I’ve since responded to Mitchell Porter’s comment. For the benfit of less wrong readers, my reply was:
For many questions in philosophy the answers may never be definitively known. However, I am saying that we know many answers to these questions that are very likely false based on the evidence and some properties that the answers should have. Others of these questions can be dissolved.
For example, epistemological solipsism can probably never be definitively rejected. Nevertheless realism, of at least some aspects of reality, is well supported and should probably be accepted. In the area of religion, we can say the evidence discredits all historical religions. That any answer to the question of religion much accord with the lack of evidence for the existence or intervention of God. Thus leading to atheism and certain flavors of agnosticism and deism. Questions of free will should probably be dissolved by recognizing the scientific evidence for the lack of free will while explaining the circumstances under which we perceive ourselves to have free will. Finally, moral theories should embody some form of moral nihilism properly understood. That is to say, that morality does not exist in the territory, only in the maps people have of the territory. Hopefully I’ll have the time to write on all of these topics eventually.
In acknowledging the limits of what answers we can give to the great questions of morality, meaning, religion, and philosophy let us not make the opposite mistake of believing there is nothing we can say about them.
My suggestion would be that your certainty about a few subjects are based on certain assumptions and selective research. In more detail:
In the area of religion, we can say the evidence discredits all historical religions.
That, I would propose, is not true. The scientific evidence discredit religious texts if taken as scientific texts. Religion has a dogmatic element that is tightly linked to the culture in which it was introduced and which dies as the culture changes and an inner element that is universal and points to certain facts about human nature.
I know that sounds like a bit too much but it is, in my opinion, evident and you can confirm it for yourself by suspending your assumptions and deeply studying multiple religious and mystical texts. I know it is unlikely as you might, based on your current belief system, conclude it is not worth the time. My proposition would be that we are in most need of studying material that we do not agree with as this is where our biases stem from.
Because of our militant attitude towards religion I would suggest starting from a quite abstract exposition of the core in the Tao Te Ching and the Upanishads. These are of course ancient texts and you should take that into account. They are not meant for us but are interesting as historical evidence. When you start understanding you can see how it appears in all the significant religions in different form. None of it contradicts established scientific truths.
For a modern exposition, and to really learn, you could study the works of Idries Shah. All of them. For a few years...
The problem with all these is related to the one I tried to outline in my post Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence. Making the suggestions I am making I sound like a know-it-all and it is impossible to convince you to take a few years of your life properly studying the material. At the very least maybe we can agree that the best approach to learning is to be able to balance on the edge between doubt and belief. I will leave it to you to decide if this is what you are currently doing.
Finally, moral theories should embody some form of moral nihilism properly understood. That is to say, that morality does not exist in the territory, only in the maps people have of the territory. Hopefully I’ll have the time to write on all of these topics eventually.
It is interesting that you used the word ‘should’. At least you have to admit that the argument is not settled. Everything I wrote above applies to this statement. What you are missing in order to acknowledge the existence of valid alternative hypothesis’ is in the place you have decided it is beneath you to look.
There is a comment from Mitchell Porter that hasn’t been addressed for a few days. I find it quite relevant so I will repeat it here.
Are you saying that these “answers” are already known?
I think it is a fair point that the sentence (and other parts of the post) implies knowledge of the answers.
I’ve since responded to Mitchell Porter’s comment. For the benfit of less wrong readers, my reply was:
Thank you for posting the answer :)
My suggestion would be that your certainty about a few subjects are based on certain assumptions and selective research. In more detail:
That, I would propose, is not true. The scientific evidence discredit religious texts if taken as scientific texts. Religion has a dogmatic element that is tightly linked to the culture in which it was introduced and which dies as the culture changes and an inner element that is universal and points to certain facts about human nature.
I know that sounds like a bit too much but it is, in my opinion, evident and you can confirm it for yourself by suspending your assumptions and deeply studying multiple religious and mystical texts. I know it is unlikely as you might, based on your current belief system, conclude it is not worth the time. My proposition would be that we are in most need of studying material that we do not agree with as this is where our biases stem from.
Because of our militant attitude towards religion I would suggest starting from a quite abstract exposition of the core in the Tao Te Ching and the Upanishads. These are of course ancient texts and you should take that into account. They are not meant for us but are interesting as historical evidence. When you start understanding you can see how it appears in all the significant religions in different form. None of it contradicts established scientific truths.
For a modern exposition, and to really learn, you could study the works of Idries Shah. All of them. For a few years...
The problem with all these is related to the one I tried to outline in my post Too Much Effort | Too Little Evidence. Making the suggestions I am making I sound like a know-it-all and it is impossible to convince you to take a few years of your life properly studying the material. At the very least maybe we can agree that the best approach to learning is to be able to balance on the edge between doubt and belief. I will leave it to you to decide if this is what you are currently doing.
It is interesting that you used the word ‘should’. At least you have to admit that the argument is not settled. Everything I wrote above applies to this statement. What you are missing in order to acknowledge the existence of valid alternative hypothesis’ is in the place you have decided it is beneath you to look.