The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

The Ethical Skeptic Statement of Faith

Epoché vanguards gnosis. I assume nothing and expect to be amazed. This is my faith.

There exist two extremes of personal cosmology which I reject.

     Abrahamism/Monotheism
Ethical Skeptic Faith

When enforced on me as a child, was a destructive lie which took years to shed through education, integrity, rational thinking, fellowship, a global deep life experience and a smarter circumspect view about man and our elegant universe. This model of god has failed, because the behavior which is rewarded as part of the innate ethical fabric and design (per hoc aditum) of this realm include:

Surreptitious Greed
Licensed Violence
Systemic Exploitation
Machiavellian Attainment
Skilled Selfishness
Concealed Dishonesty
Veiled Hatred

Overarching Goal: Suffering on Unimaginable Scale

One is not rewarded in this realm through simply being a bad person; rather by being exceptionally skilled at one single thing, or more commonly, being highly skilled at being a bad person. In my life, I have abjectly refused to participate in such activity, and it has cost me dearly – to the point of understanding that ethical natures are to be punished in this realm. Postured virtue, a veneer concealing the thoroughly corrupt soul is the means to success in this realm. Pro athletes, actors and musicians are foisted as models of ‘if your really put your mind to it, you can…’ – but such characters are few and far between in reality and are appointed as celebrity example by the Machiavelli Elite as a form of deception and wishful thinking. The above list of more common dark realities are woven into this universe’s very inception and nature. Were this a ‘design’, then the designer could not possibly posses the ethical characteristics assumed/taught by monotheists at all. One eventually finds that the gleeful thirst for blood and suffering which is the ethic of this universe, stands deductively incompatible with the imposed model of a monotheistic, all powerful, benevolent, all knowing, all caring creator. This is falsification in its level of inferential merit. But it takes an adult mind in order to grasp this, not a child mind.

     Metaphysical Naturalism

The temptation exists therefore, when faced with this irreconcilable view of god verus our abject reality, to jump from one extreme to the other. Things be bad, therefore nihilism. This is simply a coward’s way out, a religion of negative reactance on the part of the shallow and now fearful and closed mind.

When metaphysical naturalism is offered to me as the only alternative to Abrahamism, this becomes a bifurcation fallacy;

When I am told there exists enough epistemological evidence upon which to select it, this becomes a false dilemma;

When it starts instructing me as to a whole list of things which do not exist; and this is enforced on society, government, in my career, in the media, and in my academic progression, it becomes Nihilism;

When it is bolstered by pep rallies, negative reactance to one’s old religion, and through surrounding one’s self with angry like-minded fellows, it becomes every bit an abusive religion as is Abrahamism;

When it is promoted as “atheism” or “skepticism” or “free thinking” or as supporting a single set of political views

…it becomes a lie.

My research, and my review of the research of others, has led me to conclude that both Abrahamism and Metaphysical Naturalism are false. At a certain point, the integrity of philosophy will dictate that it must yield to evidence. Those who pretend the evidence does not exist, remain lost in their own weakened minds. However, I await more true research before choosing to conclude anything further. I object when either group seeks to control the evidence, means, access, method, funding, attention, work, conclusions and visibility of all research which allows me to improve my understanding of our realm. This knowledge is neither the property nor propriety of any government or group. I object when my peers seek to enforce either religion on me, society, careers, media, social discourse, or government. When this happens, I will speak up.

Because of the imperious insistence of Monotheism and Nihilism therefore, I have established boundary parameters to that which is introduced to me as plausible cosmology:

The Ethical Skeptic’s Law of Advanced Intelligence (Ignosticism)

I.  Principle of Indistinguishability (vertical)

/philosophy : science : boundary conditions : limits for claims/ : any sufficiently advanced act of benevolence is indistinguishable from either malevolence or chance.

This may well be a hell of sorts in which we live, but that does not preclude the idea that it is not being done for a reason, nor that it exists for no reason.

