This is going to be a long-winded post, but if you're an atheist or skeptic I urge you to read it and consider my points and maybe show me the error of my ways?
For most of my life I was a
hardcore militant atheist. My dad is so, and I was primarily raised by him, so that is why. Materialism was my dogma, and anything that hadn't been proven and accepted by the mainstream scientific community was hogwash. If it couldn't be explained by science, it couldn't BE, and there was no room for any ultimate reality beyond the reach of our ability to observe/conceptualize.
Experiences with entheogens opened me up to other possibilities, and the first step it took to do so was to reveal to me this:
People experience OOBEs, Astral Projection, Channeling, this, that and the other thing. Magick, the occult, religious fervor, 'conversations with god' and the feeling of God's presence. People have experienced these things from the dawn of history. People see ghosts, get abducted by aliens, dream they're being contacted by dead loved ones.
Old me would say, "They're all hallucinating, it's all in their head." Old me would immediately point to this or that lack of evidence, or attack whatever the source was. Then one day, one trip, I had a strange experience of my own, and I realized this very important thing: It doesn't MATTER if it's all in your head. EVERYTHING ABOUT EXISTENCE IS ALL IN YOUR HEAD. You can never experience anything that isn't "inside your head." So, if you BELIEVE you can see ghosts, and you EXPERIENCE a ghost sighting, then for you, in your universe,
ghosts exist. It doesn't matter if they don't exist, or haven't been proven to exist, in the "objective" universe, because we can never ACCESS that objective universe except through subjective experience.
For people who believe in God, or aliens, or ghosts or goblins or fairies or spirits of any kind, THOSE THINGS EXIST, and they have personal experiences OF THESE THINGS. These personal experiences enrich their lives, so who cares if they are actually true? All that matters is the experience and the enrichment. This isn't even to say those things AREN'T true. I don't even like the concept of 'truth' anymore, anyways, but I digress...
Old me used to determine the things I would accept and the things I would reject based on this tenant: What is the most OBJECTIVELY TRUE? (More deeply, it was closer to, "What requires the least faith/effort to accept/integrate?")
But why do this? Why does this actually matter? Why not, instead, accept/reject based on this: What is the most enriching, interesting or uplifting? Why do we need to feel like we are "right" in our beliefs? Why can't we just embrace them for what they give us and forget about misplaced notions of certitude?
For me, I found that the reason I filtered my worldviews based on so-called "objectivity" is because I possessed a TREMENDOUS amount of self-doubt. Essentially, I could not risk accepting anything that wasn't EXTREMELY SECURE because I was so insecure myself. Being right was an ego prop. No matter what I disliked about myself, my life, the world or my relationship to it, I "knew" that *I WAS RIGHT*, and everyone else was WRONG. I possessed absolute truth, and it made me feel secure to think so. My biggest fear was to be made a fool of, because my certitude was all I really had.
This was the first step. The next step was recognizing that, in fact,
there is no way to logically/reasonably justify the use of logic/reason. It is actually UNREASONABLE to suggest that we are capable of fully understanding the nature of the universe just because we WANT to be able to. It is, to me, no longer reasonable to suggest that only that which can be observed and documented can be true. It makes no sense. Who are we to presume there is nothing else going on? Why do we have to be able to tell ourselves there is nothing else going on?
This post didn't come out exactly how I pictured it, and I'm not sure I made exactly the point I meant to make. However, if people read this and reply, I suspect the ensuing conversation will evoke the points I meant to make quite nicely.
So, what are your thoughts on this? If you're a skeptic, why? Do you feel you 'need' to be correct, and if so, why? If not, what do you think drives your skepticism? What is stopping you from choosing a set of beliefs and simply following them? If you're a believer, why? Do you possess ultimate conviction in your beliefs, and do you suffer any dissonance between doubtful thoughts and feelings of conviction?
I guess my point is that I am neither skeptic nor believer. I am anti-dogma and anti-certitude. I now see that it is silly to ever believe that I know what is going on, that anything is ever finalized, or that I can truly grasp ultimate reality. Our beliefs are only MAPS of reality, but maps are never the territory. My problem with Scientism and excess skepticism is this apparent need to believe that the map IS the territory.