Due to discontinuity in the font sets on this blog, I have shifted my writings over to www.ericjohnsa.wordpress.com.

New interests and curiosities bring other divisions of reality under the focus of investigation and provide fresh opportunities for disputation. It's fascinating that old endless debates on logical and metaphysical issues involved in free-will, conscience, duty, and merit are as fresh today as ever. If you're a genuine critical thinker, you are always traveling in a circle which inevitably drawsa flexible line around premises of principle and conclusions of detail, finding no point at which criticism can stop. 

To agree with a truth and not act on it is just as unintelligible as a man who knows a truth and is ignorant of it at the same time. What use is correct knowledge if it is not acted upon? None. If words are but to you empty sounds, exhalations of breath over the vocal chords of a noisy organism, and nothing more, then where might you even start finding meaning in anything? Surely you must bear in mind there is extraordinary value in a simple rearrangement of 26 letters in the English alphabet which are sufficient to convey every single idea in the history (and future) of human knowledge. But even further, what's most fascinating is that there are limits to what can be accomplished through the use of language. 

If your disposition, arguments and use of reason can be compared to that of a child, what does this say of you? You cannot be accused of arguing from the thoughts of infants, since we are incapable of concluding what passes through their understanding before they express it. And there is certainly a time when young children begin to think since their words and actions assure us that they do. But when a child is at last thought capable of rationality and basic reasoning, their notions lie completely open to everyone's view, as they are incapable of holding back. Are you that child? Are you easily led into flashy curiosities on metaphysical issues, perfectly willing to suspend your adult critical thinking skills by denying the magnificence of all creation, and moving on to make infantile philosophical intonations for all to see and hear?

What hope does the soul bring in the world with it?  The most primal ultimate truth.  The need to connect with God.  We do all at base level recognize this truth.  To silently hold that this notion is imprinted on us while simultaneously proclaiming the mind is ignorant of it, is to try and make this impression nothing.  More clever and increasingly sophisticated  arguments are not needed to try and explain this away.  It is only in vain when a man runs around trying to extinguish truths imprinted on our primary understanding of the meaning of life.

The saddest realization is knowing a man will live and die at last in ignorance of many truths his mind was capable of knowing.  Even children are not ignorant of things “learned” adults spend a lifetime denying.  Doubtful expressions, mind you, are sometimes the mind's way of requesting more information about the world around us and our place in it.  This is not in and of itself a bad thing unless the expressions of doubt are a smoke screen to disguise one's refusal to undergo the pains to obtain deeper understandings.  Most people's way of arguing is as frivolous as their supposition itself is false.

If we simply retrace the steps by which the mind attains certain truths, we can sensibly interpret the construction of our mental faculties.  For example, we as children extract meaning from the world around us by using our physical senses.  We learn the use of language to describe objects, and even animals can learn this basic behavior (though obviously on a far less complicated scale that humans can).  But as we grow, we also adapt the use of language to describe invisible thoughts, dreams, hopes, mathematical abstractions, and even on to grand theories about the constitution of the universe itself.  Am I making the claim that our use of language is what makes us uniquely human?  Of course not.  The human machine is far more complicated than that.  It's just one of many simple tools we use everyday and of course take for granted.  I fear the incompleteness of the foregoing arguments might have the strength to persuade us to receive sufficient comfort in a bare understanding in uses of terms, and this isn't my goal.  My simple point is thus:  despite all our acquired knowledge, if we are truly thoughtful and intelligent, we return full circle back to the start point.  The need to connect with God.

If you believe the controversy surrounding the legitimacy of religious faith is no more than than petty and pointless nonsense, unfit for the serious mind, then you are free to go celebrate your ignorance in whatever way seems best to you. If, however, you seek deeper meaning, let us move forward here.

Is there any benefit to be found by focusing your faith and reasoning in what turns out to be a high probability game of chance? Something deep in our souls tells us no. If our approach to faith rests merely on the tenet of “well, what have I to lose if I'm wrong, if correct then everything is mine to gain...” Surely this desperate approach to faith is last in a line of pathetic attempts to justify the hardness of an unbelieving heart. It is soulless.

If the foundations of your faith were that weak and underdeveloped, based on a near mechanical calculation (as a gambler placing bets on his own life), then what's within you to resist any other self-proclaimed deity that may come along? If there was one to arise (like the Mahdi) and proclaim “I am the expected one from god, confess me, and all shall be well with you after death in paradise,” are you prepared to yet again weigh on a scale the potential benefits of infinite gain vs. eternal loss? No one serious in the faith finds any tendency within them to resort to this kind of weak theological virtue. We must be strong and live our lives with resoluteness.

