I’ve started reading a book for not finding what I really want - a history of philosophy by someone who at least admits the verities of philisophical absolutism.

This book I am reading is A History of Western Philosophy. Here we have a premise I find extremely interesting; to explore philosophy in light of how it both causes and is an effect of the collective actions of humanity in history.

I am reading the introduction, and Betrand Russell’s game becomes very clear.

Theology, on the other hand, induces a dogmatic belief that we have knowledge where in fact we have ignorance, and by doing so generates a kind of impertinent insolence towards the universe. Uncertainty, in the presence of vivid hopes and fears, is painful, but must be endured if we wish to live without the support of comforting fairy tales. It is not good either to forget the questions that philosophy asks, or to pursuade ourselves that we have found indubitable answers to them.

The first sentence I quote here asserts that theology actually generates insolence towards the universe. What conception of the universe? That of observed and infered fact? My theology holds the opposite of contempt for well-reasoned observations. Disagreements only arise from religious principle, but disagreement doesn’t amount to contempt. Second: Theologies are “fairy tales?” That is deeply insulting to the professed religious experience of uncounted billions of people. Was Bertrand Russell the one who coined that particular insult? I’ve heard it in many places. Third: Bertrand asserts that we have only pursuaded ourselves that we have found right answers, or in other words, that religion doesn’t have them. Further, Bertrand is saying it is good not to find answers, which amounts to an absolute statement that there are no absolutes, which doesn’t work.

I’m sure I’ll enjoy the ideas this book presents, though I’m watching them very, very carefully.