theist in a foxhole

[uwot]

...a more technical reading of the word would mean that if that thing could, in fact, have an effect on something, the thing itself is observable, no? The point I was trying to make (poorly, it seems) is that claims that "there is no evidence for God" miss the point that, if the theist is correct, then pretty much everything around us is evidence. It's got a certain circularity to it, so I'm not hanging too many hats on it, only trying to point out that "there is no evidence for God" is itself a statement that itself cannot be proven by an appeal to evidence.

That would require evidence for a lack of evidence. What could anyone possibly hold up and say 'This is the evidence for the lack of evidence'?

But if spacetime can be tested by experiments, then, by definition, it's not metaphysical. The defining characteristic of "metaphysical" is that it deals with things beyond the scope of science.

It is the behaviour of detectable objects, ie matter, predicted by the model that can be tested. The fact that the model works doesn't mean it is true. The science is the measurement, recording, confirming of the data. There is no currently available method to test for any 'spacetime' directly; there are sound reasons for thinking there never will be, but only a fool would make themselves a hostage to fortune. Spacetime is metaphysical; it is a causal hypothesis rather than a phenomenon in it's own right.

This is why there are no experiments to test God. God is not a "hypothesis," it's a truth claim. It could well be a false truth claim, but that's not a question science will ever be able to settle inasmuch as the claim is "beyond physics."

I get that, but how do you square that with this?

If the theist is correct, then the evidence of God's existence is literally all around us. What's more, because God is, by definition, beyond science, science would never be able to come up with an experiment to test this. But the point here isn't to one-up the scientist with clever linguistic games. Rather, the point is to draw out the various epistemological assumptions at work here. The assumption that, because science can't show that the wind blowing through the trees is evidence of God, there is no evidence for God is epistemically flawed insofar as it maintains that the only valid evidence is that which can be tested through scientific experiments. Certainly scientific evidence qualifies as such, but there are other types of evidence. As a result, it's a bit of a failing for the scientist to insist that "evidence" is only that which can be tested by scientific experiments. The word "evidence" is broader than this narrow usage.

I understand that and have made the point that any hypothesis that is not falsified by the evidence could be true. The trouble is, there is an infinite number of possible causal metaphysical agents. Without evidence to favour any one in particular, the choice you make is aesthetic rather than scientific. Nothing wrong with that, in itself, but it is no basis to insist that any such hypothesis is The Truth.

[ReliStuPhD]

That would require evidence for a lack of evidence. What could anyone possibly hold up and say 'This is the evidence for the lack of evidence'?

Exactly. So the scientist is not one who can say that "there is no evidence for God" (in a final sense, not a "I've not seen any yet"). At least not if they're doing good science.

It is the behaviour of detectable objects, ie matter, predicted by the model that can be tested. The fact that the model works doesn't mean it is true. The science is the measurement, recording, confirming of the data. There is no currently available method to test for any 'spacetime' directly; there are sound reasons for thinking there never will be, but only a fool would make themselves a hostage to fortune. Spacetime is metaphysical; it is a causal hypothesis rather than a phenomenon in it's own right.

Fair enough. I defer to your expertise here. But if it's metaphysical, science will never be able to show it to be true. Which gets back to the atheists I was talking about who turn to science to tell them what's true about metaphysical questions (e.g. it's true that there is no God). If the atheist isn't concerned about what's "true," only what we can know through scientific inquiry, then I have no complaint.

ReliStu: This is why there are no experiments to test God. God is not a "hypothesis," it's a truth claim. It could well be a false truth claim, but that's not a question science will ever be able to settle inasmuch as the claim is "beyond physics."

uwot: I get that, but how do you square that with this?

ReliStu: If the theist is correct, then the evidence of God's existence is literally all around us. What's more, because God is, by definition, beyond science, science would never be able to come up with an experiment to test this. But the point here isn't to one-up the scientist with clever linguistic games. Rather, the point is to draw out the various epistemological assumptions at work here. The assumption that, because science can't show that the wind blowing through the trees is evidence of God, there is no evidence for God is epistemically flawed insofar as it maintains that the only valid evidence is that which can be tested through scientific experiments. Certainly scientific evidence qualifies as such, but there are other types of evidence. As a result, it's a bit of a failing for the scientist to insist that "evidence" is only that which can be tested by scientific experiments. The word "evidence" is broader than this narrow usage.

uwot: I understand that and have made the point that any hypothesis that is not falsified by the evidence could be true. The trouble is, there is an infinite number of possible causal metaphysical agents. Without evidence to favour any one in particular, the choice you make is aesthetic rather than scientific. Nothing wrong with that, in itself, but it is no basis to insist that any such hypothesis is The Truth.