Any self-appointed philosopher is at best a learned fool. If I am unable to avoid melancholy delusions, impressions, and intuitions that lead to dark suspicion and fear, I will have accomplished nothing. I do not seek such an ill-balanced self-constructed mental formulation. I am also well aware that he who knows sloth is content with any excuse that even hints at the possibility of unexpected growth, so I wish to avoid that trap as well. Even though some men appear propelled from birth onto the planet completely incapable of happiness despite intellectual posterity, this shall never be the path I follow either. 


When directly confronting controversy, there is little safety for even the well intentioned thought explorer. I recognize that abstract postulations and generalized speculations about sensitive matters brings with it isolation and episodic grief as necessary accoutrements. Nonetheless, I seek no deterrence or hindrance in my journey. True freedom from self-bondage is my goal, and not just for myself. If I may clear away some of the rubbish that lies in the way to knowledge for others, I will proclaim at least some measure of achievement. 

To invade someone's sanctuary of ignorance is always a good service to human understanding. The interesting thing we find is that during closer inspection into the workings of a man's mind and a stricter examination of his motives, we find who he really is, despite any civilities of his other outer self expressions. No matter the approach, I expect never to have the good fortune of being rightly understood everywhere by everyone. That was never my chief design.

The beauty and power we behold in nature. We do seek, with great eagerness, to find our right place in it. The sort of life that is right for man. We should undergo a philosophical self-examination without fear of what may await us in our quest to answer this very personal question. Why personal? Because it's your life. What's right for me to pursue may differ from yours. Here we are again faced with the idea of relativity. Mind you I say nothing here about moral relativity, which is rubbish. But we are unique in this world, each with special endowments that enable us to accomplish some feat impossible to others. And do we not feel that special inward urging to use what gifts we have for the good of others, and feel quite unsatisfied if we are unfruitful with our talents? Think of the delight we seek in deep spiritual satisfaction. The power to produce this delight does not reside in nature.  

Truth itself is not relative to believers. Believers are relative to truth. Tolerance is not a matter of allowing what everyone believes to be a “form” of truth. Tolerance is simply not treating others disagreeably if they are in some way different from you. Logic attempts to codify all principles of valid reasoning. It's important to emphasize the inescapability of logic, its undeniable presence in everything we think and say. Logic can either be true or fallacious. When disentangling truth and its adjuncts from insidious falsehoods, there are a few things to keep in mind.

Laws of non-contradiction function in aspects of philosophic thought, and help support sound logic. For example, something cannot be both red and non-red simultaneously. A number cannot be 4 and 5 simultaneously (at least not in our recognizable physical dimension). Too many people nowadays lazily think everything is up for grabs, so to speak, that there are no absolutes, that science or philosophy has somehow worked its way around logic. Not so. We can only reason from the bedrock of a true belief if that belief cannot also be false. The laws of logic are the solid foundation for all thought, impervious to skeptical doubt.  

What do think of yourself? What do you think of your place in this world? These are questions we must in some way deal with unavoidably. A healthy measure of tolerance for our differences, we find, enriches our lives sometimes delicately, sometimes profoundly. Only with mindful posturing toward one another may we embrace that vital life principle of self-love, an inner tolerance without which all our outer tolerance is useless fakery (pretense).

Each of us must do what seems best to him, and accept the full ramifications of potential incorrectness either way. We may, if we wish, pretend to discard the ultimate riddles in life (ie: what is the meaning of life, where did we come from, why are we here, where are we going...). But might we at once notice nearly all questions seem to concern merely ourselves? What if it really isn't about us? Have we genuinely prepared ourselves for that potentiality? If so, how might we live differently?

We choose. Choosing not to choose is itself by definition a choice. If man chooses life apart from God, no one can show him beyond reasonable doubt he is mistaken. If a man chooses a life in pursuit of a connection with God, no one can prove him mistaken. The tables are never turned. You simply must choose your own place at the table and sit.  

The new and quite unimproved blogger software has been in my view intentionally maligned to create discontinuity in the font sets.  Despite my best efforts, the blogger software refuses my corrective efforts, and insists all letters be different sizes.  This, mind you, is not by my design.  Therefore, read at your own risk, and bring the matter to google... maybe they'll be less likely to ignore your begs for remediation as they have mine.

We live in a world subordinated to completely objective reality governed by solid truth determined by evidence upon which we must base our faith and believe. As the unexplored mind can only know its own ideas, and we know a sense of obligation comes only from intense desires, might we do well to focus all mental acuity in the direction of our ultimate hope? In our thinking, we find nothing which someone has not thought absolutely truthful while another has thought it entirely false. This is only a competition of beliefs though, not a competition of truths. There can be only one truth. We should make every attempt to adjust ourselves to it.


