As someone who has rejected a culturally-inspired version of reality and meaning I was personally heavily entrenched in (the Christian faith), I like to think that abandoning my most cherished and closely held beliefs was an act of personal honesty and a desire to be true to myself. What a human beings motivations are, are perhaps hidden from conscious awareness and leave us with behaviors, emotions, and thoughts whose true origins are not apparent. Perhaps I actually did that for some other reason unknown to me, but I do like to think that some humans can be motivated by a desire to see things as they are, no matter how unpleasant. I say that all the while holding the firm conviction that such a thing, seeing things for how they actually are, is not a possibility in the absolute sense for a human being and that there are many things that I willing do not see as requiring some unadulterated application of the truth and that I do that for personal convenience rather than conviction. I do see the point that all versions of reality and meaning are the products of human culture as varied, homegrown, and self-styled (to some extent) a great many appear to be to those who hold them. I want to believe a desire for truth can be a real motivation in a person's world-view even if it is to realize that we do not and perhaps cannot realize the truth, that we stumble through an illusionary existence where we imagine ourselves one thing but in reality we are something else entirely.
Reading that again, I think I sound a bit pretentious there. Having said all that, I have to admit I can be as duplicitous and deceitful as the next person and don't mean to imply anything different. I can only hope for better out of myself and others.
Ok. Please forgive. I'm locked and loaded with a Venti 'Kenyan' Ice Coffee. I'm holding ample fuel to ramble.
Not by any stretch of the imagination was I trying to suggest that because we're hardwired for "stupidity" (I acknowledge the use of this word represents a very crude shortcut) we shouldn't strive to know truth, or learn from the mistakes encountered when trying to do so. No, what I'm trying to suggest is far subtler than that. First, we are psychologically predisposed to fight to protect ourselves from having to contemplate death and dying. So, we create and affix to illusions that best support this underlying instinct. The consensus may be that those of us whom are faith based are more predisposed to this tendency, however I would argue that both camps of skeptic and believer do so with equal rabidity.
Secondly, and I think most of us in this forum are well aware of this, it seems that what we get a glimpse of in the competing camps of Skeptic and Believer is a vision of the gross inadequacy these categories, i.e. pitting humankind's fantasies, instincts, beliefs and self-styled perspectives against the very best of our bullshit debugging methods that have been devised to attain evidence and/or "data" on truth, which at this point equates almost solely to the application of the scientific method.
Watching from afar, it seems that more often than not the issue is lost in the debate, and when its not, rarely are we left with any notable movement going either forward or backward. Instead, and what's even less productive, is in the end we have only managed to inadvertently strengthened the resolve of each competing camp and each of the illusions associated therein. Very little insight is gained into the "true" nature of these problems and an even bigger one is created around the dialectic limitations of having to undertake an exploration of these issues in the first place.
Beneath this problem lies the rancor of a still throbbing wound, the remnants of a critical blow that was delivered upon the collective psyche when its cultural counterpart was subjected to its first hardy dose of logic, reason and inquiry via scientific method, all of which repsented a significant shift to a world view that since its dawn had been inspired, engineered and controlled by faith. Despite all the noise of the academic elite, and the troubling musings that have pissed off competing klatches of philosophic and scientific schools for untold generations, global culture doesn't appear as if it has come to a place where it can comfortably engender the consequences of entertaining such a debate. Sure, the debate is happening in certain spheres of society, and it rages on, but if you look closely for signs of true progress and insight into the nature of reality I think you'll see a reflection of the very same issues that handcuffed those that dreamed up the debate in the first place. Yes, I know, we have a million groovy gadgets and toys, biogenetic and medical advances that many would say prove otherwise, but I'm talking about age-old immutable philosophic differences, i.e. any progress of which might be represented by a bunker-busting blow to either side of the materialism vs consciousness debate, and any variation thereof. I'd propose that each side is hadicapped by a reflection of a similar critical weakness, and that is humankind's psychological predisposition to hold onto death-denying illusions. Faith provides one means of living forever, and on the other hand science is holding a promise of the same kind. And it is through each of these avenues that humanity has found a way to perpetuate meaning and purpose, primarily by hard-wiring and transposing these concepts of immortality into the very fiber of our culture.
So yeah, we can debate all we want over which camp has the upper hand, and we can continue to strive to cultivate and perfect methods that can approach, unveil, construct and reconstruct truth, but acknowledging intellectual rigor and honesty isn't the sole issue of importance here. It's about people finding purpose and meaning and a reflection of the version of immortality they wish to project into or onto culture. Perhaps if we start by acknowledging the versions of faith we project into these exhanges, as well as into our illusions which propel and perpetuate the debate from both ends; the essential fragility of our of species, as well as the whole goddamn goofy enterprise, then maybe, just maybe we could get somewhere.
So, in a sense, charlatans may not be doing us a disservice in this "field" at all. Perhaps they are best suited to serve the aspect of the issue we are not comfortable nor willing to address.