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
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 talent, or most commonly, being highly skilled at being a surreptitiously 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. The greedy suit. 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 as to how they falsely view their own evil natures.
The above list of more common dark realities are woven into this universe’s very fabric and DNA. Such an archaic monotheistic God would not simply ‘allow bad things to happen to good people’, He would be wallowing in the dark aura of abject suffering – accelerating and celebrating it as the core goal of His entire creation. Drunk on the blood of innocent who suffered from the very inception of this realm. Were this a ‘design’, then the designer could not possibly posses the ethical characteristics assumed/taught by monotheists at all. An ethical mind of higher acumen eventually will grow insane from the hypocrisy of being forced to comply with this model of God. Eventually the ethical mind must stand up and say ‘I don’t care how many people think this is God, they are wrong.’
One eventually finds that this dark ethic of this universe, it purposeful hell-state, 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. And no, man did not cause this to happen in a Fall event – this is the way the charter of this realm and our DNA were crafted from day one.
Metaphysical Naturalism
The temptation exists therefore, when faced with this irreconcilable view of god versus our abject reality, to jump from one extreme to the other. Things be bad, therefore nihilist-atheism. This is simply a coward’s way out, a religion of negative reactance on the part of the shallow, fearful and cowardly 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.
It is very possible that this realm is violent, selfish and laden with suffering – because it was supposed to be that way to begin with. Fairy tale monotheism and hide-your-head-in-the-sand nihilist atheism are both responses of fear, incompetence and insanity. However, because of the imperious insistence of Monotheism and Nihilism therefore, I have established boundary parameters which guide me and help me understand the potential of our existence and purpose. It is not an insistence – rather the constraints to an open model – one which holds out hope for the promise. The promise that a talent so grand as to develop this extraordinary realm – just might know what they are doing:
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
Blog Roll
“Refreshing to new and weary seekers of truth alike. If you claim to be a skeptic and have not read The Ethical Skeptic, you risk echochamber irrelevancy.” -TRB
“I suspect that I possess neither the lifetime nor competencies to grasp all that is said therein; nevertheless inside I also suspect greatness.” -Tech Journalist
“An extraordinary work. Masterpiece.” -LS
“Essential for any philosophy of science course. The pageantry of pseudo-skepticism is abused to belie its truly corrupt core. What we lacked are the frameworks necessary in pinpointing the very flaws and deceptions many of us have sensed, but have been unable to articulate. That is, until now.” -ADR
“Sir, I hope you realize the high quality of material you have produced here. Hopefully you will choose a world stage someday and take personal credit for it. The material is that good.” -AOD
“This site/blog/whatever is messing with my mind and I love it.” -SR
“I love that blog by The Ethical Skeptic. It punches effectively and by the end I was cheering!” -PhD Physicist
“I am a military intelligence instructor. Honestly, your knowledge structure of deception ought to be standard teaching inside graduate level US military intelligence courses. Do you mind if I use your material to do so?” -JWH
“I was asked by a colleague, just whom I regarded to be a signature philosopher of our time, as viewed say a century into the future; to which I responded, ‘I don’t even know his name, other than ethical skeptic’.” -JKP
“[One of the] best non Cathedral empiricists outside Nassim Taleb.” -BH
There exists a pro-science, educated and rational movement of conscience, on the part of people just like you and me. Professionals who apply skepticism daily in their STEMM disciplines; who nonetheless are raising a warning flag of concern. Welcome to my blog. Within its pages, I hope to illustrate genuine skepticism, or what is called Ethical Skepticism. Indeed, its mission is to promote the wonder of science through a contrast of authentic skeptical discipline, versus its distorted, pseudo-intellectual and socio-politically motivated counterfeit. I am a graduate level science and engineering professional who laments the imprisonment of science by control-minded special interests and bullying dogmatic social epistemologists. As you survey my blog, hopefully you will encounter ideas you’ve never personally considered before. Indeed, its mission is to foster foremost a discerning perspective for us all on the Cabal of pretenders who abuse and seek control in the name science. Science based upon a flawed philosophy called social skepticism.
What is Ethical Skepticism?
A series in parts, which defines the philosophy, tenets and structure of Ethical Skepticism
.
The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation
A compendium of over 2200 fallacies and methods of corrupted thinking commonly employed to obfuscate and deceive
.
