs. And life does work if one operates under your beliefs.

[rusmeister]

Don't you see? It doesn't matter if anything is actually objectively true. You act as though what you think is objectively true, and I do the same. As far as our actions are concerned, it's exactly the same as though what we thought was true.

--A

Of course I see, Av. What you're saying is simply that we are all going to act on what we believe to be actually true. But that's all that means.

What that seems to lead to in modern thought is that there therefore IS no objective reality beyond what people perceive - focusing on differences in perception, of course. THAT is the enormous fallacy that our experience in the physical world generally denies. We DO find an enormous amount of objective reality in the physical universe. Whatever the origin of the physical world - and therefore of us - it is obviously an objective reality and therefore we are actually right or wrong about it.

[rusmeister]

What the objective reality is remains to be determined. IOW, the question of 'Who is right?' remains.

If there is no way to determine what the objective reality is, then, as Av said, it doesn't matter. Life does work if one operates under my beliefs. And life does work if one operates under your beliefs.

But we DO think there are ways to do it. Most DO accept the authority of the senses on a great many things. Some, like me, believe it possible to accept truth from authority (which may also have obtained it via authority of the senses). So there ARE ways, and therefore it DOES matter. If you accept authority of your OWN senses and exclude everything else, then you DO take a default position (that there is no God) and so live your life accordingly.
The trouble with the verb "work" is that things work...until they don't work. It says nothing about whether the view actually corresponds to objective reality or not. One can use the verb 'work' to deal with hypotheses about life, but eventually one has to develop dogmas, at which point they don't speak of it "working". They speak of it as being "right" or "wrong". It goes back to what Chesterton said about man as either a creature who develops dogmas or as a turnip.

[Avatar]

Of course I see, Av. What you're saying is simply that we are all going to act on what we believe to be actually true. But that's all that means.

If we act as though it was true, it might as well be. Whether it really is or not does not affect our actions.

--A

[rusmeister]

Of course I see, Av. What you're saying is simply that we are all going to act on what we believe to be actually true. But that's all that means.

If we act as though it was true, it might as well be. Whether it really is or not does not affect our actions.

--A

Of course not. But since there IS ultimate reality, we will confront it, whatever it is. If non-existence (misnomered as "oblivion"), then we will simply cease to exist. My argument there is that people who actually believe that have not really faced up to what that would mean (conditional mood indispensable here).

If it involves facing the Creator, then one of those 'crazy religions' may turn out to be right. But whatever it is, there is something real, and the one thing that CANNOT be true is that 'everybody is right' or that 'it doesn't matter who's right'. Either way, it matters very much. In short there IS definite, ultimate and absolute Truth, and it matters whether we have it and to what degree.

[Cambo]

But whatever it is, there is something real, and the one thing that CANNOT be true is that 'everybody is right' or that 'it doesn't matter who's right'. Either way, it matters very much.

I get that it would matter if there was a Creator God, and Sin and Heaven and Hell and all that. But why would it matter if the end was oblivion, or as in my beliefs, a death of the ego while the Greater Self remains?

I've racked my brains, and I genuinely can't think of a reason why, if the end is really a final, ultimate oblivion, it would matter if I believed something different during life. Ditto for my beliefs- the Greater Self continues regardless of whether I live, die, or ever existed at all.

So really, it matters very much if you are right and I am wrong- in that case, I'm screwed. But if I'm right and your wrong? In that case, I really do think that "it doesn't matter who's right."

[rusmeister]

But whatever it is, there is something real, and the one thing that CANNOT be true is that 'everybody is right' or that 'it doesn't matter who's right'. Either way, it matters very much.

I get that it would matter if there was a Creator God, and Sin and Heaven and Hell and all that. But why would it matter if the end was oblivion, or as in my beliefs, a death of the ego while the Greater Self remains?

I've racked my brains, and I genuinely can't think of a reason why, if the end is really a final, ultimate oblivion, it would matter if I believed something different during life. Ditto for my beliefs- the Greater Self continues regardless of whether I live, die, or ever existed at all.

So really, it matters very much if you are right and I am wrong- in that case, I'm screwed. But if I'm right and your wrong? In that case, I really do think that "it doesn't matter who's right."

Well, Cambo, I think I've already said what I think of a person who believes in oblivion, that they speak of 'now' as if 'now' was all there was, not seeing that it ultimately means complete and utter meaninglessness even of the 'now'. A complete self-contradiction, escaped only by thinking only about what one 'can enjoy "now"' - by ignoring that 'now' must end and cease to be.

