I jsut want to comment here that this is the classic arrogant, underread “I reject half of humanities thoughts” foolishness that OP is referring to.
I mean the lack of self awareness you have here is amazing.
I mean the lack of self awareness you have here is amazing.
In Adam Curtis‘s all watched over by machines of loving Grace, he makes a pretty long and complete argument that humanity has a rich history of turning over its decision-making to inanimate objects in a desire to discover ideologies we can’t form ourselves in growing complexity of our interconnectivity.
He tells a history of them constantly failing because the core ideology of “cybernetics” is underlying them all and fails to be adaptive enough to match our DNA/Body/mind combined cognitive system. Especially when scaled to large groups.
He makes the second point that humanity and many thinkers constantly also resort to the false notion of “naturalism” as the ideal state of humanity, when in reality there is no natural state of anything, except maybe complexity and chaos.
Giving yourself up to something. Specially something that doesn’t work is very much “believing in a false god.”
I'm addressing this point at you personally because we can all see your comments: being nasty to atheists on the internet will never be a substitute for hard evidence for your ideology.
Second, I’m not being nasty to atheists and speaking specifically about not having false gods which if anything is a somewhat atheistic perspective
Honestly, what are you trying to say?
To be fair, we shouldn't bundle Augustine and Thomas Aquinas with John MacArthur and Joel Osteen. Meaning that some religious thought is more philosophically robust than other religious thought.