Epistemically Rational Beliefs: Evidence and Reason Warranted Beliefs, not Faith Beliefs

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art  

“Epistemic” can seem ambiguous: sometimes used to mean “of or relating to knowledge” and sometimes to mean “of or relating to belief.” ref

“Epistemology; from Ancient Greek ἐπιστήμη (epistḗmē) ‘knowledge’, and -logy) is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge. Epistemologists study the nature, origin, and scope of knowledge, epistemic justification, the rationality of belief, and various related issues. Epistemology is considered a major subfield of philosophy and other major subfields such as ethics, logic, and metaphysics.” ref 

“Debates in epistemology are generally clustered around four core areas:

1. The philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and the conditions required for a belief to constitute knowledge, such as truth and justification
2. Potential sources of knowledge and justified belief, such as perception, reason, memory, and testimony
3. The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs
4. Philosophical skepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge, and related problems, such as whether skepticism poses a threat to our ordinary knowledge claims and whether it is possible to refute skeptical arguments.” ref 

“In these debates and others, epistemology aims to answer questions such as “What do we know?”, “What does it mean to say that we know something?”, “What makes justified beliefs justified?”, and “How do we know that we know?.” ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

“Damien, you should avoid ANY ‘belief’. I know it can be a fine line ,semantically, but I recommend eliminating the word ‘belief’ from your vocabulary. Confidence based on experience is the way to go. It helps to clear faulty thinking patterns.” – Challenger  

My response, Wrong. And you just expressed several beliefs. Did you read the blog “Be a DeepThinker, Be Free, Be Mental Dynamite” you are commenting under before commenting? It sure doesn’t seem like it. 

• Hammer of Truth: Yes, you too, have lots of beliefs… (VIDEO) 
• Truth Navigation: “Hammer of Truth”  (VIDEO)  
• Chatting about my “Hammer of Truth” Debate/Discussion Philosophy (VIDEO)  
• Don’t confuse beliefs, religion and science are two different epistemologies. (VIDEO) 
• Sound thinking, Presumptive-value, Axiology, and Disciplined-Rationality (VIDEO)  
• Truth Navigation: “Belief-Etiquette” (VIDEO) 
• Trying to Help Promote Knowledge: Philosophy and Science. (VIDEO)  
• Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth (VIDEO)  

My response, Don’t try to tell me what to do either. Your wrong anyway but even if you were right, tell me what you think and I will decide its value on my own. Do you know Philosophy and do you believe that you know it better than me? I am very good at philosophy, I guess you have not been paying attention. Did you not see I have had talks with Matt and other philosophy affluent people including a few philosophy professors. 

Here is an atheist philosopher using the term belief as we all should. It is pseudo-philosophy to think otherwise. in a blog called CAMELS WITH HAMMERS  posted FEBRUARY 27, 2012 BY DANIEL FINCKE. Dr. Daniel Fincke, an atheist like both of us has his Ph.D. in philosophy as well as spent 11 years teaching philosophy in college wrote in “Anti-Accommodationism Is Pro-Philosophy?” addressing what are “Epistemically Rational Beliefs” even though he did not explain them using that term.

“Accommodationist-atheists are those who do not want atheists to vigorously publicly attack religious beliefs and institutions, lest they risk alienating open-minded liberal and moderate religious people and turn them off to belief in evolution, climate change, science-based education and medicine, separation of church and state, or other crucial matters of public policy. But I (DANIELFINCKE) say because essentially the New Atheists’ (Anti-Accommodationists’) concerns are, first and foremost, epistemological and not strictly scientific. They are adamant that the scientists’ rigorous commitment to severe standards for belief and knowledge claims be applied not just to strictly scientific questions but just as scrupulously to the matters religions presume to pronounce upon. They are adamant that the rejection of willful faith believing that is the core of scientific success be not only applied to politics, but even to the matters of belief about “souls” and “gods”. Many New Atheists develop explicit accounts of epistemology that distinguish why faith-beliefs are improper in principle. Many want to argue for the philosophical implications of scientific findings and show how they really can give just cause for philosophical inferences rejecting belief in gods (and, specifically, belief in the Abrahamic personal designer God of Western theism). And, as I argued this morning, the New Atheists reserve, and fiercely and extensively exercise, the right to publicly agitate on numerous ethical matters which, while sometimes informed by science, are not decided scientifically but philosophically.” –DANIELFINCKE

*And Epistemically “Rational Beliefs”  [Epistemic in (Philosophy) of or relating to knowledge or epistemology or (Logic) denoting the branch of modal logic that deals with the formalization of certain epistemological concepts, such as knowledge and certainty or relating to the theory of knowledge (epistemology). 

My response, We all have beliefs it’s unavoidable. The issue is having justified true beliefs that hold warrant or are valid and reliable because of reason and evidence. I am not directing this at anyone, I am only stating this trying to help. Even saying I don’t have a belief is exhibiting a belief that you don’t have a belief. To me, beliefs are not what’s the problem it’s having justified true beliefs warranted on valid and reliable reason, and evidence is the issue. Think of it like this there are three belief states one is “lacking belief” which would stand for not having information or not making a decision, belief, or disbelief.

Some unbelievers in faith, gods, or any other magical/supernatural nonsense say they only “lack belief” and do not have disbelief. So they are saying they have a disbelief in the idea that they have disbelief as they are actively rejecting the concept of them having disbelief. I feel there is confusion about the definition of disbelief, which is a feeling that you do not or cannot believe or accept that something is true or real. The act of disbelieving is the mental rejection of something as untrue. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief

Thus, disbelief is rendered to you do not or cannot believe a claim. Like how I disbelieve all the unjustified god claims and all god-something claims are of course unjustified.

