>>8777474i haven't slept in two days. i think that what i wrote is within at least 75% of the best explanation possible in such a small format. it's actually a subject that i wrote a 22 page essay on. single spaced.
how do i say this in layman terms...
the flaw in reductionism is that no amount of finite data can invalidate the range of possible explanations or models that accurately describe infinitely complex systems. in order to pursue real, effective, and useful truth, we have to practice constructivism, and craft more and more comprehensive and flexible theories by which to act.
religion is essentially a taxonomic system that provides tools, frameworks, and models with which to interpret and act on inner experiences. so far nothing superior has been invented, and there's fucking zero funding for researching and developing more advanced and superior religions. to imagine that you somehow 'disprove god and religion' through an electroencephalographic MRI scan or some rhetorical 'le burden of proof' is absurd and counterproductive. the consequences of this foolishness are felt across the western world in suicide, depression, anomie, and sundry other psychopathologies.
the reductionist approach to knowledge is completely inflexible and maladaptive. legacy models of metaphysics, philosophy, and religion represent a far more sophisticated, far more advanced design. they have procedures by which one can process and integrate anything that one encounters.
reject reductionism. embrace constructivism. we get it, 20th century. you can destroy any meaning or significance you encounter. but it's time to focus on results, and start rebuilding.