Right, but again, God is not a hypothesis. What the theist is saying is that there aren't an infinite number of metaphysical causal agents (even if the scientist wants to insist otherwise). There's only one, and we call that "God" (in non-sectarian usage). And yes, that's not scientific, but the theist isn't making such a claim (or if they are, they're mistaken to do so). But neither are they saying it's an aesthetic choice. Rather, they're saying this is what's true about existence, and that we have good epistemological grounds to know this. Now, I might be inclined to assent to the choice of a particular God (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc) being aesthetic, but certainly the particular adherent would not.
[If I missed your point, let me know. At home with the kids, so this is distracted writing today. ]

So, all that said, I think my initial point still stands, and is perhaps even stronger given what you've said. If the atheists dismisses the theist's claim concerning these metaphysical questions because they're not scientific, and then turns to science for answers concerning those questions (i.e. to know what's true), they've made a serious mistake and are, at least inadvertently, being hypocritical.

[Arising_uk]

... it's true that there is no God). If the atheist isn't concerned about what's "true," only what we can know through scientific inquiry, then I have no complaint. ...

But this is not what the atheist says? What they say is 'I don't believe your 'God' exists' or 'There is no 'God'' or 'Your 'God' does not exist', that's all.

[Arising_uk]

...
Right, but again, God is not a hypothesis. What the theist is saying is that there aren't an infinite number of metaphysical causal agents (even if the scientist wants to insist otherwise). There's only one, and we call that "God" (in non-sectarian usage). And yes, that's not scientific, but the theist isn't making such a claim (or if they are, they're mistaken to do so). ...

It's a metaphysical claim and that's all it is.

But neither are they saying it's an aesthetic choice. Rather, they're saying this is what's true about existence, and that we have good epistemological grounds to know this. ...

The whole point is that that they don't or at least not in the standard way epistemology is applied to ontology, i.e. show me one.

Now, I might be inclined to assent to the choice of a particular God (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc) being aesthetic, but certainly the particular adherent would not. ...

That's because their metaphysic, by and large, comes from indoctrination.

... So, all that said, I think my initial point still stands, and is perhaps even stronger given what you've said. If the atheists dismisses the theist's claim concerning these metaphysical questions because they're not scientific, and then turns to science for answers concerning those questions (i.e. to know what's true), they've made a serious mistake and are, at least inadvertently, being hypocritical.

Not really, they just misunderstand the philosophy of science but they have a fair claim upon science to be the best, so far, epistemological method we have for arriving at truth, in the sense of how something happens, and as such 'show me your 'God'' seems a fair question and lacking a show appears to be a fairly sound basis for deciding something doesn't exist.

Elsewhere you appear to imply that science is in the business of disproving 'God'(could be wrong here) but if so then I'd say this is incorrect, all that's happened is that science(mainly Physics but now Biology) keeps on undercutting religion by explaining away the myths it uses to hold moral sway, its why some religious institutions feel so threatened by it.

[thedoc]

Elsewhere you appear to imply that science is in the business of disproving 'God'(could be wrong here) but if so then I'd say this is incorrect, all that's happened is that science(mainly Physics but now Biology) keeps on undercutting religion by explaining away the myths it uses to hold moral sway, its why some religious institutions feel so threatened by it.

Any theology that is undercut and threatened by science explaining the processes of nature should be discarded. The theologies that accept that science has discovered how God has accomplished nature as we perceive it, is in a better position to survive.

[ReliStuPhD]

... it's true that there is no God). If the atheist isn't concerned about what's "true," only what we can know through scientific inquiry, then I have no complaint. ...

But this is not what the atheist says? What they say is 'I don't believe your 'God' exists' or 'There is no 'God'' or 'Your 'God' does not exist', that's all.

Those three are not the same grammatically. The first is a statement of belief while the latter two are truth claims. Now if by the last two, the atheist just means the first, then all is well. We're all imprecise in our language (there are more than a few examples here of my lack of precision). On the other hand, if the atheist means what he/she says with the last two, then my quote seems fair. "God does not exist" is, at least as written, a clear claim concerning the truth (or lack thereof) of God's existence.

[ReliStuPhD]

It's a metaphysical claim and that's all it is.

That's not all it is, but yes, it's not a claim to some sort of scientific certainty (e.g. it's not "I can prove God exists with this feather and marble. Watch closely.")

But neither are they saying it's an aesthetic choice. Rather, they're saying this is what's true about existence, and that we have good epistemological grounds to know this. ...

The whole point is that that they don't or at least not in the standard way epistemology is applied to ontology, i.e. show me one.

Well, epistemological approaches to ontology depend on the nature of ontology, so I wouldn't say "standard" so much as "usual." And, from a metaphysical standpoint, if God is, in fact, the ground of all being, then all the theist has to do to show you God is point at a tree.

Now, I might be inclined to assent to the choice of a particular God (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc) being aesthetic, but certainly the particular adherent would not. ...

That's because their metaphysic, by and large, comes from indoctrination.

For many, perhaps even most, I would agree.

... So, all that said, I think my initial point still stands, and is perhaps even stronger given what you've said. If the atheists dismisses the theist's claim concerning these metaphysical questions because they're not scientific, and then turns to science for answers concerning those questions (i.e. to know what's true), they've made a serious mistake and are, at least inadvertently, being hypocritical.

Not really, they just misunderstand the philosophy of science but they have a fair claim upon science to be the best, so far, epistemological method we have for arriving at truth, in the sense of how something happens,

Not Truth, but perhaps a high degree of certainty concerning a limited range of facts. Yes, science is great for "how," but that's not a metaphysical question; at least not as we use it in scientific terms.

and as such 'show me your 'God'' seems a fair question and lacking a show appears to be a fairly sound basis for deciding something doesn't exist.

That's awfully close to an Argument from Ignorance, though I think I understand what you're trying to say. But that leads me to ask whether "show me your God" is actually a fair question. I'd be interested in parsing that out.

Elsewhere you appear to imply that science is in the business of disproving 'God'(could be wrong here) but if so then I'd say this is incorrect, all that's happened is that science(mainly Physics but now Biology) keeps on undercutting religion by explaining away the myths it uses to hold moral sway, its why some religious institutions feel so threatened by it.

If that's the impression I gave, my apologies. Some scientists are, and some atheists want science to do this, but no, I don't think that's what science is after. I agree very much with how you've phrased it.

[Arising_uk]

That's not all it is, but yes, it's not a claim to some sort of scientific certainty (e.g. it's not "I can prove God exists with this feather and marble. Watch closely.")

There's quite a few IC/D scientists out there trying to prove just such a thing but whilst I still think it just a metaphysical claim if there is any epistemology then I'd like to know the ground rules as to what would count as proof and evidence to them.

Well, epistemological approaches to ontology depend on the nature of ontology, so I wouldn't say "standard" so much as "usual." And, from a metaphysical standpoint, if God is, in fact, the ground of all being, then all the theist has to do to show you God is point at a tree.

Nope, they'd just have to point me to this 'ground of all being'.

For many, perhaps even most, I would agree.

Nice to agree.

Not Truth, but perhaps a high degree of certainty concerning a limited range of facts. Yes, science is great for "how," but that's not a metaphysical question; at least not as we use it in scientific terms.

Not sure what 'Truth' is but if you mean absolutes then we have a bunch in philosophical logic. If you mean some 'Truth' that'd explain it all I think you won't find it in the contingent propositions as they have to be proved empirically and that normally made them true or false but apparently Physics of the Very-Little long-ago gave this up and now they are probably true, but I guess the rest still makes do with the two truth-values.

That's awfully close to an Argument from Ignorance, though I think I understand what you're trying to say. But that leads me to ask whether "show me your God" is actually a fair question. I'd be interested in parsing that out.

I think so, if one is going to claim knowledge of an existing thing or state of affairs then I think it fair to ask to see them. If they cannot be shown in some form then I think it okay to deduce that it, with a high probability, doesn't exist. Now I accept that future evidence may come to light but in all honesty cannot for think what the theist could come-up with next. As they used to say the whole heavens and a 'God' were looking at the Earths, then looking just at us but Biology appears to be denting that at present.

You said something about 'how' questions that I think may be the crux in mindsets as I think 'how' can enough of an explanation.