Twisting and turning beliefs about truth to our own desires and whims is almost always immediately disastrous. For example, if in war, I am told landmines are ancient technology nobody could possibly utilize, yet I notice in front of me flying body parts thrusting upward chaotically toward the sky, despite my inability to see and fully comprehend the nature of landmines, I would be well advised to place my faith in the unknown and presumptuously conclude they still exist, and not in small numbers. Morals based on ancient religious practice might seem jaded to the modern mind that begs independence (and simultaneous dependence), and one may feel less tempted than ever to lend those ancient doctrines a respectful ear, but if you look around you, the disastrous results of disobedience are all around.

Our untrained minds are just as easily capable of grinding out falsehoods as well as truths, so be on guard. There is a battlefield for the mind. And you must choose sides. Once you realize what's really at stake, there is overwhelming urgency enveloping your consciousness to act rightly. For in one sense, we are sensibly just another part of the organic universe, a carbon-based life form gravitationally bound to a ball of rock hurling through space at unimaginable speeds. At times, life can seem insensible and purposeless. And in another sense, much unlike other creatures, we are very spiritual in nature. We helplessly feel propelled to fulfill some greater purpose. We're seekers. We're great explorers. We have a need to know. A need to connect. Not just with one another, but with the Divine Creator of all.

Believe truth, avoid error! Isn't that always our goal? Sometimes, difficult thought it may be, we must invest intellectual risk in order to arrive at correct knowledge. There is no knowledge we should ever fearfully regard as off limits and we are free to explore. We should not lament the sometimes grueling process that learning entails, nor be taken aback if we discover that what we once held as truth turns out to be lies. We would not, for example, regard as worthy a general who told his soldiers it's better to avoid battle lest you incur a wound. In our discomforting world, there are times, despite all our caution, where injury is unavoidable. We should not, therefore, exude unreasonable nervousness about this.


The most useful intellectual investigator is always one whose eager curiosity is seldom easily satisfied. But can pure intellect alone, without aid from “the heart” (a term used to describe our soul), ever decide how to sift through the world of moral relativism? I think not. The two must work in unison if they are to reach any accord. If in your heart you refuse a world of adherence to moral reality, you will find your intellect never attempting to enforce what seems to it only an indifferent and odd biological phenomena. But the heart wants what the heart wants, and it can get quite feisty if it doesn't get its way.


Moral reality (or morality) simply suggests some things as better than others, best thought of as an instruction book for a complicated machine. We're well advised to follow instruction books usually... unless you prefer risking driving a Ferrari blindfolded down the wrong side of a highway to be good life advice. You are free to accept your own form of risk.

For many of us, our faith is faith in someone else's faith.  What conditions should normally be present in our minds for confirmation of what we call 'truth'?  We can all claim to know something, but to know for certain that we know is quite another thing.  It is not enough to use pragmatism as a formal basis for a belief system, since what we deem as practicality isn't a necessary condition for actuality.  Truth is not always what is most useful to believe, or what best meets our desired goals.  You sometimes have to ask yourself if what your depicting by your belief actually has the properties ascribed to it.

Many of us feel it to be impossible to be even temporarily removed from our beliefs in order to compare fresh propositions with objective facts.  All we ever know is that something appears true only if it corresponds to what we want to believe as true.  But is something true only if it agrees with our set of beliefs?  Of course not.  Here's an example:  A college student undergoing the usual conversion to atheism as a result of the proselytizing efforts of the so-called intelligentsia (who proclaim religious beliefs untrue) might find great utility in discovering the adult version of Christianity (which is sophisticated and quite different from their child's interpretation of theology they usually hold).  

Never be too easily convinced of an atheist's arguments if they claim Christianity exists on insufficient evidence, as if sufficiency of evidence was really something they cared about.   From the atheist perspective, they have faith the evidence is absolutely sufficient, just the other way around.  They believe wholeheartedly in everything anti-christian to the extent they consider no other options.  Or worse yet, they treat religious faith as a weakness in our nature from which we must free ourselves, not even in the least bit recognizing they are simply converting allegiances to another type of faith.  If a hundred old or new beliefs are completely ruined in our progress toward truth, we must still march on.

