Nice to see O'Bama working on getting rid of midnight Bush rules

[kandrathe]

I truly don't understand this. First, I cannot speak for Jester, but these discussions are, to me, the equivalent of discussions of the weather or of sports. The serious business of my life was doing science. I hope that one day soon it will be teaching science.

I guess what I was trying to say, (and I know you know this), is that there is more to the body of philosophy than merely science. While some things remain unprovable, that does not diminish the importance of critical, rational thought. I'm not willing, as it seems that some are, to throw the baby out with the bath water. While I have questions about specifics in biblical/religious texts, I don't try to read them as history, or science, or anything except as a moral story that is meant to convey principles. For example, "The book of Job" couldn't possibly factually exist because no one could have witnessed the conversation between God and Satan. I view it as a story meant to teach perseverance in the face of overwhelming adversity. A person with this kind of inner strength is uncrushable, no matter from where this strength is derived. He may have been deluded in his faith, but that faith brought him through his crisis. We might in a similar way view "Ch'i" (the life force), the symbolic power of eastern (martial, healing,etc.) arts. It may be irrational to believe in a power that one can channel through fists and feet, but the technique does result in human beings being able to "use mind over matter" in an effective way. This is why I believe that not all so called "delusions" are useless. When needed, one can use irrational thought in powerful rational ways. I find that the same is true in healing, in that "positive thinking" can lead to improved health. Probably for entirely rational reasons, however the "how" is usually secondary to the effect itself.

Second, in these discussions I do try to do something minor but useful. I try to lay out the position of those who are not convinced by the attitude of the multitude or the precedents of the ancients. I try to instill a questioning attitude that may lead someone, sometime, to introspection. To rational self doubt. And, possibly, to a reconciliation and acceptance of the unlimited ignorance which is our common heritage. When a person can accept 'I don't know' as a valid explanation in place of 'god did it', then that person is, I think, on the path to truth. If the path ends with god, so be it. But if it starts with god, then there is no path at all -- the destination is the start and no progress exists to be made.

I agree with that sentiment. I try to be open minded, and skeptical. "I don't know" is a good starting place. I think that Jester was confusing "Enlightenment" as in the secular, intellectual "The age of" with my use which was the Eastern philosophical usage meaning wisdom or understanding enabling clarity of perception (to become one with the universe). While much of the ancient bodies of accumulated human "knowledge" are not based on logical scientific foundation, I think it would be an arrogance of modernity to burn them. I believe they have uses beyond quaint amusement and historical reference, but can also provide insights and philosophical frameworks which can inspire progress.