[Obvious Leo]

Not sure what 'Truth' is but if you mean absolutes then we have a bunch in philosophical logic. If you mean some 'Truth' that'd explain it all I think you won't find it in the contingent propositions as they have to be proved empirically and that normally made them true or false but apparently Physics of the Very-Little long-ago gave this up and now they are probably true, but I guess the rest still makes do with the two truth-values.

We fall into grave error when we assume that physics is in pursuit of any such thing as an ontological truth value, although very few physicists of the modern era would have a clue what an ontological truth value actually is. However many of the pioneers of early 20th century physics were far better schooled in metaphysics than the modern priesthood is and understood the nature of their discipline far better.

"It is not the role of the physicist to explain what the universe is but merely to determine what he can meaningfully say about its behaviour"... Niels Bohr.

"Mathematics can be used to prove anything"....Albert Einstein

"Spacetime should never be regarded as physically real"....Albert Einstein

"It is the theory which determines what the observer will observe"...Albert Einstein

"The physicist must always remember that he observes his world through the prism of his own consciousness"....Werner Heisenberg.

[ReliStuPhD]

There's quite a few IC/D scientists out there trying to prove just such a thing but whilst I still think it just a metaphysical claim if there is any epistemology then I'd like to know the ground rules as to what would count as proof and evidence to them.

Yeah, and I'm not sure how exactly they plan to pull that off.

Well, epistemological approaches to ontology depend on the nature of ontology, so I wouldn't say "standard" so much as "usual." And, from a metaphysical standpoint, if God is, in fact, the ground of all being, then all the theist has to do to show you God is point at a tree.

Nope, they'd just have to point me to this 'ground of all being'.

And how exactly would they show you the thing that is the ground of your existence? As far as I'm concerned, this is the crux of the "show me" issue. How one gets outside of oneself to the point that he/she can actually be shown the ground of their existence is a riddle I can't make sense of.

For many, perhaps even most, I would agree.

Nice to agree.

Agreed. (We did it again! )

That's awfully close to an Argument from Ignorance, though I think I understand what you're trying to say. But that leads me to ask whether "show me your God" is actually a fair question. I'd be interested in parsing that out.

I think so, if one is going to claim knowledge of an existing thing or state of affairs then I think it fair to ask to see them. If they cannot be shown in some form then I think it okay to deduce that it, with a high probability, doesn't exist. Now I accept that future evidence may come to light but in all honesty cannot for think what the theist could come-up with next. As they used to say the whole heavens and a 'God' were looking at the Earths, then looking just at us but Biology appears to be denting that at present.

But it ultimately depends on the claim, right? So if, as a theist, I were to say something along the lines of "'God' is the ground of all being and, as such, cannot be shown, but may well be experienced personally through some sort of revelation, or be understood to exist through various arguments," asking me to "show me your God" would be unfair, no (especially insofar as I've said that God cannot be shown)? Now, if Country Preacher Z walks up and says "Let me show you God" and you say "go ahead" and he points to a tree ( ), I could see your point. But if someone is maintaining that the thing we call God is, by the very nature of its being, something we perceive through its effects and/or particular arguments, a failure to show it would certainly not constitute grounds to deduce it does not exist. Surely that judgement would rest on something else? And to be clear, I'm not saying that the atheist never gets to say "God doesn't exist," just that "show me your God" doesn't seem to be a good criterium. Put differently, if I asked a scientist to "show me a Black Hole," and then they couldn't, I don't think I'd have good grounds to decude Black Holes don't exist.

You said something about 'how' questions that I think may be the crux in mindsets as I think 'how' can enough of an explanation.

I'm totally cool with that. If "how" is sufficient to the atheist, then I think the theist just needs to get back to talking about the weather and books while both sip their tea. It's when"why" enters the conversation that I think the theist has something to add.

[uwot]

Exactly. So the scientist is not one who can say that "there is no evidence for God" (in a final sense, not a "I've not seen any yet"). At least not if they're doing good science.