Even Ebenezer Scrooge got it, on a primitive level. But it's something that some people today don't get at all.

As to a "greater self" - again, if who and what I am comes to a complete end; everything I have learned and worked toward - I find that indistinguishable from nothingness. Being 'part of the grass' and 'the circle of life' is small consolation - or more accurately, none at all.

[Avatar]

But why would it matter if the end was oblivion, or as in my beliefs, a death of the ego while the Greater Self remains?

The ego is everything. No ego, no me. So the death of the ego is the same as oblivion.

An "afterlife" is only possible if the ego remains to perceive it.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Cambo, I was going to make the same point. And rus, your response, as always, simply shows that you don't understand. Those of us within that worldview read your words, and see ignorance. Just as you would see if you read my words about the impossibility of this or that aspect of Christianity. Neither of us can hope to understand what certain things mean to the other; how the other's heart views and holds things that ours does not. And claiming to understand it is... Well, it's that word again.

But we DO think there are ways to do it. Most DO accept the authority of the senses on a great many things.

Yes. Of course, sometimes our senses can be wrong. But, eventually, someone or other picks up on it. As a result, each time, we see objective reality a little more accurately.

Some, like me, believe it possible to accept truth from authority (which may also have obtained it via authority of the senses).

But there's no way to determine the accuracy of these things. You choose to believe they are accurate. I await corroborating evidence. Yes, you can live a life based on these things; a life that is fulfilling.

So there ARE ways, and therefore it DOES matter. If you accept authority of your OWN senses and exclude everything else, then you DO take a default position (that there is no God) and so live your life accordingly.

Yes. Except my own senses aren't alone. Reason and logic also have a role.

The trouble with the verb "work" is that things work...until they don't work. It says nothing about whether the view actually corresponds to objective reality or not.

That's my point.

One can use the verb 'work' to deal with hypotheses about life, but eventually one has to develop dogmas, at which point they don't speak of it "working". They speak of it as being "right" or "wrong". It goes back to what Chesterton said about man as either a creature who develops dogmas or as a turnip.

I used the word "work" to mean life can be functional and fulfilling for each of us, with out drastically different beliefs. Yes, one of us is wrong about the existence of God. But there's no way to prove either way. (And I don't have any interest in proving there is no God.)

[rusmeister]

Cambo, I was going to make the same point. And rus, your response, as always, simply shows that you don't understand. Those of us within that worldview read your words, and see ignorance. Just as you would see if you read my words about the impossibility of this or that aspect of Christianity. Neither of us can hope to understand what certain things mean to the other; how the other's heart views and holds things that ours does not. And claiming to understand it is... Well, it's that word again.

But we DO think there are ways to do it. Most DO accept the authority of the senses on a great many things.

Yes. Of course, sometimes our senses can be wrong. But, eventually, someone or other picks up on it. As a result, each time, we see objective reality a little more accurately.

Some, like me, believe it possible to accept truth from authority (which may also have obtained it via authority of the senses).

But there's no way to determine the accuracy of these things. You choose to believe they are accurate. I await corroborating evidence. Yes, you can live a life based on these things; a life that is fulfilling.

So there ARE ways, and therefore it DOES matter. If you accept authority of your OWN senses and exclude everything else, then you DO take a default position (that there is no God) and so live your life accordingly.

Yes. Except my own senses aren't alone. Reason and logic also have a role.

The trouble with the verb "work" is that things work...until they don't work. It says nothing about whether the view actually corresponds to objective reality or not.

That's my point.

One can use the verb 'work' to deal with hypotheses about life, but eventually one has to develop dogmas, at which point they don't speak of it "working". They speak of it as being "right" or "wrong". It goes back to what Chesterton said about man as either a creature who develops dogmas or as a turnip.

I used the word "work" to mean life can be functional and fulfilling for each of us, with out drastically different beliefs. Yes, one of us is wrong about the existence of God. But there's no way to prove either way. (And I don't have any interest in proving there is no God.)

I disagree, of course.
I DO claim to understand what exactly materialism ends up as logically, however you may express it. That does not mean that I read your thoughts; only that I understand the logical outcome. Tell yourself, if you want, that I do not understand; I say that I do.

You say you await "corroborating evidence". Here, again, I think I understand, and sympathize. Not everyone has the same personal experiences, or reacts to them the same. I only fear what some of us might require in terms of corroborating evidence, and how we might even close our eyes on it when it is given to us. Faith is a virtue, generally speaking. Doubt is not. (Of course you can find instances that justify doubt - I would say that they represent the exception. Certain it is that if we began life by doubting our parents on everything, we would never learn much.

