Source: Twitter X

@BradleyWerrell (CC: @SRCHicks)
While I understand your (and my) effort to explain the consistency of catholic dogma and our work on the science of natural law (science of decidability) to unify those with traditional intuitions, that doesn’t mean SRCH errs.

Given:
(a) we can rationally debate in the paradigm of philosophy without appeal to the supernatural or pseudoscientific authority even if perhaps at risk of the sophomoric ignorance, error, and falsehood;
(b) and that a shrinking minority of people have both the empathic and neurotic disposition, that demands anthropomorphic and supernatural arbiters given their incapacity for social and intellectual competition, conflict resolution, self modification and consensus;
(c) and given that scientific argument, presently compartmentalized, requires too much ability, time, and investment in many disciplines;
Therefore;
(d) then philosophy is the only available means of forming a majority strategy, mythos, system of persuasion and argument, and rituals-holidays to produce the same mindfulness by understanding and consensus without appeal to the imaginary and authority.

And at present ideology(political aggression) and philosophy(academic pragmatism) are defeating theology(social seduction) except at the -1SD, 85 and below IQ distribution that cannot manage either philosophy or the education and occupational consistency capable of participation in modern economies – and as a consequence the modern status market.

In other words all non-false religions must result in philosophies. We work in the science of decidability which is simply inaccessible to the majority of the population. Despite that ‘natural law’ is consistent in christianity, secular humanism, and behavioral science. 😉

As such solving for a reformation of religion of theology into philosophy (and into science) that is more accessible to and acceptable by and useful for, the contemporary greater division of the classes than during the age of theology, is simply necessary.

Especially given that the christian churches failed to reform in the 19th century, and the abrahamic reformation from theology to the Marxist sequence offered an update from the false promise of paradise after death to the false promise of paradise after revolution (meaning ‘whiteness’).

Where ‘whiteness’ means the maximization of individual demand for responsibility for the personal, private and common. And those who are, without training, unwilling to, and unable to, self regulate sufficiently to bear the high psychological and emotional cost of ‘whiteness’.

Affections as Always
CD

Reply addressees: @WerrellBradley @BradleyWerrell