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.
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:
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.
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