What is truth? Is it relative? If something is true for you, would it also be true for me? There is quite often some confusion between what truth is and what a belief is. Most of the proponents of the idea of relativity of truth make the argument you aren't being tolerant if you believe something untrue to them may be true for others, or vice versa. In this case there is a confusion over the definition of tolerance. Tolerance is tolerating people whose beliefs are not true (or those who hold beliefs you think are untrue). Beliefs are true according to reality making them true or not, so it doesn't matter what you believe is true, truth is absolute. Just because someone's beliefs are false presents no reason for them to be persecuted or unaccepted as people – that is tolerance. You might attempt to persuade someone whose beliefs are not true to believe in something true, but that would not be an exercise in intolerance, it would be an attempt at persuasion. So we shouldn't explain tolerance as acceptance of any belief as true, that makes truth not a matter of they way the world really is... and that whole line of reasoning is all a big mistake.

Tolerance is a mater of not taking the truth of a person's belief to be a reason for tolerating that person or not. Tolerance has nothing to do with the truth of a person's beliefs. Some people think philosophy creates an atmosphere of questioning truth wherein we arrive at relativistic conclusions, and nothing is further from the truth. Philosophers are quite happy with truth, they think the truth is objective, and the misunderstandings of relativistic views of truth arise as confusion of words. Questioning is a way to get you thinking, and questioning something doesn't necessarily imply you doubt something. For example, there might erupt a new activist group that springs up somewhere collectively agreeing the Earth is flat. They could argue how all their experiences as far as they were concerned created this truth for them. However, clearly we understand what they call “truth” is merely a false belief that doesn't conform with reality. And it would not be an act of intolerance to attempt to persuade them to believe the truth.

Justifying a reason that entitles you to a belief is inadequate. It is not enough to claim belief in something only because you wish it to be true. Conversely, wishing for something doesn't necessarily demonstrate belief. If there are sufficient reasons to have a wish justified by a belief that is based on evidence, we call that being rational. But if your knowledge is a rational belief purely based on physical evidence, could you still be wrong? Surprisingly, the answer is yes.

Let's go over a quick example that only a goodhearted skeptic would point out: Suppose I'm expecting a customer in the store any minute. You tell me a customer has arrived at the door, yet you are trying to deceive me. It just so happens a customer arrived at the exact moment of your attempted deception. In this case, my belief is true. I have good reason to believe it's true since you told me so, and you have a reputation for honesty. But I don't know with absolute certainty the customer has arrived since it was only an accident that I got it right.

The entire idea behind what we claim as knowledge has myriad conceptual limitations, and we should always think carefully and systematically. Correct beliefs aim at objective truth . Truth is the primary thing beliefs are required to be if they are to add up to knowledge.

If you were trying to convey to another your philosophy of psychology on such issues as the problem of knowledge, the nature of good and evil, theories of child development, and the sort of life man ought to live, would your answers be preconditioned or well thought out?  What is it that keeps us from expressing our deepest thoughts and presenting our sentiments to another for critical evaluation?

Since none of us as adults wants to be on the receiving end of angry criticism, and we're all preconditioned since early childhood on how to respond to others, would a parent not be well advised to condition their children well in advance how to receive critical evaluation of their thoughts without fear of condemnation or harshness?  In other words, be patient and gentle with your children as they're learning and growing.  Never assume they're farther along than they are, and try to explain everything about the great big world around them.  Remember the adult brain doesn't fully develop until one reaches around 22 years of age.

We all need correction once in a while, but we're so turned off by it.  And it's not usually because we're unwilling to change, it's that we don't like the attitude of the one offering the criticism, so we shut it out.  Protecting ourselves from change is a great danger.  Every day in every way, like it or not, we are changing into a who and a what... different from yesterday.  We all need critical evaluation once in a while in order to grow.  I love the famous inscription at the temple of Delphi that says “Know Thyself,”  to which I always add, “Know thyself at thine own risk.” Output or input of reason plagued by anger results in nothing less than tragedy.

Psychology is the science of the mind. Isn't it fascinating our mind is so complex, it takes an entire branch of science to try and understand it? And psychology is only concerned with the output of consciousness, or behaviorism. It takes entirely different medical scientific branches to unravel the biological secrets of the mind. In order for a discipline to be respected as a science though, it must posses reliable explanatory power (ie: such as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation which mathematically explains in quite some detail why objects fall toward the center of the Earth).

Like all sciences, psychology has its controversies. Some suggest the scientific method must be employed in order for a discipline to qualify as science, but it isn't clear what all that method entails. Conversely, physical sciences can be understood as particular modes of explanation as opposed to simply a method. There are, nonetheless, no universal laws in psychology known to be true. All in all, explanatory sketches can provide possible information about how something is derived and the high probability of it's outcome, but that's it. What use, you may then say, is there in a science that cannot be reducible to known laws? There is much use indeed, despite inherent difficulties.