II.  Neti’s Razor (horizontal)

/philosophy : existentialism : boundary condition/ : one cannot produce evidence from a finite deterministic domain, sufficient to derive a conclusion that nothing aside from that domain therefore exists.

The principle which serves to cut secular nihilism as a form of belief, distinct from all other forms of atheism as either philosophy or belief. From the Sanskrit idiom, Neti Neti (not this, not that). Therefore, you are wholly unqualified to instruct me that this realm is the only realm which exists, and efforts to do so constitute a religious activity. So, nihilism fails the test of epistemology and consequently falls into a belief domain, as opposed to a scientific one. More precisely, we are restricted in our ability to deduce that there is no such thing as an outside intelligence, nor that our domain is the sole domain which exists, nor that it is influenced by any outside agency. They relate to the structure of theory which comprises: element, model and proof accordingly.

1.  A comprehensively deterministic system, cannot introduce an element solely in and of its inner workings, which is innately nondeterministic. Free Will Intelligence must arrive from the outside of a comprehensively deterministic system.

2.  A comprehensively deterministic system, cannot serve as the substrate solely in and of its inner workings, for a model which completely describes or predicts its function. That is, such a system on its own, is wholly unable to deductively identify the presence of non-deterministic sets or influences.

3.  A terminally or inceptionally truncated and/or finite and comprehensively deterministic system, cannot introduce a proof solely by means in and of its inner workings, which excludes the possibility of all other systems or sets.

III.  I Am that I Am (horizontal)

/philosophy : existentialism : boundary condition/ : that which possesses the unique ability to be able to define itself, renders all other entities disqualified in such expertise. There is no such thing as an expert in god.

The principle which serves to cut theism as a form of belief, distinct from all other forms of belief as either philosophy or religion. From the Torah idiom, I Am (I Am that I Am or in Sanskrit, Aham Bramsmi).  Therefore, if god existed, you are unqualified to tell me about it. So, theism falls into a lack of allow-for domain.

IV.  Non-Existence Definition (vertical)

/philosophy : science : skepticism : elements of attributes/definition/ : six questions form the basis of a definition: What, Where, When, How, Why, Who. The answers to this set of six questions still form an expert definition of attributes, even if the answer to all six is ’empty set’.

Therefore, when one applies the ethics of skepticism – one cannot formulate a definition which is specified as ’empty set’, without due empirical underpinning, a theory possessing a testable mechanism and a consilience of supporting research.  We have none of this, and can make no claims to ‘non-existence’ expertise in god.

We do not yet understand enough, as men, to substantiate these grandiose fatalistic claims as to the nature of our universe and our existence. Epoché vanguards gnosis. I assume nothing and expect to be amazed. This is my faith.

epoché vanguards gnosis

——————————————————————————————

How to MLA cite this blog post =>

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Ethical Skeptic Statement of Faith” The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 20 Sep 2014; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-2KY

September 20, 2014 - Posted by | Ethical Skepticism | , ,

4
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
Taliesin WardThe Ethical Skeptic Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
The Ethical Skeptic
Guest

Science is based on the premise “Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain all the rest.” LOL!!! I love it. A total statement of Ethical Skepticism. Thanks for the video Taliesin! ~TES

Taliesin Ward
Guest
Taliesin Ward

Any time brother, keep up the great work.

Taliesin Ward
Guest
Taliesin Ward

Rupert Sheldrake: The Science Delusion (TED Talk)

Taliesin Ward
Guest
Taliesin Ward

Bifurcation fallacy… nice to have a name to the face. I’ve noticed these being presented a lot recently:

– Alopathic medicine is the only alternative to disease.
– Hostile land grabs (Agenda 21) and more taxes extracted from the middle classses are the only way to combat global warming.
– Anthropogenic CO2 is the only explanation for global warming.
– Being anything other than a feminist makes you a mysoginist.
– Being anything other than an atheist makes you ineligible to participate in scientific discussion.

The list goes on.

Many thanks for the bigger picture presented here EthicalSceptic.

Chinese (Simplified)EnglishFrenchGermanHindiPortugueseRussianSpanish
%d bloggers like this: