I don’t have any problem with religions, beliefs, rationalism, any kind of ideology. I just want people to be civil while also feeling free to express their opinions about things.
I’d consider myself an anti-dichotomist – or anti-platonist. I don’t believe there is a perfect world of ideals that is timeless and immortal and exists outside of spacetime.
People can discuss things as if it’s true, just to make differences clear. But the history of Western Civilization has people debating endelessly on this plane that, personally, I don’t believe really exists.
Well wait, yes, it does exist but as cognitive processes, as taken within our historical and sociocultural context that we’re working out of .
That was a mouthful, poorly worded -sorry
My favorite trick when talking to new atheists is to break out the history of atheism, or a link to 19th century conflict thesis… I used to mention Dawkins but that’s kind of their personal hero… and stepping on the toes of Saints is a no-no with any religion.
My tendancies are towards embodied cognition (or some form of it) – rather there being a separation between mind and body. At the same time, I’ll happily discuss things as if there is such a thing as pure ideas (like discussions about mathematics and such)… but then when the ideas go “too far” for my liking (like: the Universe is Math)… then I have to pull out the religious nature of such concepts and that it’s part of their belief system…
“Pure reason” didn’t fall out of the sky as far as I’m concerned. It’s part of a historical development in human conceptual development, philosophized and practiced by the Ancient Greeks and nearly everything that grew off of them are embedded within the assumptions of our societies and cultures of today.
They do have a biological basis… and with that, the amygdala wins. Emotion drives reason primarily. I love pulling that one out of my hat and describing the circuitry (as I understand it). Takes the “pure reason” and shoots it out of the water