While you may not be interested in disproving God, you nevertheless have taken a stand (X-Men - take a stand!) and adopted a life on the functional assumption that He is not.

[Fist and Faith]

I disagree, of course.
I DO claim to understand what exactly materialism ends up as logically, however you may express it. That does not mean that I read your thoughts; only that I understand the logical outcome. Tell yourself, if you want, that I do not understand; I say that I do.

Yeah, and I know Christianity better than you do. You can tell yourself, if you want, that I do not. But I do. Now isn't that a ridiculous thing to say? Yes, it is. You can tell yourself it is not, but it is. You can tell yourself that it's not a good comparison, but it is. From outside of my worldview, you claim to know it better than I do. You claim that being within it cannot give insights into it that cannot be seen from without. Honestly, it boggles the mind that you can hold yourself so far above everyone of every worldview but your own. (Of course, you are very ignorant within your own, and many others within it have much greater understandings of it.)

You say you await "corroborating evidence". Here, again, I think I understand, and sympathize. Not everyone has the same personal experiences, or reacts to them the same. I only fear what some of us might require in terms of corroborating evidence, and how we might even close our eyes on it when it is given to us. Faith is a virtue, generally speaking. Doubt is not. (Of course you can find instances that justify doubt - I would say that they represent the exception. Certain it is that if we began life by doubting our parents on everything, we would never learn much.

I can (and do) as easily say that Doubt is a virtue, and Faith is not. Blindly accepting things that some people tell you as objectively accurate reflections of reality is not a virtue. When there is no possibility of corroborating evidence; when the people telling you these things do not offer any corroborating evidence; when the only method of establishing accuracy is "That's what they told me was accurate"... No, that is not a virtue. Yes, you can find what you need in it to live your life better than you can without it. THAT is a virtue. But it is not a virtue when trying to learn objective facts about reality.

While you may not be interested in disproving God, you nevertheless have taken a stand (X-Men - take a stand!) and adopted a life on the functional assumption that He is not.

Yes. I am what I've called a "practical atheist." No actions or decisions I make are based on any sort of god/God. But I don't claim to know there is no god/God. I await evidence or reason. As with life outside of that found on earth, it's certainly possible. But I haven't seen any, and we don't have evidence that there actually is any.

[rusmeister]

I disagree, of course.
I DO claim to understand what exactly materialism ends up as logically, however you may express it. That does not mean that I read your thoughts; only that I understand the logical outcome. Tell yourself, if you want, that I do not understand; I say that I do.

Yeah, and I know Christianity better than you do. You can tell yourself, if you want, that I do not. But I do. Now isn't that a ridiculous thing to say? Yes, it is. You can tell yourself it is not, but it is. You can tell yourself that it's not a good comparison, but it is. From outside of my worldview, you claim to know it better than I do. You claim that being within it cannot give insights into it that cannot be seen from without. Honestly, it boggles the mind that you can hold yourself so far above everyone of every worldview but your own. (Of course, you are very ignorant within your own, and many others within it have much greater understandings of it.)

You say you await "corroborating evidence". Here, again, I think I understand, and sympathize. Not everyone has the same personal experiences, or reacts to them the same. I only fear what some of us might require in terms of corroborating evidence, and how we might even close our eyes on it when it is given to us. Faith is a virtue, generally speaking. Doubt is not. (Of course you can find instances that justify doubt - I would say that they represent the exception. Certain it is that if we began life by doubting our parents on everything, we would never learn much.

I can (and do) as easily say that Doubt is a virtue, and Faith is not. Blindly accepting things that some people tell you as objectively accurate reflections of reality is not a virtue. When there is no possibility of corroborating evidence; when the people telling you these things do not offer any corroborating evidence; when the only method of establishing accuracy is "That's what they told me was accurate"... No, that is not a virtue. Yes, you can find what you need in it to live your life better than you can without it. THAT is a virtue. But it is not a virtue when trying to learn objective facts about reality.

While you may not be interested in disproving God, you nevertheless have taken a stand (X-Men - take a stand!) and adopted a life on the functional assumption that He is not.

Yes. I am what I've called a "practical atheist." No actions or decisions I make are based on any sort of god/God. But I don't claim to know there is no god/God. I await evidence or reason. As with life outside of that found on earth, it's certainly possible. But I haven't seen any, and we don't have evidence that there actually is any.