The Appeal to Skepticism Fallacy
The formal and informal fallacy of deceptively promoting one’s self and ideals through pretense of skepticism
.
The Real Ockham’s Razor
It is plurality, and not the simplest explanation, which bears merit in professional research and the actual scientific method
.
Sol-Nihilism and The Ten Endamnedments
The compulsory set of core religious beliefs misrepresented as skepticism, atheism, free thinking and science
.
ABOUT SOCIAL SKEPTICISM AND SSKEPTICS
Social Skepticism is a form of weaponized philosophy which masquerades as science, science enthusiasm or science communication. Social skepticism enforces specific conclusions and obfuscates competing ideas via a methodical and heavy-handed science embargo. It promotes charades of critical thought, self aggrandizement and is often chartered to defend corporate agendas; all while maintaining a high priority of falsely impugning eschewed individuals and topics. Its philosophies and conclusions are imposed through intimidation on the part of its cabal and cast of dark actors, and are enacted in lieu of and through bypassing actual scientific method. The social skeptic is a catalyseur. A third party exploitation specialist abetting conflict between the public and science. They do not seek truth in any specific matter; rather, they seek the power that fomenting conflict between science and its stakeholders creates for them and their cronies. They presume to tender preferred final conclusions in lieu of science, without having to account under any semblance of scientific rigor, save for at most skepticism itself. They afford no method of peer review, eschew any assessment of entailed risk or the harm they serve to cause to both persons and science; yet promote stacks of highly questionable conclusivity, by means of the free pass established through the intimidating power of their Cabal and its cadre of dark actors.
Social Skeptics falsely identify themselves as ‘skeptics.’ Indeed rather, SSkeptics are self or institutionally appointed Bernaysian engineering activists, posing as rational and logical subject matter authorities enforcing one specific answer in a broad array of pluralistic topics of contention, while at the same time “doubting“ all other potentialities. Far from actually practicing skepticism and abandoning the scientific method when it does not suit their embargo, SSkeptics seek to intimidate scientists and the media, enforce doctrines lacking scientific basis and imperiously pass them to the public as unassailable truth.
The Difference Between Ethical and Social Skepticism
Ethical Skepticism is a blend of Empirical and Philosophical Skepticism, the tenets of both of which are vetted as to their efficacy in delivering value and clarity inside man’s knowledge development process. It rejects the abuse of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori simplistic predictive based knowledge, self delusion and Methodical Cynicism. Instead, Ethical Skepticism dictates a mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied or the Ethical Skeptic himself has not studied. Ethical Skepticism petitions for Ockham’s Razor plurality in research when sponsorship has shown adequate necessity, and opposes all efforts to squelch such research.
Ethical Skeptics apply skepticism as one of a set of tools employed inside a life characterized by open curiosity, discipline, observation. They continually investigate in order to ask the right question in accordance with the complete scientific method; not defend the right answer. They bear paramount, the personal and professional ethic of defending the integrity of the knowledge development process. Skepticism is a way of preparing the mind and data sets, in order to accomplish science.
—
Social Skepticism is false a priori deduction combined with stacked provisional abductive reason used as a masquerade of science method in order to enforce a belief set as constituting science. It is an abuse of Cartesian Doubt as a racket of a priori, simplistic, provisional, risk-ignorant knowledge, self delusion and methodical cynicism. It seeks an embargo of certain aspects of man’s knowledge development process. It rejects Philosophical Skepticism and employs Empirical Skepticism only when its tenets support specific knowledge embargo agendas. Instead of tendering mute disposition on any topic which science has not studied, Social Skepticism corrupts science into methodical cynicism employed to to squelch such research and enforces false interpretations of scientific conclusions to support its embargo goals.
Social Skeptics wear SSkepticism as an identity, apply intimidation and doubt only to subjects they disdain, and enforce an embargo regarding any and all observations or science which might serve to undermine their Cabal authorized ontology. They eschew data collection; instead undertaking social activism and unethical activity, any means necessary to enforce the ‘right answer’ and secure the power of their sponsor institutions. Social Skeptics abuse skepticism to act in lieu of science, not as subset thereof.
This blogsite rigorously complies with the Fair Use Act (17 U.S.C. § 107)
We don’t need to do the science – We ARE the science
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
Any time brother, keep up the great work.
Rupert Sheldrake: The Science Delusion (TED Talk)
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.