I really don't think so. Occam's Razor, the Principle of parsimony, call it what you will, is an important measure of good science. You can make up any story at all about things you cannot detect; it is precisely sticking to the empirical data that distinguishes science from philosophy and religion. Once more: the evidence that presents itself can be interpreted as evidence for anything you chose: if you happen to believe that lightning bolts are thrown by Zeus, every flash of lightning is further evidence of Zeus. If you believe that thunder is Thor slamming his hammer, every clap you hear supports your belief. If you believe that things fall to Earth, because the planet warps spacetime, every object you drop that doesn't shoot upwards is vindication of your belief. Someone who believes that things fall because of an exchange of hypothetical 'gravitons' will disagree. By the same hopeless logic; if you believe that Zeus, Odin, Yaweh, God or any other such beast created everything, then everything is evidence of your god of choice.
Science is not about 'believing': you don't have to believe that heavy objects fall, you can watch it happen. If you have a mind to, you can find out how quickly they fall, how fast they accelerate and if you are seriously good at this science lark, you can work out the strength of the force acting on the two objects that are drawn together; come up with a formula that can be applied across the known universe, and your name will be in the history books for at least the foreseeable future. Science is the stuff you can see and measure; any interpretation that goes beyond the phenomenal data, even when done by scientists, isn't science.
If you want to find evidence for a god, you need to show that a universe that is created by a rational being is different from one that isn't. This is the point of 'intelligent design' and 'irreducible complexity'; the argument is that certain things cannot arise without the intervention of an intelligent agent. The problem the ID wonks have is that what they insist is evidence for a god is simply an interpretation of the empirical facts; it is not even bad science.

...if it's metaphysical, science will never be able to show it to be true.

The point about spacetime is not that it is true, rather that it is a good model. Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe describes the observational data fairly well; it can be used to predict what will be seen with surprising accuracy given that it is almost certainly not 'true'. The bit about science that is 'true' is contingent: for example, it happens to be the case that if you drop something, it accelerates to the floor at 9.8 mss. Anyone can measure it and provided they are competent, and the laws of physics don't change, everyone will measure the same thing. It may or may not be 'true' that the cause of this is warped spacetime, but there is no way to tell from the data.

If the atheist isn't concerned about what's "true," only what we can know through scientific inquiry, then I have no complaint.

There are all sorts of atheists, but I don't think anyone here is taking the stance you wish to challenge. For the purposes of this forum, 'the atheist' is a straw man.

[ReliStuPhD]

Exactly. So the scientist is not one who can say that "there is no evidence for God" (in a final sense, not a "I've not seen any yet"). At least not if they're doing good science.

I really don't think so. Occam's Razor, the Principle of parsimony, call it what you will, is an important measure of good science. You can make up any story at all about things you cannot detect; it is precisely sticking to the empirical data that distinguishes science from philosophy and religion. Once more: the evidence that presents itself can be interpreted as evidence for anything you chose: if you happen to believe that lightning bolts are thrown by Zeus, every flash of lightning is further evidence of Zeus. If you believe that thunder is Thor slamming his hammer, every clap you hear supports your belief. If you believe that things fall to Earth, because the planet warps spacetime, every object you drop that doesn't shoot upwards is vindication of your belief. Someone who believes that things fall because of an exchange of hypothetical 'gravitons' will disagree. By the same hopeless logic; if you believe that Zeus, Odin, Yaweh, God or any other such beast created everything, then everything is evidence of your god of choice.

With that last sentence, you slip into something of a category error. Science can tell us where lightning comes from, what causes the thunder clap, etc, but these are phenomena that occur within the physical world. Science cannot (and will never be able to) tell us where "something rather than nothing" comes from, that is, questions with answers outside the physical world. This is radically different from saying Zeus throws lightning bolts from above the clouds. Certainly, someone might still cling to the "Zeus Hypothesis," but science has an alternative explanation because lightning falls within its purview. The problem with the "Ground of all Being" Hypothesis (breaking my own "hypothesis rule" here) is that science has no explanation to offer. It never will because the answer to the question is external to science's subject of inquiry. So to state that "everything is evidence" of "God" is fair because "evidence" is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." For example, if one proposes that if God does not exist, nothing exists, then the existence of something is a fact that speaks to the validity of the proposition (there's obviously more to it).

Science is not about 'believing': you don't have to believe that heavy objects fall, you can watch it happen. If you have a mind to, you can find out how quickly they fall, how fast they accelerate and if you are seriously good at this science lark, you can work out the strength of the force acting on the two objects that are drawn together; come up with a formula that can be applied across the known universe, and your name will be in the history books for at least the foreseeable future. Science is the stuff you can see and measure; any interpretation that goes beyond the phenomenal data, even when done by scientists, isn't science.

