Thursday, July 26, 2007


If I'm going to believe people I don't understand, what difference does it make if they're mathematical physicists or fundamentalist theologians? If I don't understand something, what criteria do I use to determine whether it's gobbledygook or a fuller understanding? We're not compelled to believe what we don't understand. We are free to be agnostic. Agnostic with regard to theology. And Agnostic with regard to science. Rationalism and mysticism are two ways of thinking about things. Each delivers benefits and detriments, which can be charted. Which comes out on top? Forget it. We don't have to choose. Our freedoms include the freedom to create cosmologies, theologies and metaphysical systems of whatever complexitya la carte. We can all be Rortian ironists, ironically, by creating new metaphysical philosophies. Philosophy is a creative art that has to have as its objective breaking the conventions of the tribe, in our case the dualism of rationalism and mysticism (as generalizations of our various guiding dichotomies).