Inquiries on the line of “what they even mean when they say god”? have found some purchace even thought that is more of a deconstruction of religion.
To me it was not totally without payload but it is more tainted than useful. Others when discussion adjacent things have been very careful that the concepts are groundable and clear with very small wiggleroom for natural confusion. Here no such distinguishment is attempted. And I additionally believe that its not just a case of having apperance of shaky thoughts but actually containing shaky thoughts.
Even at the very beginning, how am I supposed to replicate divine revelevation? Pray and check how I feel? This is just reference and reliance on methods which not have been proved to be epistemical tools and have been proven to be epistemically misleading.
There seems to be a tone that is focused on details of impression of the idea, a kind of “appeal to aesthetics” which is kind of diffcult to engage with. It also has smells of writing the bottom line first and coming up with the argument. If I follow the arguments from top to bottom it justifies/grounds like only half or a slight shadow rather than a “religious attitudes are resonable” what it seems to actually be cornerned with.
The topic is not an issue but if you are playing with fire and don’t even have a bucket of water nearby I am going to discourage you, not because fire is a forbidden tool but because you are being reckless in the way you are going about it.
It would be fine if X-ray radiation discoverer gets burned by it, they couldn’t reasonably know. But since we know about the dangers, we don’t let you get burned by your private knowledge just as we take tinder out of the hands of children (or superwise the play to not burn down houses).
Inquiries on the line of “what they even mean when they say god”? have found some purchace even thought that is more of a deconstruction of religion.
To me it was not totally without payload but it is more tainted than useful. Others when discussion adjacent things have been very careful that the concepts are groundable and clear with very small wiggleroom for natural confusion. Here no such distinguishment is attempted. And I additionally believe that its not just a case of having apperance of shaky thoughts but actually containing shaky thoughts.
Even at the very beginning, how am I supposed to replicate divine revelevation? Pray and check how I feel? This is just reference and reliance on methods which not have been proved to be epistemical tools and have been proven to be epistemically misleading.
There seems to be a tone that is focused on details of impression of the idea, a kind of “appeal to aesthetics” which is kind of diffcult to engage with. It also has smells of writing the bottom line first and coming up with the argument. If I follow the arguments from top to bottom it justifies/grounds like only half or a slight shadow rather than a “religious attitudes are resonable” what it seems to actually be cornerned with.
The topic is not an issue but if you are playing with fire and don’t even have a bucket of water nearby I am going to discourage you, not because fire is a forbidden tool but because you are being reckless in the way you are going about it.
It would be fine if X-ray radiation discoverer gets burned by it, they couldn’t reasonably know. But since we know about the dangers, we don’t let you get burned by your private knowledge just as we take tinder out of the hands of children (or superwise the play to not burn down houses).