Right, and I think we've established this at multiple points in this discussion. It's never been something about which I disagreed. As I've said multiple times, my beef is with those who think science can interpret things beyond the phenomenal data.
And by the way, yes, science is about belief: "be·lief ... 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. ... 2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something." (Wikipedia's good on this particular topic) But, to be fair, I assume you meant it in the sense of "religious belief," in which case I agree.

If you want to find evidence for a god, you need to show that a universe that is created by a rational being is different from one that isn't. This is the point of 'intelligent design' and 'irreducible complexity'; the argument is that certain things cannot arise without the intervention of an intelligent agent. The problem the ID wonks have is that what they insist is evidence for a god is simply an interpretation of the empirical facts; it is not even bad science.

Perhaps so. I want to qualify the use of "show" to include such things as philosophical arguments, but I think I'm very much on board with your point that ID theories aren't scientific theories. They are philosophical interpretations of empirical facts, and should be acknowledged as such.

...if it's metaphysical, science will never be able to show it to be true.

The point about spacetime is not that it is true, rather that it is a good model. Ptolemy's geocentric model of the universe describes the observational data fairly well; it can be used to predict what will be seen with surprising accuracy given that it is almost certainly not 'true'. The bit about science that is 'true' is contingent: for example, it happens to be the case that if you drop something, it accelerates to the floor at 9.8 mss. Anyone can measure it and provided they are competent, and the laws of physics don't change, everyone will measure the same thing. It may or may not be 'true' that the cause of this is warped spacetime, but there is no way to tell from the data. [/quote]
Good models are great, so long as they're not taken as expressions of "truth" in a philosophical sense. The problem comes when someone overreaches with such models, which happens too often for my tastes.

If the atheist isn't concerned about what's "true," only what we can know through scientific inquiry, then I have no complaint.

There are all sorts of atheists, but I don't think anyone here is taking the stance you wish to challenge. For the purposes of this forum, 'the atheist' is a straw man.

I disagree that it's a straw man, but it is good to hear that this forum doesn't play home to such individuals.

PS As an aside, I've enjoyed this back and forth. I appreciate the "calmness" of it.

[uwot]

By the same hopeless logic; if you believe that Zeus, Odin, Yaweh, God or any other such beast created everything, then everything is evidence of your god of choice.

With that last sentence, you slip into something of a category error. Science can tell us where lightning comes from, what causes the thunder clap, etc, but these are phenomena that occur within the physical world.

Well, no. I made the point of distinguishing between Thor and Odin, though I admit, Norse mythology is not a strong suit . While there are gods that take the rap for all sorts of 'physical' phenomena; many mythologies have a "Ground of all Being" type god, a 'god the father'.

Science cannot (and will never be able to) tell us where "something rather than nothing" comes from, that is, questions with answers outside the physical world.

The problem any "something rather than nothing" hypothesis has is the same for any hypothesis. If it isn't based on some empirical postulate, it isn't science and if it is, it is subject to the problem of induction, which is as much a problem for mathematical models as physical assumptions about causality.

And by the way, yes, science is about belief: "be·lief ... 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. ... 2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something."

No it isn't. Once again, there is no compulsion to 'believe' anything that counts as a scientific fact, that some scientists, probably most, 'believe' things doesn't make their beliefs scientific. As Descartes pointed out, it is possible to doubt anything other than that there are phenomena. The empiricists took this insight and ran with it. As Berkeley revealed, it is entirely possible that every phenomenon is an idea in the mind of some "ground of all being" being. As I keep saying, any belief that is not demonstrably false, could be true.

[Lacewing]

The skill that a theist (or anyone) can develop in the areas of imagination and denial in order to maintain a singular belief system (and by that I mean a belief system into which and by which EVERYTHING must be judged and placed precisely), is nothing short of astounding. That level and strength of self-hypnosis could surely be put to much better uses than manipulating ones view of the world in order to continually feed and protect ones ego and beliefs.

The drive becomes so strong to explain all and fit all within a particular belief system, that the belief itself becomes more important than all else... more important than honor, truth, logic, love, humanity. The belief must rule the day and the world and everyone in it! And the Keeper of the belief is superior for having the belief! And anyone who does not have the belief must be destroyed. What kind of madness is this really?

[The Inglorious One]

What kind of madness is this really?

Yours.