Do we have to ‘believe’ that the scientific method yields qualified truths? You have to use rationalism to establish the rationale and yes it is a belief in a certain style of information possessing but it is a warranted justified true belief both before its use because of reason and after its use in the reliability as well as validating of evidence. At that point beliefs are no longer required as the reproducibility of conclusions makes the facts. I think I can see what the disconnect is for some atheists… Theists try to deflect from debates by saying that atheists “believe in science”. 

While many of us believe in scientific principles as they are justified by both Evidence and Reason giving warrant to their Belief, it is not a belief system. As you said before, we believe things that there is evidence for. It’s not about faith. It’s about evidence, but theists try to call it faith because we didn’t necessarily come up with the ideas ourselves. This is stupid because belief in science is justified and warranted, as there is evidence to support the justified belief for the ideas whether or not we made them ourselves. I hear that I have no beliefs thinking but they need to read what philosophy, psychology, and neurology to grasp what they state about beliefs or disbeliefs. I am sure they will be the most motivated by science so here is the Neurology of Belief.

The difference between believing and disbelieving a proposition is one of the most potent regulators of human behavior and emotion. When one accepts a statement as true, it becomes the basis for further thought and action; rejected as false, it remains nothing more than a string of words someone put together.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief 

 What is belief? (in philosophy):

“Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term “belief” to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn’t involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term “belief”, in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage). Many of the things we believe, in the relevant sense, are quite mundane: that we have heads, that it’s the 21st century, that a coffee mug is on the desk. Forming beliefs is thus one of the most basic and important features of the mind, and the concept of belief plays a crucial role in both philosophies of mind and epistemology. The “mind-body problem”, for example, so central to the philosophy of mind, is in part the question of whether and how a purely physical organism can have beliefs. Much of epistemology revolves around questions about when and how our beliefs are justified or qualify as knowledge.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/ 

Facts are labels, just like truth, that we put on claims we think are proven somehow, in that assertions are believed to match the state of affairs (if you are making realistic assumptions from science then likely supported by the beliefs in Scientific realism), that generally promote the Correspondence theory of truth “similar to both Rationalism and Empiricism” or  Coherence theory of truth “similar to just Rationalism” its all still epistemic property of beliefs, whether one’s claim is of knowledge or certainty. 

“Scientific realism is the view that the universe described by science is real regardless of how it may be interpreted. Within the philosophy of science, this view is often an answer to the question “how is the success of science to be explained?”  Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make valid claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables, as opposed to instrumentalism.  Scientific realism generally involves the two basic positions. First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce. Second, it is the commitment that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains.” ref 

“In epistemology, 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. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other. In contemporary Continental philosophy, Edmund Husserl defended the correspondence theory. In contemporary analytic philosophy, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, J. L. Austin, and Karl Popper defended the correspondence theory.” ref 

“In philosophy, rationalism is the epistemological view that “regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge” or “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification.” ref 

“In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, rather than innate ideas or traditions. And empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than on intuition or revelation.” ref  

“In epistemology, the coherence theory of truth regards truth as coherence within some specified set of sentences, propositions, or beliefs.  Very often, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple formal coherence. For example, the coherence of the underlying set of concepts is considered to be a critical factor in judging validity.  The coherentist theory of justification, which may be interpreted as relating to either theory of coherent truth, characterizes epistemic justification as a property of a belief only if that belief is a member of a coherent set. What distinguishes coherentism from other theories of justification is that the set is the primary bearer of justification.” ref, ref 

“The coherence and correspondence theories both hold that truth is a property of propositions that can be analyzed in terms of the sorts of truth-conditions propositions have, and the relations propositions stand into these conditions. A plausible version of the coherence theory states that the coherence relation is some form of entailment. Entailment can be understood here as strict logical entailment, or entailment in some looser sense.” ref

“Logical consequence (also entailment) is a fundamental concept in logic, which describes the relationship between statements that hold true when one statement logically follows from one or more statements. A valid logical argument is one in which the conclusion is entailed by the premises, because the conclusion is the consequence of the premises. The philosophical analysis of logical consequence involves the questions: In what sense does a conclusion follow from its premises? and What does it mean for a conclusion to be a consequence of premises? All philosophical logic is meant to provide accounts of the nature of logical consequence and the nature of logical truth.” ref 

“Robert Anton Wilson > Quotes “I don’t believe anything, but I have many suspicions.” –Challenger 

My response, He also professed a belief about lacking beliefs which he believes. Thus, he believes that claim, so he is wrong as well as you where relating to beliefs. 

“I told you it’s semantically slippery. Not the same thing. It’s a scientific mindset, and I have a background in physics.” – Challenger   

My response, And that doesn’t mean anything if you don’t get philosophy. I will gladly debate you if you want, in a recorded video on this. 

Here is a quote for you for a trusted atheist thinker: Atheist Experience’s Matt Dillahunty

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

I fall from the treetops like a summer rain of new things that invigorates the mind to thought as if reaching out for a phantom to see what is really true. We light a candle in our mind when we let reason be our master because reason requires its user to change to what is reasoned over what may be preferred. I am a reason-driven “I dare you, to think” kind of philosopher. Simple but when the philosophy thinking is so inarticulate, or such monumental architecture of mental gymnastics erected on top of “reason”, that to most people, not in philosophy, it is just like bla, bla, bla. Lol

It is not a matter of being the only flame but to inspire us all to unify as one, to bring light to all we can. Be an honest thinker who values only reason and evidence as your main helpful guides. Follow an “ethics of belief” and don’t “believe what you like” rather what is justified soundly, thus let “Reason” be your master, and may you master “Reason.” Anger has been easier than care but it is my care I hold as value and it is this care, not some anger, I wish to inspire. In fact, I wish for us all to truly slow down and think, to add the needed care. Yea, we should do the needful, the worthy, and what is true. Reason rules.

