| Author: | Mike Hockney | ISBN: | 9781311651884 |
| Publisher: | Mike Hockney | Publication: | May 1, 2016 |
| Imprint: | Smashwords Edition | Language: | English |
| Author: | Mike Hockney |
| ISBN: | 9781311651884 |
| Publisher: | Mike Hockney |
| Publication: | May 1, 2016 |
| Imprint: | Smashwords Edition |
| Language: | English |
People can’t reason. They don’t even know what reason is. “Reason” is almost always harnessed to something that has nothing to do with reason. Believers in mainstream religion are feeling types who “reason” with their emotions, or with their mystical intuitions. They subscribe to narrative “logic”, i.e. to a holy text by some charismatic prophet claiming to convey God’s thoughts. They never ask why God doesn’t communicate his message directly ... with no middle men, and no bizarre books about desert tribes from thousands of years ago.
No rational person takes religion seriously given that rationalism is exactly what is absent from it. Mainstream religion isn’t designed for thinking types. It’s for feeling types and intuitives. It’s about Mythos rather than Logos. The only religion a thinking person would take seriously is a Logos religion, with no prophets, no holy books, no commandments, no ban on bacon sandwiches, no demand to wear strings dangling from your trousers, to grow a big beard and sport a funny hat.
A Logos religion is one based solely on reason, logic and mathematics. Such a religion exists ... it’s the religion of Illuminism, shaped by Pythagoras, Leibniz and Hegel. It has at its core the rational study of the two numbers zero and infinity, i.e. the two numbers that define singularities (aka minds/souls), and which are the two numbers most incomprehensible to scientists.
Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God or Gods, it’s the denial of a reality predicated on zero and infinity, i.e. it’s an attack on mathematics, not religion.
Scientists are sensing types. Bizarrely, they claim to be on the side of reason. They delude themselves that because they reject religious Mythos, they must be advocates of reason. That simply demonstrates how irrational they are, and how ignorant of philosophy. As anyone with a modicum of philosophical literacy knows, the historical enemy of rationalism isn’t religious faith but empiricism. All empiricists – all scientists – are opposed to rationalism, i.e. the existence of a rational order of reality completely removed from the human senses, which can only be apprehended rationally, logically, mathematically and via intellectual intuition.
No rationalist would have any trouble contemplating zero/infinity singularities, yet empiricists and materialists flee from them in horror. They are not running away because of reason, but because they are sensing types who are fundamentally opposed to reason whenever it opposes their autistic, sensory mania.
There is nothing in reason to prohibit the existence of zero/infinity singularities – minds – but they are inconceivable to sensing types, who deny their existence on that basis alone (an entirely irrational and anti-intellectual basis).
Science wages war against “hidden variables”, but hidden variables are merely all the stuff of math, including mental singularities, which are not susceptible to sensory detection and interpretation.
Scientists are people of the senses, so it’s disgraceful that they try to don the cloak of rationalism, even though they are explicitly opposed to mathematical rationalism, which addresses a more fundamental, noumenal reality than the one amenable to phenomenal science.
Scientists are anti-rationalists and anti-intellectuals, antagonistic to reason, antagonistic to the inevitable destination where reason leads us: zero/infinity singularities. These are the Leibnizian monads that define existence itself, but which will never be objects of sensory science. No Super Large Hadron Collider will ever detect a single trace of them. Scientists, irrationally, conclude that anything that isn’t available to an experiment doesn’t exist. They subscribe to the fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. No rationalist – no person dominated by their reason and logic rather than their irrational, fallible, unreliable human senses – would ever reach such an absurd conclusion.
People can’t reason. They don’t even know what reason is. “Reason” is almost always harnessed to something that has nothing to do with reason. Believers in mainstream religion are feeling types who “reason” with their emotions, or with their mystical intuitions. They subscribe to narrative “logic”, i.e. to a holy text by some charismatic prophet claiming to convey God’s thoughts. They never ask why God doesn’t communicate his message directly ... with no middle men, and no bizarre books about desert tribes from thousands of years ago.
No rational person takes religion seriously given that rationalism is exactly what is absent from it. Mainstream religion isn’t designed for thinking types. It’s for feeling types and intuitives. It’s about Mythos rather than Logos. The only religion a thinking person would take seriously is a Logos religion, with no prophets, no holy books, no commandments, no ban on bacon sandwiches, no demand to wear strings dangling from your trousers, to grow a big beard and sport a funny hat.
A Logos religion is one based solely on reason, logic and mathematics. Such a religion exists ... it’s the religion of Illuminism, shaped by Pythagoras, Leibniz and Hegel. It has at its core the rational study of the two numbers zero and infinity, i.e. the two numbers that define singularities (aka minds/souls), and which are the two numbers most incomprehensible to scientists.
Atheism is not the denial of the existence of God or Gods, it’s the denial of a reality predicated on zero and infinity, i.e. it’s an attack on mathematics, not religion.
Scientists are sensing types. Bizarrely, they claim to be on the side of reason. They delude themselves that because they reject religious Mythos, they must be advocates of reason. That simply demonstrates how irrational they are, and how ignorant of philosophy. As anyone with a modicum of philosophical literacy knows, the historical enemy of rationalism isn’t religious faith but empiricism. All empiricists – all scientists – are opposed to rationalism, i.e. the existence of a rational order of reality completely removed from the human senses, which can only be apprehended rationally, logically, mathematically and via intellectual intuition.
No rationalist would have any trouble contemplating zero/infinity singularities, yet empiricists and materialists flee from them in horror. They are not running away because of reason, but because they are sensing types who are fundamentally opposed to reason whenever it opposes their autistic, sensory mania.
There is nothing in reason to prohibit the existence of zero/infinity singularities – minds – but they are inconceivable to sensing types, who deny their existence on that basis alone (an entirely irrational and anti-intellectual basis).
Science wages war against “hidden variables”, but hidden variables are merely all the stuff of math, including mental singularities, which are not susceptible to sensory detection and interpretation.
Scientists are people of the senses, so it’s disgraceful that they try to don the cloak of rationalism, even though they are explicitly opposed to mathematical rationalism, which addresses a more fundamental, noumenal reality than the one amenable to phenomenal science.
Scientists are anti-rationalists and anti-intellectuals, antagonistic to reason, antagonistic to the inevitable destination where reason leads us: zero/infinity singularities. These are the Leibnizian monads that define existence itself, but which will never be objects of sensory science. No Super Large Hadron Collider will ever detect a single trace of them. Scientists, irrationally, conclude that anything that isn’t available to an experiment doesn’t exist. They subscribe to the fallacy that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. No rationalist – no person dominated by their reason and logic rather than their irrational, fallible, unreliable human senses – would ever reach such an absurd conclusion.
