It is axiology thinking that truly helps in “is–ought” because the “is” was supposedly established by logic/rationalism and empiricism, these are both internal and external or said differently there represent “Reason and Evidence” and this is not a closed system, neither is confirming an “ought.”
Science is part of the process people do when they require evidence. Whereas faith is part of the process, people do when they do not require evidence. Some may feel comparing science against religion is like comparing the value of intuition against reason. Both are said to have their place. While I would challenge the religion part, I have little issue with intuition. In fact, intuition is a great motivation to go investigate a concept that should not be completely believed without evidence. However, even if you deem it worthy to believe in, an aspect of intuition, do not let it keep you from accepting the facts the way they are, even if to do so would show your intuition to be wrong. Never stop staying with the facts.
Your intuitive feelings would say the earth is standing still and all of your surroundings would validate this feeling. However, these intuitive feelings would be completely wrong as the earth is spinning or rotating. I project that the core of religion is superstitionism and it is not special nor something we cannot avoid all together. Superstitionism is a phenomenon that, even as atheists, we may have to fight. Think of it this way: do objects have special properties? As an atheist, I would rationally like to say no.
However, could I comfortably drive Hitler’s car? Have a restful sleep in a bed used by a child sex offender? Enjoy a dinner served on the plate that a cannibal ate human flesh? Perhaps wear a sweater worn by a serial killer while he killed? Why do these objects and ideas affect us? They are just objects and do not hold any essence but our superstition prone mind does not use reason. Our minds hijack us and make the innate seem more than it really is. This happens, it seems, and to some extent or another no matter if we tell ourselves it does not. We should not believe everything we think.
However, in saying we should not believe everything we think, a question could arise, how does one know? Alternatively, isn’t the “not believe everything we think” statement not expressing a kind of rational imperative to ones thinking? If so, there could be a challenge, what if one does not place a value on the “rational imperative” in thinking? Well, then it would seem they simply are removing themselves from a reason discourses, thus, their argument can be ignored, as they seem to be forfeiting their own criticism abilities in the possess.
Questions seem to presupposes answers, and it would seem answers presuppose words and words likewise presuppose understanding and understanding also must presuppose thoughts and thoughts as well are presupposing the mental processes of mind and then one must wonder without minds with some guided conceptions where cometh questions.
If we still doubt the authenticity or qualities of minds, one must ask by what method or standard is being used and how do we know that this is right or most likely to be right method or standard. Some say minds are fallible but is not this proposal hinging on the idea that a clear mind is assessing that minds are fallible, but how can one holding to that prove “minds are fallible” if they think that even their mind is not clear to make such an assessment.
Some say we cannot be sure of anything, because science or reason demonstrates otherwise, but how is that not also presupposing the sureness of both science and reason? Thus, how can we say we can know this for sure when we are sure we cannot know things? That to me is a contradiction is it not.
My point is, to me we can know things and it is science and reason that are most relevant in this endeavor, and this understanding that there is valid and reliable methods helps is confirming what is warranted to call truth, as we can know it.
To me truth is a value judgment we place on what we think or believe is evidence. Therefore, the rational imperative (on us) is to demonstrate that the proposed evidence, or reasoned assumption, is actually of a high epistemic standard with as much valid and reliable reason and evidence as possible, from as credible a source as possible, which then makes some believed “Truth” actually worthy to be seen as Epistemologically True, thus a “justified true belief.”
Broadly speaking, epistemic means, “relating to knowledge itself, or to the degree of its validation,” and epistemological means, “critical study of knowledge validity, methods, as well as limits to knowledge, and the study or theory of various aspects of, or involved in knowledge”.
There is much philosophical debate about knowledge. However, for the sake of most arguments, I’m fine working from the definition of “justified true beliefs”. But I always do so tentatively as problems could come up (the Gettier problem, etc.).
Therefore, I follow the standard in philosophy Justified True Beliefs = knowledge and when such knowledge reaches a high or the highest epistemic standard it can be dubbed epistemically certain.
To established justification I use the philosophy called Reliabilism.
Reliabilism is a general approach to epistemology that emphasizes the truth-conduciveness of a belief-forming process, method, or other epistemologically relevant factor. The reliability theme appears both in theories of knowledge and theories of justification.
For the true part I use the philosophy called The Correspondence Theory of Truth.
The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.
For the beliefs part I use what philosophy calls The Ethics of Belief.
The “ethics of belief” refers to a cluster of questions at the intersection of epistemology, philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. The central question in the debate is whether there are norms of some sort governing our habits of belief-formation, belief-maintenance, and belief-relinquishment. Is it ever or always morally wrong (or epistemically irrational, or imprudent) to hold a belief on insufficient evidence? Is it ever or always morally right (or epistemically rational, or prudent) to believe on the basis of sufficient evidence, or to withhold belief in the perceived absence of it? Is it ever or always obligatory to seek out all available epistemic evidence for a belief? Are there some ways of obtaining evidence that are themselves immoral or imprudent?
While hallucinogens are associated with shamanism, it is alcohol that is associated with paganism.
The Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries Shows in the prehistory series:
Show two: Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show tree: Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show four: Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show five: Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”
Show six: Emergence of hierarchy, sexism, slavery, and the new male god dominance: Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves!
Prehistory: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” the division of labor, power, rights, and recourses: VIDEO
Pre-animism 300,000 years old and animism 100,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Totemism 50,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Shamanism 30,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism”: VIDEO
Paganism 12,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Pre-Capitalism): VIDEO
Paganism 7,000-5,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Capitalism) (World War 0) Elite and their slaves: VIEDO
Paganism 5,000 years old: progressed organized religion and the state: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (Kings and the Rise of the State): VIEDO
Paganism 4,000 years old: related to “Anarchism and Socialism” (First Moralistic gods, then the Origin time of Monotheism): VIEDO
I do not hate simply because I challenge and expose myths or lies any more than others being thought of as loving simply because of the protection and hiding from challenge their favored myths or lies.
The truth is best championed in the sunlight of challenge.
An archaeologist once said to me “Damien religion and culture are very different”
My response, So are you saying that was always that way, such as would you say Native Americans’ cultures are separate from their religions? And do you think it always was the way you believe?
I had said that religion was a cultural product. That is still how I see it and there are other archaeologists that think close to me as well. Gods too are the myths of cultures that did not understand science or the world around them, seeing magic/supernatural everywhere.
I personally think there is a goddess and not enough evidence to support a male god at Çatalhöyük but if there was both a male and female god and goddess then I know the kind of gods they were like Proto-Indo-European mythology.
The “Atheist-Humanist-Leftist Revolutionaries”
Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ Atheist Leftist @Skepticallefty & I (Damien Marie AtHope) @AthopeMarie (my YouTube & related blog) are working jointly in atheist, antitheist, antireligionist, antifascist, anarchist, socialist, and humanist endeavors in our videos together, generally, every other Saturday.
Why Does Power Bring Responsibility?
Think, how often is it the powerless that start wars, oppress others, or commit genocide? So, I guess the question is to us all, to ask, how can power not carry responsibility in a humanity concept? I know I see the deep ethical responsibility that if there is power their must be a humanistic responsibility of ethical and empathic stewardship of that power. Will I be brave enough to be kind? Will I possess enough courage to be compassionate? Will my valor reached its height of empathy? I as everyone earns our justified respect by our actions, that are good, ethical, just, protecting, and kind. Do I have enough self-respect to put my love for humanity’s flushing, over being brought down by some of its bad actors? May we all be the ones doing good actions in the world, to help human flourishing.
I create the world I want to live in, striving for flourishing. Which is not a place but a positive potential involvement and promotion; a life of humanist goal precision. To master oneself, also means mastering positive prosocial behaviors needed for human flourishing. I may have lost a god myth as an atheist but I am happy to tell you my friend, it is exactly because of that, leaving the mental terrorizer, god belief that I truly regained my connected ethical as well as kind humanity.
Cory and I will talk about prehistory and theism, addressing the relevance to atheism, anarchism, and socialism.
At the same time of the rise of the male god 7,000 years ago was also the very time there was the rise of violence war, and clans to kingdoms, then empires, then states. It is all connected back to 7,000 years ago and it mover across the world.
Cory Johnston: https://damienmarieathope.com/2021/04/cory-johnston-mind-of-a-skeptical-leftist/?v=32aec8db952d
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist (YouTube)
Cory Johnston: Mind of a Skeptical Leftist @Skepticalcory
The Mind of a Skeptical Leftist By Cory Johnston: “Promoting critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics by covering current events and talking to a variety of people. Cory Johnston has been thoughtfully talking to people and attempting to promote critical thinking, social justice, and left-wing politics.”
Cory Johnston ☭ Ⓐ @Skepticallefty Evidence-based atheist leftist (he/him) Producer, host, and co-host of 4 podcasts @skeptarchy @skpoliticspod and @AthopeMarie
http://anchor.fm/skepticalleft
He needs our support. We rise by helping each other.
Damien Marie AtHope (“At Hope”) Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, Psychology, and Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Historian.
Damien is interested in: Freedom, Liberty, Justice, Equality, Ethics, Humanism, Science, Atheism, Antiteism, Antireligionism, Ignosticism, Left-Libertarianism, Anarchism, Socialism, Mutualism, Axiology, Metaphysics, LGBTQI, Philosophy, Advocacy, Activism, Mental Health, Psychology, Archaeology, Social Work, Sexual Rights, Marriage Rights, Woman’s Rights, Gender Rights, Child Rights, Secular Rights, Race Equality, Ageism/Disability Equality, Etc. And a far-leftist, “Anarcho-Humanist.”
Art by Damien Marie AtHope
Damien Marie AtHope (Said as “At” “Hope”)/(Autodidact Polymath but not good at math):
Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Jeweler, Poet, “autodidact” Philosopher, schooled in Psychology, and “autodidact” Armchair Archaeology/Anthropology/Pre-Historian (Knowledgeable in the range of: 1 million to 5,000/4,000 years ago). I am an anarchist socialist politically. Reasons for or Types of Atheism
My Website, My Blog, My (free accesses) Patreon, My (free accesses) Patreon Blog & Short-writing or Quotes My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com