Silence is no virtue, especially against injustice, oppression, or untruths. From our natural only reality, there is no need to hide, for Atheism and a magic-free universe is the truth and theism religion and its supernatural thinking gods are just a lie. Truth deserves to be supported and has no need to remain silent and should instead, inspire its strong championing. I hear this call deep in me to bravely champion the truth of atheism and I do it with pride. 

To me, Animistic Somethingism: You just feel/think there has to be something supernatural/spirit-world or feel/think things are supernatural/spirit-filled. “Somethingism” is commonly an unspecified belief in an undetermined supernatural reality, stated sometimes as spiritual but not religious, but, to me, is basically unrealized animism. Vague Theism or god Somethingism: just say NO! May I remind you , vague theism, somethingism or “ietsism” is not some Philosophers Stone of Theism removed from strong critique.

So loudly, I will proclaim supernatural, and gods are willful mental illusions, confusions, and lies that are commonly inspired by a life of religious influences, religiously motivated fears, and or religious indoctrination. I laugh at questions like “what would convince you of god” as if I approach thinking differently dependent. As a rationalist I am always moved best by valid and reliable reason and evidence, you know the very stuff, all religions and any supernatural claim always lack in the end. Religion is big on claims but small of real reasoning, full of logical fallacies in thinking, and no evidence to quorate all their delusionary supernatural nonsense and superstitions.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Therefore, as I told you about beliefs, you were likely wrong, even Matt agrees with me, and many atheists seem to not grasp beliefs in relation to philosophy nor what that means to its value in axiological thinking. 

Here is a little philosophy of science:

Yes, science has many valid justified beliefs and sound assumptions.

“All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes. Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values, and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation. For naturalists, nature is the only current justified reality, the only paradigm. One can be a metaphysical naturalism where there is no such thing as ‘supernatural’.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

“The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality. The scientific method uses methodological naturalism that doesn’t deny such things like supernatural but rather, both has no valid supernatural to test nor can such as unknown unjustified evidence lacking assumption be offered as an explanation to what is demonstrated nature. Methodological Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists. The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

“Such as that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers. “The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality.” “Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless, its very existence is assumed.” “Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real-world outside of ourselves. As infants, we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, then live with solipsism.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

“Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else.” Moreover, that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; “Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knowable principles that don’t depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave.” Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that “the physical world is orderly and comprehensible.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

“And that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. Stanley Sobottka said, “The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world.” “Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding.” that “Nature” has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

“Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature’s laws and the operation of known processes. Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

“Similarly, that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results. Likewise, the experimenters won’t be significantly biased by their presumptions. And that random sampling is representative of the entire population. A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science 

Here is some info from Understanding Science – Berkeley.edu

Basic assumptions of science: 

“The process of science builds reliable knowledge about the natural world. To see evidence of this reliability, one can look around at the everyday products of scientific knowledge: from airplanes to antibiotics, from batteries to bridges. These technologies only work because science does. The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging.” ref 

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Science operates on the assumptions that:
“There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us. For example, if a ball falls to the ground, science assumes that there must be a natural explanation for why the ball moves downward once released. Right now, scientists can describe gravity in great detail, but exactly what gravity is remains elusive. Still, science assumes that there is an explanation for gravity that relies on natural causes, just as there is for everything in nature.” ref 

• “Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes. Science assumes that we can learn about gravity and why a ball falls by studying evidence from the natural world. Scientists can perform experiments with other falling objects, observe how gravity affects the orbits of the planets, etc. Evidence from a wide range of experiments and observations helps scientists understand more about the natural causes of gravity.” ref 

• “There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world. In other words, the same causes come into play in related situations and these causes are predictable. For example, science assumes that the gravitational forces at work on a falling ball are related to those at work on other falling objects. It is further assumed that the workings of gravity don’t change from moment to moment and object to object in unpredictable ways. Hence, what we learn about gravity today by studying falling balls can also be used to understand, for example, modern satellite orbits, the formation of the moon in the distant past, and the movements of the planets and stars in the future, because the same natural cause is at work regardless of when and where things happen.” ref 

“These assumptions are important and are not controversial in science today. In fact, they form much of the basis for how we interact with the world and each other everyday.” ref 

“This is a fine example of how the finer the semantic distinction, the more some people will argue about it. Sure, you can use “belief” to refer to “confidence based on experience and data”, but. more often, it’s used for faith based propositions. That’s the kind of ‘belief’ I’m thinking of. We both have WAY too much free time, here. I sometimes wish I had a life.” –Challenger   

My response, So that is your response to me thoughtfully responding to your invalid comment? No, I don’t have free time and I took the time to explain your thinking error as well so others can learn why it was in error and how to see it in a reasoned way. I do what I do as I care to inspire deep thinking as our thinkers’ movement has too many that need to do more thinking and less assuming or unjustified claims. You challenged me and thus I addressed it.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Be a deep thinker, not some blind believer. Reason should be your only master, not myths or fancy philosophy thinking lacking sound meaning.

As such, even philosophy should not be your master, my friend; it should be your slave to better reasoning.

I will no longer bow to a philosophy abstraction, nor fall victim to the confusion that misses the real ontology of reality or life. Like how no matter the speculations off philosophic skepticism postulating a marriage existence, in every way knowable to us we are the body fully alive, acknowledged with every breath.

A self-evident absolute truth if there are any, that we can’t escape, even if others doubt its ultimate truth to be proven in every philosophic way possible. This truth even the most extreme skeptic proves in every inhale of air they choose to take to stay alive in the reality they wish to doubt philosophically.

