No, it doesn’t help.
I claim that today is Sunday, and this is a forum. In your opinion, is that all totally wrong too?
Your ideas on what to do seems to assume there is some other way of knowing, that, if we could stop what we’re doing and go look for it, we’d find it.
First things first.
Is there any evidence that the theist vs. atheist paradigm is leading to anything other than an endless repetition of all the same old arguments already made a million times? Is there any evidence that either side of that debate will ever be able to prove anything?
Do you feel that doing the same things over and over and over again while expecting that this will somehow lead to some different result is a good example of reason and quality critical thinking?
So long as you believe, without any evidence at all, that the theist vs. atheist dance is accomplishing something, and that your side is somehow winning, you’ll never have any motivation to look for alternatives, and thus will remain stuck on the theist vs. atheist merry-go-round to nowhere. Your call of course. But just maybe you are more interested in the inquiry than to be satisfied with riding that merry-go-round to nowhere.
Your analogy of 12 year olds breaks down because there are 13 year olds. You seem to be acting as some sort of observer who can judge the entire human race. I’ve been a 12 year old, and I’ve watched them try to work things out, they get things wrong. I’ve observed humanity, read its history, they get things wrong. But that’s as far as the analogy can go. I know humanity has gotten things wrong because I am privileged to look back on that history with more tools than they had. I can predict there are things we are doing now that will be found to be wrong, but I don’t have more knowledge than the sum of all human experience, so I can’t know which things those are.
This is what I mean by “wall of vagueness” which you use to try to exhaust me. I’ve routinely presented you with a very simple question, which you refuse to actually confront.
Is there any evidence that human reason is qualified to meaningfully address the very largest of questions?
I really wish you would either address the challenge in a straightforward honest manner, (like for instance, cough up the requested evidence) or put me on ignore and stop wasting my time.
I can even see that human arrogance is a stumbling block to knowledge, but what do you propose we do?
Ah, but then you actually ask an interesting question, and so I’m encouraged to continue. In reply…
We can observe that BOTH theists AND atheists agree that the point of the inquiry should be to create knowledge. And we can observe that both have failed to develop credible knowledge, in spite of the longstanding efforts of some of humanity’s brightest minds on all sides of the debate.
When you are repairing your car, and your planned fix fails again and again and again, what do you do? Don’t you at some point push back from the job and begin questioning the assumptions your plan is built upon? You don’t just keep doing the same failed thing over and over again for centuries, right?
The theist/atheist paradigm is built on the shared assumption that the point of the inquiry should be to develop knowledge. What if that assumption is wrong? Could that perhaps explain the longstanding record of failure?
You also seem to be unaware of the many people who are willing to concede point #2. Stephen J Gould had his non-overlapping magisterium. Neil DeGrasse Tyson prefers the term agnostic. Richard Dawkins has a scale where 7 is pure atheist, certain God does not exist, and he puts himself at 6.7.
Why would I listen to atheist ideologues when they haven’t proved the qualifications of their chosen authority, and won’t even try? Do you listen to religious clerics who dismiss your challenges with a lazy wave of their hand?
I think you would be better off trying to find partners who think like that, instead of worrying about the people who have created “self flattering personal ideologies”, or trying to convince everyone that is what they did, when they haven’t.
Um, so you’re happy to simply ignore the 100 million posts on the Internuts where atheists brag about how much smarter they are than those stupid theists? What is that if not the ongoing maintenance of a self flattering personal identity?