This blog is neither a science blog nor a religious blog. It is concerned with the logic that is real, and the illogic that parades itself in the culture today as truth. When absolute rational foundations are eschewed in favor of personal agendas, logic is excluded from the proceeding worldviews. But there are absolute foundations and they are available to all who wish to get to actual truth, rather than cultural - or other - dogmas.
The purposes of this blog is to encourage individual self-examination, so that the cultural influences are removed from one’s worldview, and that the pursuit of enduring truth becomes the basic axiom that directs one’s life.
If a worldview is based on false axioms it cannot lead to anything but continuing errors in lifestyle, politics, science and religion. A personal comprehension of the validity of logic and the principles of rational thought must precede the acceptance of any precept that will come to govern one’s life and mind, or irrationality results.
On this blog I point to two separate polar entities: the first principles of logic and rational thought; and the DIGG scientism entries for popular views of what passes for science. And the general news of political "axioms" and cultural "axioms" that need to be held to the penetrating scan of logical analysis are here too.
My position is that truth cannot be found by parroting either science or politics, much less the cultural position of the day. Only by introspection and study of how logic is derived and functions can a path to truth be found.
So I try to maintain that position, while engaged in scientific “axioms” as related to truth, and to the cultural/political drives to mind-control; as for religion, it will fall into place individually for those who search for actual truth.
So this blog promotes a path, not a dogma.
2 comments:
Yeah, I was wondering if you were a Christian or just a theist.
The terms "deist" and "theist" are fairly narrow and denotative. The term "Christian" is very broad, including many contradictory ecclesiastical dogmas on top of what should be a straightforward concept; this makes it a vessel of many possible connotations.
I point that out in advance, because I cannot call myself a Christian under those conditions. I am as anti-ecclesiastical now as I was when I was an Atheist.
So what I am is a student of Jesus as best I can understand from the necessarily foggy translations/interpretations of the original texts.
Post a Comment