This is a brute fact that is so profound it is before our understood reason and it’s the existential awareness of self-emotional aware even before any other way of awareness. It is at such a core beginning, we simply forward to start there confused about it or not, reason or anything else that is a thinking abstraction. Seen in things such as philosophical skepticism, solipsism, and the denial of reality or epistemic certainty.

My eclectic set of tools for my style I call “Truth Navigation” (Techniques for Discussions or Debates) which involves:

• *REMS: reason (rationalism), evidence (empiricism), and methodological “truth-seeking” skepticism (Methodic doubt) (the basic or general approach)
• *The Hammer of Truth: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (methodological use of philosophy)
• *Dialectical Rhetoric = truth persuasion: use of facts and reasoning (motivational teaching)
• *Utilizing Dignity: strategic dignity attacks or dignity enrichments (only used if confusion happens or resistance is present)

Be a Brave Thinker:

A thinker who earnestly directs, analyses, and challenges their own beliefs is brave. For it is better to search not like one with a belief to prove, no, first one must drill down into the belief exposing any and all flaws and if there is be willing to address it and if needed remove it. And after doing so myself as a god believer, it was a difficult life choice leave Religion and all its thinking errors, but I realized was more valuable. Remember what is often forgotten, that certainty, like knowledge, are epistemic properties of beliefs. ref

How would we act is the point, we need to think differently than make-believe and must not turn to wishful thinking lacking reality or one championing a denial of reality or epistemic certainty as the difference between Non-theistic and Non-magical beliefs which mirror reality thus are not unreasonable. Rather than championing reality or epistemic certainty Non-theistic and Non-magical beliefs often are an exhibition of intellectual honesty accepting the natural world as it presents itself, which is only natural, then why is that seen as so bad to so many in the world? Like, what if we leveled the full weight of reason in an intellectually honest critique of our one’s own beliefs not leaving any free of rebuilding or disbelief.

If you are a religious believer, may I remind you that faith in the acquisition of knowledge is not a valid method worth believing in. Because, what proof is“faith”, of anything religion claims by faith, as many people have different faith even in the same religion?

Addressing Pragmatic Ethical/Axiology Driven Assumptions, Overcome the Weight of Solipsism Doubt! I hold, that there is valid and reliable reason and evidence to warrant justified true belief in the knowledge of the reality of the external world, and even if some think we don’t we do have axiological and ethical reasons to believe or act as if so. Thinking is occurring and it is both accessible as well as guided by what feels like me; thus, it is rational to assume I have a thinking mind, so, I exist.

The most “Base Presupposition” begins in reason.

“In the branch of linguistics known as pragmatics, a presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse.” ref

Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by the aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized with the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions).

Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason. Which may I remind you is terrible since the most Base Presupposition in our understanding of everything begins in reason.

So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right (sound) reason is logic. Right (sound) logic, can be used for mathematics. Then right (sound) mathematics (Mathematical Physics) can be used in physics and from there we can get to science. “Regarding the relationship between mathematics and physics it is generally acknowledged that mathematics is “an essential tool for physics” and likewise that physics is “a rich source of inspiration and insight for mathematics.” And, by my outlined methodological approach, most can see we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method.

So, to recap so far, activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking (Amygdala hijack), which entrance us but are unavoidable, and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as in what could just be called right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking.

Reason understood as I am explaining it can be understood as at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth) should be used as a thinking standard(s) not a form of truth, to less subjective (Coherence theory of truth) similar to the step before this should be limited to ideas, not external reality claims, then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth on top another like blocks to a wall of truth.

But, some skeptics challenge reality or epistemic certainty (although are themselves appealing to reason or rationality that itself they seem to accept almost A priori themselves to me). Brain in a vat or jar, Evil Demon in your mind, Matrix world as your mind, & Hologram world as your reality are some arguments in the denial or challenge of reality or epistemic certainty.

The use of “Brain in a vat” type thought experiment scenarios are common as an argument for philosophical skepticism and solipsism, against rationalism and empiricism or any belief in the external world’s existence.

Such thought experiment arguments do have a value are with the positive intent to draw out certain features or remove un-reasoned certainty in our ideas of knowledge, reality, truth, mind, and meaning. However, these are only valuable as though challenges to remember the need to employ Disciplined-Rationality and the ethics of belief, not to take these thought experiment arguments as actual reality. Brain in a vat/jar, Evil Demon, Matrix world, and Hologram world are logical fallacies if assumed as a reality representation.

Dogmatic–Propaganda vs. Disciplined-Rationality

Religionists and fideists, promote Dogmatic-Propaganda whereas atheists and anti-religionists mostly promote Disciplined-Rationality. Dogmatic–Propaganda commonly is a common motivator of flawed or irrational thinking but with over seventy belief biases identified in people, this is hardly limited to just the religious or faith inclined. Let me illustrate what I am saying, to me all theists are believing lies or irrationally in that aspect of their lives relating to god belief. So the fact of any other common intellectual indexers where there may be “right” reason in beliefs cannot remove the flawed god belief corruption being committed.

What I am saying is like this if you kill one person you are a killer. If you believe in one “god” I know you are a follower of Dogmatic-Propaganda and can not completely be a follower of Disciplined-Rationality. However, I am not proclaiming all atheists are always rational as irrationally is a revolving door many people believe or otherwise seem to stumble through. It’s just that god-belief does this with intentionally.

Disciplined-Rationality is motivated by principles of correct reasoning with emphasis on valid and reliable methods or theories leading to a range of rational standpoints or conclusions understanding that concepts and beliefs often have consequences thus hold an imperative for truth or at least as close to truth as can be acquired rejecting untruth.