Fist, you've as good as admitted that your own philosophy is not nearly as thought out as Christian theology (that's no put down on you or any individual, since Orthodox and Catholic theology have a nearly two-thousand-year head start on you, anyway) - you didn't even know how to name it; yet, as you described it I eventually recognized it for a well-known philosophy - materialism. It's nothing new, you're not the first to hold it, and it can be well-known without knowing anything about your personal circumstances. My statements are about materialism, not about your mind. I am speaking to the issue, not pretending to be a mind-reader.

Like I said, you can point to the exception. Little children do not start by doubting their parents, as I said, and on the whole it's a good thing. It is true that doubt has a place in thought - but as I said, it is faith that is generally the virtue. We have to have faith in our very reason in order to be able to think. Faith, hope and charity (agape).

One interesting thought - 'cause I really don't want to argue now anyway - Belloc said that the word 'Christianity' is completely unhistorical, and makes a darn good case for it.

The conception which the Church had of _itself_ in the early third
century can, perhaps, best be approached by pointing out that if we use
the word "Christianity" we are unhistorical. "Christianity" is a term in
the mouth and upon the pen of the post-Reformation writer; it connotes an
opinion or a theory; a point of view; an idea. The Christians of the time
of which I speak had no such conception. Upon the contrary, they were
attached to its very antithesis. They were attached to the conception of a
_thing_: of an organized body instituted for a definite end, disciplined in
a definite way, and remarkable for the possession of definite and concrete
doctrine. One can talk, in speaking of the first three centuries, of
stoic_ism_, or epicurean_ism_, or neoplaton_ism_; but one cannot talk of
"Christian_ism_" or "Christ_ism_." Indeed, no one has been so ignorant
or unhistorical as to attempt those phrases. But the current phrase
"Christianity," used by moderns as identical with the Christian body in
the third century, is intellectually the equivalent of "Christianism" or
"Christism;" and, I repeat, it connotes a grossly unhistorical idea; it
connotes something historically false; something that never existed.

Europe and the Faith

[Cambo]

But whatever it is, there is something real, and the one thing that CANNOT be true is that 'everybody is right' or that 'it doesn't matter who's right'. Either way, it matters very much.

I get that it would matter if there was a Creator God, and Sin and Heaven and Hell and all that. But why would it matter if the end was oblivion, or as in my beliefs, a death of the ego while the Greater Self remains?

I've racked my brains, and I genuinely can't think of a reason why, if the end is really a final, ultimate oblivion, it would matter if I believed something different during life. Ditto for my beliefs- the Greater Self continues regardless of whether I live, die, or ever existed at all.

So really, it matters very much if you are right and I am wrong- in that case, I'm screwed. But if I'm right and your wrong? In that case, I really do think that "it doesn't matter who's right."

Well, Cambo, I think I've already said what I think of a person who believes in oblivion, that they speak of 'now' as if 'now' was all there was, not seeing that it ultimately means complete and utter meaninglessness even of the 'now'. A complete self-contradiction, escaped only by thinking only about what one 'can enjoy "now"' - by ignoring that 'now' must end and cease to be.

Even Ebenezer Scrooge got it, on a primitive level. But it's something that some people today don't get at all.

As to a "greater self" - again, if who and what I am comes to a complete end; everything I have learned and worked toward - I find that indistinguishable from nothingness. Being 'part of the grass' and 'the circle of life' is small consolation - or more accurately, none at all.

That doesn't answer the question. I asked you to back up your statement that it "matters very much" who is right and who is wrong even from within my own worldview. Your own opinion of my worldview is irrelevant, if you're going to make claims about how the world looks from where I'm standing. Whether or not you are consoled by being part of the grass and the circle of life is immaterial if that's how reality actually is.

Which is exactly my point. If what I believe is true, than what you or I or anyone else believes simply doesn't matter. You don't like that, I know. But that doesn't matter either .

[Fist and Faith]

My worldview is, indeed, much less thought-out than any version of Christianity. It's obvious why this is - why this must be - the case. A body of knowledge, a doctrine, is not necessary. What explanation is necessary, or even possible, the lack of universal, eternal meaning? The same explanation that is necessary or possible for the lack of invisible Martians inhabiting your house. Why would there be thought-out philosophy for it?

However, some aspects of my understanding of reality can, indeed, lead to a great deal of thought. Oblivion being the end of the road being a big example. The realization that I will end, and figuring out how I live/what life means with that end approaching, took up quite a bit of time in the past.