Participants in psychological events are unique. There are a variety of potentialities that are not coequal with philosophical determinism. While events are often entirely predictable with presumptuous over-familiarity, they are often sufficiently unknown in advance to qualify as deterministic. Psychology is a science that offers endless fascination. What really makes people tick? What would it take for you to lay out your thoughts for another and invite objective examination? Can you trust this as a healthy process for unleashing that which is burdening you?

The term “hero,” as we normally use it in everyday language implies bravery, prodigious achievement, one who surmounts hindrances and sacrifices for others – all in the face of personal danger. While we all agreeably espouse such virtuousness as universally awe-inspiring, with the ambitious elevation of individual excellence that border-lines pretentiousness, we must remember the important secret benefit from altruism that produces deep self-fulfillment is often hidden and quiet. Mostly no one knows or sees these micro-events of integrity... what you do when nobody's watching. But you know. And therein lies the greatest satisfaction of all. Knowing you obeyed your conscious and did what was right, considering others first, then yourself. Doing right is always its own reward.

When confronting authority, is there a difference between questioning and doubting? What kinds of institutions do you want around you? Do we seek far more than just a venue that celebrates our leaders and champions of business and culture? Should we hold community sacred spaces that celebrate the lone poet or artist? Should we slow down and learn appreciation for the “finer things” in life? If so, how might we benefit? Along this line of pleasantness... Are there certain social requirements we hold one another to that are ultimately designed for our own good? Is it an impingement on freedom to require young ones to attend school? If one is subsequently punished for noncompliance with this communal standard which is based on a mutually shared goal, should this be viewed as an attempt to hold one down, or bring one up to what we all agree as the minimum standard or “prototype”? I don't think society's insistence that we at least do the bare minimum of what's required of us should ever be confused with pushing you too hard toward excellence. I'd hate for you to actually put forth a real effort toward something and bruise your pinky.

Teachers of scientific naturalism, in lock-step with their high-priest religious counterparts, realize they only have a few years to indoctrinate gullible “students” into believing their heart-felt propaganda or else students learn to think for themselves all on their own, trying to make philosophical sense of the world around them without any guidance. And we can't have that now can we? A society full of independent critical thinkers who take responsibility for their own knowledge? Surely that responsibility is too great to bear. It's much easier to offset blame on pedagogues and other outside forces isn't it?

The latest trend in higher learning is the attempt to use traditional philosophical dogma to reinforce the religion of atheism which is entirely dependent on the creation myth known as Darwinism. Irrespective of the distance traveled around the globe in search of meaning, you always return full circle to the epistemological start point. Epistemology is the discipline in philosophical academia that deals with how we know what we know, or the nature of human knowledge. I've noticed the exact same embarrassing arrogance religious teachers have shown over the centuries about scientific knowledge and philosophical dogma is precisely replicated by educators of naturalism in our present day. Both accusers pitch identical premisses in their arguments. Science claims its doctrines cannot be falsified, as do religious teachers. The battlefield for the mind is ongoing. Why? Because your mind is what controls you. It's the most important battle you'll ever fight.

I have debated evolutionists for 24 years, and have heard virtually every argument under the sun. I've also had plenty of time to filter the more highly polished quibbles through my captious mind, and have found fault with all. Anyone who knows me realizes I criticize everything, all the time... that's just how I do things. And of course I'm familiar with the debates front-lining Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, and others. Their arguments against religion mostly center around all the evil perpetuated by mankind in the name of their various gods, moving on to poke fun of beliefs in supernatural miracles that cannot be tested with scientific certainty. What's always struck me as odd is their own failure to admit weakness in the faith that nothing intelligently guides itself into something. Just because an idea cannot be physically tested doesn't nullify it's accuracy. Religion has always presented itself outside of naturalism, so this is nothing new.

The question for many isn't “is there life after death,” but rather is “is there life after birth?” What is life anyway? And are you really living it? Whether or not your intentions point you in one direction or another, you will leave a legacy at the end of today. Like it or not, you're leaving a mark. What, if anything, of value are you leaving behind in your path? Are you on a path that others would be well advised to follow and pursue? If so, great! Keep going and growing. If not, maybe it's time to write yourself a reality check.

Far too many people suffer from unmet needs that could easily be attended to by others. The problem is we forget to ask, or we ask the wrong way. Anyone can toss out a laundry list of wants with absolutely no idea how to obtain any goal and become bitter that others aren't doing everything for them. This is taking the lazy path in life. It's rarely considered commendable or praiseworthy. But if life is viewed through the correct lens, a little help is better than none. Right?