Disciplined-Rationality can be seen as an aid in understanding the fundamentals for knowledge, sound evidence, justified true belief and involves things like decision theory and the concern with identifying the value(s), reasonableness, verification, certainties, uncertainties, and other relevant issues resulting in the clearest optimal decision/conclusion and/or belief/disbelief.

Disciplined-Rationality attempts to understand the justification or lack thereof in propositions and beliefs concerning its self with various epistemic features of belief, truth, and/or knowledge, which include the ideas of justification, warrant, rationality, reliability, validity, and probability.

ps. “Sound Thinker”, “Shallow Thinker”, “Dogmatic–Propaganda” & “Disciplined-Rationality” are concepts/terms I created*

What is wrong with philosophical skepticism, solipsism, and the denial of reality or epistemic certainty. 

*First is the problem that they make is a challenge (alternative hypotheses) thus requiring their own burden of proof if they are to be seen as real.

*Second is the problem that they make in the act of presupposition in that they presuppose the reality of a real-world with factual tangible things like Brains and that such real things as human brains have actual cognition and that there are real-world things like vats or jars and computers invented by human beings with human real-world intelligence and will to create them and use them for intellectually meaningful purposes.

*Third is the problem of valid and reliable slandered as doubt is an intellectual professes needing to offer a valid and reliable slandered to who, what, why, and how they are proposing Philosophical Skepticism, Solipsism and the Denial of Reality or Certainty. Though one cannot on one hand say, I doubt everything and not doubt even that claim. One cannot say nothing can be known for certain, as they violate this very thought, as they are certain there is no certainty. The ability to think of reasonable doubt (methodological Skepticism) counteracts the thinking of unreasonable doubt (Philosophical Skepticism’s external world doubt and Solipsism). Philosophical skepticism is a method of reasoning which questions the possibility of knowledge is different than methodological skepticism is a method of reasoning, which questions knowledge claims with the goal finding what has a warrant, justification to validate the truth or false status of beliefs or propositions.

*Fourth is the problem that external world doubt and Solipsism creates issues of reproducibility, details, and extravagance. Reproducibility such as seen in experiments, observation and real-world evidence, scientific knowledge, scientific laws, and scientific theories. Details such as the extent of information to be contained in one mind such as trillions of facts and definable data and/or evidence. And extravagance such as seen in the unreasonable amount of details in general and how that also brings the added strain to reproducibility and memorability. Extravagancy in the unreasonable amount of details also interacts with axiological and ethical reasoning such as why if there is no real-world would you create rape, torture, or suffering of almost unlimited variations.

Why not just rape but child rape, not just torture but that of innocent children who would add that and the thousands of ways it can and does happen in the external world. Extravagancy is unreasonable, why a massive of cancers and infectious things, millions of ways to be harmed, suffer and die etc. There is a massive amount of extravagance in infectious agents if the external world was make-believe because of infectious agents come in an unbelievable variety of shapes, sizes, and types like bacteria, viruses, fungi, protozoa, and parasites. Therefore, the various types of pleasure and pain both seem an unreasonable extravagance in a fake external world, therefore, the most reasonable conclusion is the external world is a justified true belief.

*Fifth is the problem that axiological or ethical thinking would say we only have what we understand and must curtail behavior ethically to such understanding. Think of the ability to give consent having that reasoning ability brings with it the requirement of being responsible for our behaviors. If one believes the external world is not real, they remove any value (axiology) in people, places or things, and if the external world is not really there is no behavior or things to interact with (ethics) so nothing can be helped or harmed by actions as there is no actions or ones acting them or having them acting for or against.

In addition, if we do not know is we are actually existing or behaving in the real world we also are not certain we are not either, demanding that we must act as if it is real (pragmatically) due to ethical and axiological concerns which could be true. Because if we do act ethically and the reality of the external world is untrue we have done nothing but if we act unethically as if the reality of the external world is untrue and it is in fact real we have done something to violate ethics. Then the only right way to navigate the ethics of belief in such matters would say one should behave as though the external world is real. In addition, axiological or ethical thinking and the cost-benefit analysis of belief in the existence of the external world support and highly favors belief in the external world’s existence.

So again, in a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense is experience-related interpretation, relatively, as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, which involves “naive realism” as well as possible psychological certainty and low epistemic certainty. Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, hold typically more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense of naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science understands what is, while religion is wishing on what is not. Scientific realism sees external reality as described by science is what is REAL and thus TRUE with the highest epistemic certainty regardless of possible psychological certainty.

A basic outline of scientific epistemology:

Science: Hypotheses (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) + Testing (Empiricism/Systematic Observation) – Checking for errors (Skepticism/Fallibilism) + Interpret/Draw a Conclusion (Rationalism/Deductive, Inductive, or Abductive Reasoning etc.) *if valid* = Scientific Laws (describes observed phenomena) or Scientific Theory (substantiated and repeatedly tested explanation of phenomena) = Justified True Belief = Scientific Knowledge = Epistemic Certainty supportive of correctability.

*being epistemically certain, is believing a truth has the highest epistemic status, often with warranted psychological certainty but it may not, neither is it a requirement*

Getting Real with Logic:

Logic is the result of rationalism, as what do you think gets you to logic if not starting at reason? I want to hear your justification for your claims, all the presuppositions you are evading to explain the links in your claims of truth. As it is invalid to just claim this without a justification for your professed claims and the presupposing you do to get there, that is not trying to use rationalism to refuse rationalist thinking. How are you making the statement and not appearing to what is the rationale behind it? If not, you must want to think “Logic is self-generating as valid” and this understood value is to you not reducible to reason?