You do not know what understandings I came to. Someone who has read tons and tons about romantic love, but never met a member of the opposite sex, cannot claim to understand romantic love. (Assuming heterosexuality.) Or, rather, such a person should not claim to understand it. You are doing the same thing. No, it is not as extreme. I am not saying it is an equal situation. But it is similar. Yes, you can contemplate meaninglessness and oblivion. But you cannot know what it is to believe it is an accurate description of reality. It's not merely an example of not seeing the forest for the trees. Your psyche rejects the concept. Strongly. You see death as unnatural and horrible. You cannot live with the idea of not being eternal. You cannot be your own authority. And on and on. All of these things make it literally impossible for you to even see my conclusions, much less embrace them.

Yet you claim you do. You claim to be an eagle who understands the life of badgers. All that's required is to hear and read about a view that is entirely different from your own, and you will know all there is to know about it. That you do not see the impossibility of this - that you do not see that the difference between our views is more akin to quality than quantity, is... I don't know how to say it. I just hope that, eventually, one of my attempts to explain the difference will click, and you'll see that you are ignorant of something.

[rusmeister]

My worldview is, indeed, much less thought-out than any version of Christianity. It's obvious why this is - why this must be - the case. A body of knowledge, a doctrine, is not necessary. What explanation is necessary, or even possible, the lack of universal, eternal meaning? The same explanation that is necessary or possible for the lack of invisible Martians inhabiting your house. Why would there be thought-out philosophy for it?

However, some aspects of my understanding of reality can, indeed, lead to a great deal of thought. Oblivion being the end of the road being a big example. The realization that I will end, and figuring out how I live/what life means with that end approaching, took up quite a bit of time in the past.

You do not know what understandings I came to. Someone who has read tons and tons about romantic love, but never met a member of the opposite sex, cannot claim to understand romantic love. (Assuming heterosexuality.) Or, rather, such a person should not claim to understand it. You are doing the same thing. No, it is not as extreme. I am not saying it is an equal situation. But it is similar. Yes, you can contemplate meaninglessness and oblivion. But you cannot know what it is to believe it is an accurate description of reality. It's not merely an example of not seeing the forest for the trees. Your psyche rejects the concept. Strongly. You see death as unnatural and horrible. You cannot live with the idea of not being eternal. You cannot be your own authority. And on and on. All of these things make it literally impossible for you to even see my conclusions, much less embrace them.

Yet you claim you do. You claim to be an eagle who understands the life of badgers. All that's required is to hear and read about a view that is entirely different from your own, and you will know all there is to know about it. That you do not see the impossibility of this - that you do not see that the difference between our views is more akin to quality than quantity, is... I don't know how to say it. I just hope that, eventually, one of my attempts to explain the difference will click, and you'll see that you are ignorant of something.

I know that I am ignorant of many things, Fist.
I am not ignorant of materialism, though; it's not even that hard to grasp. For me the easiest things to grasp are its failures. I LIVED a de facto materialist life for about twenty years.

The impression I get is that you think that because your many of your experiences are unique, therefore your philosophy is unique. That is simply not true. As you spoke of what was core or central to your philosophy which you could not name, it became clear to me (over time). Materialists can hold a (small) variety of positions on God, from the agnostic "I don't know" (but I'm going to live on the assumption of no God) - your position - to the militant atheist. But there is nothing about that philosophy that is either unique or new. It is not logical to think that I cannot both understand it - something held by many before you - and disagree with you - say that you are wrong and be reaqsonable in doing so.

It does explain the continual charges of arrogance against me, though. If I really WAS pretending to know the inside of your mind and everything about you, I'd be God. But I do think that I can infer the basics of your philosophy from what you say - especially since I've read so much of it - and recognize it as something I've seen before; something knowable, and not actually unique to you.

Anyway, as I said, I don't want to argue and now I'm just trying to explain. If it seems like argument I'll drop it. Hopefully, we've moved an inch or so towards understanding each other, and hopefully you do not take offense. I don't!

[Fist and Faith]

No, I don't take offense. I'm trying to explain something that you don't understand. It took a few years for me to understand this.

You're not trying to say you know what's in my mind. But you are saying what cannot be in my mind. It was not in your mind, therefore, it cannot be in mine. That's why you are not reasonable. That's bad logic.

You had some problems with the Christianity you were taught as a child, and you tried to reject it. The problem is, you are hardwired in a way that requires certain things. What you thought was the only alternative worldview could not answer these things. Try as you may, you could not enter that worldview. You think you did, but you did not. You could not. It did not offer what you needed. And those needs were persistent.

