[Vision2020] News Article, Mental Illness, Fixation of Belief Discussion

[Doug Jones]

Wayne Fox rewrote: 

> In the meantime, Mr. Jones, calling me a secularist, while apparently
a
> dirty word among the cult, does not address the arguments that I
previously
> made and rewrote here.  
>
>Unfortunately, there is no unequivocal method (short of examining each
belief for >logical consistency***) to test which set of religious
beliefs, if any, is true.


Actually, I did address Wayne's remarks at a deeper level than he's
apparently willing to go. He continues to insist that we all use HIS
worldview's rules to adjudicate every view, and I have been challenging
the legitimacy of that. Why must we obey his god? Consistency,
contradiction, proof, evidence, etc. are not neutral things. They
involve giant ontological commitments, and the "consistency" he burns
incense before grew out of ancient Greek philosophy. Why should I give
up my religion for his?


> It is difficult to take seriously non-mathematical or non-logical
systems of
> belief which contain as their unproven premises the positing without
> question of the existence of objects and/or beings.  The assertion of
the
> existence of any non-mathematical or non-logical object or being seems
to me
> to require empirical and verifiable proof -- especially, if
conclusions of
> great consequences are to be drawn from such assertions.  

Exactly. And Wayne needs to answer the same questions. Why should we
agree to only "take seriously" his logico-mathematical gods? They
involve tremendous claims about the nature of reality, and we need proof
that they are worthy to play the part of supreme gods too. 


> >From the secular point of view, knowledge is always subject to
correction
> and to revision in the light of new evidence 

Apparently not, though. Wayne apparently still holds to an ancient
cosmology (cult?) in which the laws of logic are eternal, impersonal,
unchanging standards of truth applicable universally. The Darwinian
cosmology certainly counted against Wayne's brand of Platonism (i.e., an
evolutionary cosmos has no place for eternal rules of logic), yet Wayne
still holds to the old gods. 

So again, Wayne, what sort of evidence would count against the existence
of your logico-mathematical gods and what evidence counts in favor of
them? We all have to answer the same questions. Don't pretend you aren't
making colossal claims about the nature of reality. 

As for Wayne's "scientific" sociological claims, he just needs to be
less gullible. Given how scientific claims can change so wildly even
over a decade, we should be more agnostic and careful. Since much of the
science of fifty and a hundred years ago is now considered a joke by
scientists (i.e., they couldn't now republish journal articles even from
the 1940s), we should all wait, say, a good five hundred years before
climbing on board any scientific claim. The track record shows that
anything less is sure to be disproven.


Doug Jones