You are devoid of an offer of your burden of proof, first just try to keep up with the thinker’s responsibility to provide more than unjustified claims. Logic is derived by axioms and thus using rationalism to validate them, think otherwise provide your proof. My Rationalism: is two things externalistic “scientific rationalism” a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. And internalistic “philosophic rationalism” the theory that reason is the basest presupposition before all others, rather than simply trying to rely on experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.

Activating experience occurs we then have thinking, right (methodological) thinking (critical thinking) is reason, right reason is logic, right logic can be used for math, right math in response to the natural world is physics, and from there all other Sciences, physics is the foundation for chemistry and chemistry is the foundation of biology. May reason be your only master and may you also master reason.

Hear me; we are aware before the abstractions some try to blind us with; we are a body feeling all that is around, fully realized when one understands that there is no aware undamaged human mind that is not emoting. This includes before, during, and after you believe you are doing reason. And this also brings up the ontological or qualities of reason. Reason is a high thinking primate mental style or process to add accuracy, we learn, well most of us try to learn how to further develop our reason, the thinking strategy to not simply have a goal of accuracy it can be so developed that its use, skilled mastery is not simply finding external truth to belief accuracy one is also achieving an inward self-mastery, not over emotion as if it was reason’s enemy.

No, emotion is a vitality needed part proven in brain damage studies. Reason and emotion are friends, more accurately we are emotional feeling beings that with emotional intelligence construct thinking methodologies to improve our accuracy or we should. Some people think you are trapped in your behavior. But take for instance I strive to be kind now even think I do a good job, generally. However, I was not always this way. I was extremely abused as a child (mainly before 13 years old by my father), and it made me suffer from mental health issues I can still battle today. I, one was quite different from how you view me today, this is after 20 years of counseling services on and off.

One of the reasons I am good at understanding caring is much of my childhood lacked it. One of the reasons I am good at understanding kindness is I have had little in my life. One of the reasons I am good at understanding hope is I felt little of it most of my life. I don’t just blindly theorize such things, I have lived the lack of them. This upfront view has shown me a lot, demonstrating in living color of my own experiences just how important they are and why I must further their support, firstly in my actions rather than just some call for action of others alone. Kindness used to be against my nature as a high functioning sociopath (some likely genetic most helped by my suffering abuse), but through reason.

I am changed into something more than me, not a victim of my nature, I am better than merely my nature. Do all you can to help others as people matter and don’t forget you are one of the most valuable of those people that need your best too. It’s amazing how one can allow themselves to treat themselves in ways others than they would do to someone they cared about but we should be friends to ourselves first then spread such care out to the world hopefully inspiring other to do the same. I can’t stand the harmful ways of the world. Be the best you can I do all I can. One is hardly ever shown the door to glory getting the rewards due, good thing I am a bit thug by nature.

So I will bravely brake into the closed minds with reason, even though they wish to keep me out and want to deny my thinking truths, to keep me out, but I am not stopping my intrusive flow as you have already seen the undeniable truths in my wisdom you so wish to dent as much as you try. I have an ego like the lights above, and yet you feel my mental flames as the fire spits from every word your mental earworm one word, and past your defenses I grow.

You see the need for change, her that truth call out loud and don’t let a word pass gold one to try as a character like Ebenezer Scrooge which need change free your own bran as I can’t stand likes pushed as truths and the similar harmful ways of the world so I fight with all I can. Be the best you can I do all I can. I may be a champion of rationality, but this is not all I am. I live by my heart, but I also follow the valid and reliable reason as well as the evidence available. And strive to preposition any belief to them.

This is true that even if I could affirm, I was completely in error. I will let that belief go or updated as required because I am a truth seeker. I wish to be a friend to the world. I offer myself, all I have, hoping to do all I can. Often kindness is a gift, an act of love, honoring the valued dignity of others. Eyes of hate will always find a victim, whereas eyes of love may always find a friend. One cannot simply demand respect for their character, instead, it requires that one must demonstrate virtue. Even if one has a mind of a worrier but not the heart of kindness, still must learn what is worth fighting for. Love as ones thinking strategy is a feeling that can motivate a generosity of spirit which then compel my kindness. I am a thinking rule breaker, I am a deep question risk taker, I am a mental freedom Firestarter, and I am a mental riot maker.

Yes, I am that freak of nature, a power from the anti-power crusaders, warring against the power dynamic to return it back where it belongs- the hands of the people. I am a free-thinking invader into the shell of malignancy infecting humanity which strangles reason out of the world. A proud anarchy theorist, I breathe the fire of the heathens, a thought revolutionary and mental freedom fighter. I am a humanist atheist who desires a better world for us all, one that is kinder, juster, and more rational in its pursuits.

In the struggle for enlightenment, there is a need to remove religious thinking, often without realizing it, is more an involvement relating to the struggle of championing good belief standards than just removing superstitiousism, though there is a great need to remove such magical thinking as superstitions can be thought of as at the core of most religious thinking. These childlike religious stories should not even be taken seriously, but sadly too often they are.

Often without realizing it, we accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives. In order to bring about awareness, we need to be willing to alter skewed beliefs. Rational thinkers must examine the facts instead of blindly following beliefs or faith. May we all be rationalists, holding fast to a valued belief etiquette: demanding reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, and honest belief relinquishment.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

 The “Free Will” Debate.

To me, we have a “will” that is lesser or greater all the time, not really “free will” as some think and that does not remove how in a general way, we tend to have something close to free will. Think if we had true “free will” we would never be limited by influences such as environments, or our fight-or-flight response, or our tend and befriend behaviors. We do not start the world as blank slates, nor does it take long to recognize the beginnings of morality in humans, we see it is babies at around a few months old not after they learn religion nor any philosophy. I see our ebbing and flowing will, one that at times we feel 100% free of will does not equal a mind 100% free-thinking devoid of any basis when we know such thinking errors are the rule, not an unlikely accident. Choose wisely.