But those needs are answered in Christianity. What you see as truth was there. It just needed to be separated from the false. It took you a while to realize this, but you did. You just had to find the correct version of Christianity. Fortunately, you did. All is resolved in you.

But that doesn't mean you ever understood the worldview that didn't answer your needs. You can't understand it, because it doesn't answer your needs. An Eskimo might think a transplanted carpenter knows nothing about building a home. The carpenter might think the Eskimo has no understanding of construction principles.


And I don't know why you think I think my philosophy is unique. I'm quite certain neither of us, or anybody else in the world, has ever had a thought or feeling that has not been thought or felt by someone else. None of us is unique because we have unique thoughts, feelings, preferences, needs, desires, or fears. We are all unique because of the particular combination of thoughts, feelings, preferences, needs, desires, and fears. (And even that thought is not unique.) I never thought my worldview was unique. I just never looked into who else might have shared it, or what they had said about it.

[rusmeister]

No, I don't take offense. I'm trying to explain something that you don't understand. It took a few years for me to understand this.

You're not trying to say you know what's in my mind. But you are saying what cannot be in my mind. It was not in your mind, therefore, it cannot be in mine. That's why you are not reasonable. That's bad logic.

You had some problems with the Christianity you were taught as a child, and you tried to reject it. The problem is, you are hardwired in a way that requires certain things. What you thought was the only alternative worldview could not answer these things. Try as you may, you could not enter that worldview. You think you did, but you did not. You could not. It did not offer what you needed. And those needs were persistent.

But those needs are answered in Christianity. What you see as truth was there. It just needed to be separated from the false. It took you a while to realize this, but you did. You just had to find the correct version of Christianity. Fortunately, you did. All is resolved in you.

But that doesn't mean you ever understood the worldview that didn't answer your needs. You can't understand it, because it doesn't answer your needs. An Eskimo might think a transplanted carpenter knows nothing about building a home. The carpenter might think the Eskimo has no understanding of construction principles.


And I don't know why you think I think my philosophy is unique. I'm quite certain neither of us, or anybody else in the world, has ever had a thought or feeling that has not been thought or felt by someone else. None of us is unique because we have unique thoughts, feelings, preferences, needs, desires, or fears. We are all unique because of the particular combination of thoughts, feelings, preferences, needs, desires, and fears. (And even that thought is not unique.) I never thought my worldview was unique. I just never looked into who else might have shared it, or what they had said about it.

But you are saying what cannot be in my mind.

No, I am not saying that.

I can imagine pretty much anything in people's minds. Existentialists (or solipsists) can actually believe "I think, therefore I am not." And so on. I accept that anything at all can be in your mind. I do not accept that it is all logical or even intuitively correct or true.

So charge dismissed. No bad logic on my part there. (If your idea that I do say what cannot be in one's mind were true, then of course, I would agree with you.)

What I say is that a world view can be actively wrong. In my last post I said that it can be something identifiable, and knowable, as something many people have, and so I don't need to know all the permutations of what is in your mind to know that a huge part of it is based on fallacy. And that's not arrogance. It's logic. (The kind unpleasant for those whom it contradicts.)

You keep writing off logic and reason as the personal needs of one's "psyche". I'll grant that the intelligent soul has a thirst for logic and truth, and so, in that sense, 'needs' it. But not that it is therefore a subjective desire. My faith (which is NOT "Christianity" but the teachings of the Orthodox Christian Church.) insists that it is not merely something which meets individual needs - although it can do that, although the needs will be met with what the person really needs, not with what they might want - but teachings of 100% objective and absolute truth - which means that you, I and ALL of us will face Jesus Christ - who is indeed both the Son of God and Son of Man as our Judge at the end of time, whether we believed in Him or not, whether we accepted intellectual principles or not, whether we strove to live according to His teachings or not. While I cannot convince you that it IS the truth, the claim is exactly that that IS what it is and no less - the real and actual state of affairs external to what anyone may think about it, and that it is decidedly NOT merely a 'personal need of the psyche'.

I am more and more inclined to think that Belloc is exactly right and that "Christianity" ought to be discarded from our lexicon. I'll start eliminating it, anyway. It'll lead to much more precise speech and thought, at the very least.

I spoke about uniqueness because it seemed that the line you were taking was that I was speaking about knowing what was in your head. At least I know you don't think I claim to know all that.