I see our will as at times possibly close to what people think of as free will. But such a time is not fixed or lasting and ranges up and down during the day and is in no way actually regulated. As in think of the moment you hear of a crushing loss, could you make truly clear-headed moral reasoned decisions? I do not know about you, but I likely could error being so emotionally hijacked in my thinking. I believe generally most can but there is not just one thinking state nor is simple awareness the came as a critical reflection over days on one idea. is just swimming in our cognitive motivations stemming from both external and external influences thus we are not as free as we believe but yes, we have some “will”, I do not know if free is the best word as it could give a wrong impression or exaggerated explanation and maybe why there is all the confusion.

I am not trying to just push one thinking without thinking, rather I seek to desire truth even if it is being spoken from the mouths of others. I strive to be a free thinker with only reason as my master and humanity in my heart. May I use all the will I have to be the best me I can be, may I be a good human. To me, we are responsible to do what is of value. not ego, not pride, not self-dealing, but genuinely embody a heart of kindness, one that breathes deep a care for humanity. When we stop focusing our great minds on better ways to kill, we can focus on ideas that heal.

The door of reason opens not once but many times.

Religions continuing in our modern world, full of science and facts, should be seen as little more than a set of irrational conspiracy theories of reality. Nothing more than a confused reality made up of unscientific echoes from man’s ancient past. Rational thinkers must ask themselves why continue to believe in religions’ stories. Religion myths which are nothing more than childlike stories and obsolete tales once used to explain how the world works, acting like magic was needed when it was always only nature. These childlike religious stories should not even be taken seriously, but sadly too often they are. Often without realizing it, we accumulate beliefs that we allow to negatively influence our lives. In order to bring about awareness, we need to be willing to alter skewed beliefs. Rational thinkers must examine the facts instead of blindly following beliefs or faith.

We often think we know what truth is but nevertheless, this can be but a vantage point away from losing credibility, if we are not willing to follow valid and reliable reason and evidence. The door of reason opens not once but many times. Come on a journey to free thought where the war is against ignorance and the victor is a rational mind.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Religion is the thing that sadly happens when a fear of powerlessness becomes a power to be feared.

May we all aspiring to the greatness of being strong reasoned thinkers with truly strong hearts of kindness.

More than just atheists I hope my thinking inspires people to be rationalists who strive to use critical thinking putting reason at the forefront thus as their only master even over their ego. As well as from such thoughtfulness may we all see the need for humanism and secularism, respecting all as helpful servant leaders assisting others as often as we can to navigate truth and the beauty of reality. I strive to be and wish for others to be more than just atheists, may we all aspiring to the greatness of being strong reasoned thinkers with truly strong hearts of kindness.

Long ago I only cared about “myself”, what a foolish time of my life. I once was afraid to champion kindness fearing I would look weak. Now I see the bravery of kindness and the weakness of hate.

Here are three video Chats With famous atheists: 

1. Matt Dillahunty: discussing on atheism and philosophy

2. Aron Ra: discussing using anthropology/archaeology

3. David Silverman: discussing on firebrand atheists uniting  

May I Help be the Voice of Reason

Never have a regretted being kind but often upon reflection, I have regretted my expression of anger. I have never wanted more hate in the world but how eagerly and proud I have worked to build a kinder world. For I know it starts with me, I am responsible. Yes, we rise by helping each other. May we all be valiant enough to be kind, even in a gleefully unkind world. I am honored to be of help to others, for we rise by helping each other.

My degree is in psychology (with some training in sociology, multicultural criminology and juvenile delinquency, teaching, intervention, alcohol, and drug addiction therapy as well) and I had excellent grades and was doing great but I dropped out of my masters after 7 classes, to do the new desire to research the origins and evolution of religion around the whole Earth and throughout all time, which is an adventure that has taken over 10 years ago to research for my book: “The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots”.  I was in college to be a mental health therapist, which I would have enjoyed. Unlike the shit, I have to endure as the out activist, like I am now. In fact, I would likely be financially well off but instead, I chose humanity and possible poverty if needed in order to help change the world as much as I can. It was the work mistake of my life but the proudest thing I have ever done in my life. We rise by helping each other. The pain of the mind is some of the most lasting pain just as freedom of the mind is some of the most lasting freedom. May I be someone who can make anyone feel like someone of value. Human-Kind. Be both… 

I am virtuous to the vulnerable and champion justice, so valiantly, as I have experienced the hateful lash of unkindness and wish to champion its opposite, radical kindness in an unkind world, a sigh of true bravery. It seems that there are two main types of philosophers: Thinkers and Specialists, and I have always thought of myself as a thinker.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

I am a Methodological Rationalist, I rarely am pushed to doubt as a default, instead, I see reason as my default and at times it may be responsible to doubt, but I get to that conclusion because of reasoning. A common saying in pseudologic is “You can’t prove a negative.” This is, simply not true. This is clearly not true because any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative. For example, “X is true” can be rewritten as “X is not false”, a negative statement! If “X is true” can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement “X is not false”. Moreover, even if it is widely believed that you can’t prove a negative. Going so far as to have people thinking that it is a law of logic—you can’t prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. This widespread belief is flatly, 100% wrong. In this little essay, I show precisely how one can prove a negative, to the same extent that one can prove anything at all. Evidence of absence is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. Per the traditional aphorism, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard, Irving Copi writes: “In some circumstances, it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.” — Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

Here is why “Reason is my only master”

The most Base Presupposition begins in reason. Reason is needed for logic (logic is realized by the aid of reason enriching its axioms). Logic is needed for axiology/value theory (axiology is realized by the aid of logic). Axiology is needed for epistemology (epistemology is realized by the aid of axiology value judge and enrich its value assumptions as valid or not). Epistemology is needed for a good ontology (ontology is realized with the aid of epistemology justified assumptions/realizations/conclusions). Then when one possesses a good ontology (fortified with valid and reliable reason and evidence) they can then say they know the ontology of that thing. Thinking is good and one claiming otherwise is indeed a person erroring in reason. Which may I remind you is terrible since the most Base Presupposition in our understanding of everything begins in reason.

So, I think, right thinking is reason. Right-reason (Sound reasoning) is logic. Right logic, can be used for mathematics, and from there we can get to science. And, by this methodological approach, we get one of the best ways of knowing the scientific method. Activating experience/event occurs, eliciting our feelings/scenes. Then naive thoughts occur, eliciting emotions as a response. Then it is our emotional intelligence over emotional hijacking, which entrance us but are unavoidable, and that it is the navigating this successfully in a methodological way we call critical thinking or as In just call right thinking. So, to me, could be termed “Right” thinking, that is referring to a kind of methodological thinking. Reason is at the base of everything and it builds up from pragmatic approaches. And, to me, there are three main approaches to truth (ontology of truth) from the very subjective (Pragmatic theory of truth), to subjective (Coherence theory of truth), then onto objective (Correspondence theory of truth) but remember that this process as limited as it can be, is the best we have and we build one truth ontop another like blocks to a wall of truth.

Soundness

“In logic, more precisely in deductive reasoning, an argument is sound if it is both valid in form and its premises are true. Soundness also has a related meaning in mathematical logic, wherein logical systems are sound if and only if every formula that can be proved in the system is logically valid with respect to the semantics of the system. In deductive reasoning, a sound argument is an argument that is both valid, and all of whose premises are true (and as a consequence its conclusion is true as well). An argument is valid if, assuming its premises are true, the conclusion must be true.” ref

An example of a sound argument is the following well-known syllogism:

“All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.” Because of the logical necessity of the conclusion, this argument is valid; and because the argument is valid and its premises are true, the argument is sound. However, an argument can be valid without being sound. For example: “All birds can fly. Penguins are birds. Therefore, penguins can fly.” This argument is valid because, assuming the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. However, the first premise is false. Not all birds can fly (penguins, ostriches, kiwis etc.) For an argument to be sound, the argument must be valid and its premises must be true.” ref

The soundness of a deductive system is the property that any sentence that is provable in that deductive system is also true on all interpretations or structures of the semantic theory for the language upon which that theory is based. In symbols, where S is the deductive system, L the language together with its semantic theory, and P a sentence of L: if ⊢S P, then also ⊨L P.” ref

Strong soundness

“Strong soundness of a deductive system is the property that any sentence P of the language upon which the deductive system is based that is derivable from a set Γ of sentences of that language is also a logical consequence of that set, in the sense that any model that makes all members of Γ true will also make P true. In symbols where Γ is a set of sentences of L: if Γ ⊢S P, then also Γ ⊨L P. Notice that in the statement of strong soundness, when Γ is empty, we have the statement of weak soundness.” ref

Pragmatic theory of truth, Coherence theory of truth, and Correspondence theory of truth

In a general way, all reality, in a philosophic sense, is an emergent property of reason, and knowing how reason accrues does not remove its warrant. Feelings are experienced then perceived, leading to thinking, right thinking is reason, right reason is logic, right logic is mathematics, right mathematics is physics and from there all science.

Right-(SOUND)-Reason: is reasoning to the highest soundness available.

Science is not common sense?

Science is quite the opposite of just common sense. To me, common sense is experience-related interpretation, relatively, as it generally relates to the reality of things in the world, which involves “naïve realism” as well as possible psychological certainty and low epistemic certainty. Whereas, most of those who are scientific thinkers, hold typically more to scientific realism or other stances far removed from the limited common sense of naive realism. Science is a multidisciplinary methodological quest for truth. Science understands what is, while religion is wishing on what is not. Scientific realism sees external reality as described by science is what is REAL and thus TRUE with the highest epistemic certainty regardless of possible psychological certainty.

Getting Real with Logic

Logic is the result of rationalism, as what do you think gets you to logic if not starting at reason? I want to hear your justification for your claims, all the presuppositions you are evading to explain the links in your claims of truth. As it is invalid to just claim this without a justification for your professed claims and the presupposing you do to get there, that is not trying to use rationalism to refuse rationalist thinking. How are you making the statement and not appearing to what is the rationale behind it? If not, you must want to think “Logic is self-generating as valid” and this understood value is to you not reducible to reason? You are devoid of an offer of your burden of proof, first just try to keep up with the thinker’s responsibility to provide more than unjustified claims. Logic is derived by axioms and thus using rationalism to validate them, think otherwise provide your proof. My Rationalism: is two things externalistic “scientific rationalism” a belief or theory that opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response. And internalistic “philosophic rationalism” the theory that reason is the most base presupposition before all others, rather than simply trying to rely on experience is the foundation of certainty in knowledge. Activating experience occurs we then have thinking, right (methodological) thinking (critical thinking) is reason, right reason is logic, right logic can be used for math, right math in response to the natural world is physics, and from there all other Sciences, physics is the foundation for chemistry and chemistry is the foundation of biology. May Right-(SOUND)-Reason be your only master and may you also master reason.

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

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, & Short-writing or Quotes, My YouTube, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, and My Email: damien.marie.athope@gmail.com