This is inspired by some posts I’ve read here, regarding qi and many of the natural science debates blending with metaphysics.
(NOTE: Not an historical conversation. Just my creative elaboration.) A famous example of the dilemma would be between Plato and Aristotle. Plato says “look to the heavens, and look for the greater fundamental truth. The light behind the shadows.” Aristotle says “dreamy wonderland hasn’t progressed like my reliable calculation. Vague stories inspire the dark age.” Plato retorts: “Your assumptions will bear little fruit in the longrun if you collapse everything into a meaningless feed of data.”
A more modern continuation of this argument- Einstein: “God does not play dice with the universe.” Niels Bohr: “Stop telling God what to do.”
There’s a psychological capacity and security when you can suspend some belief to imagine, and appreciate your environment, to progress. There’s also the scientiffic problems that evoke a great deal of mysticism. Are the strange proposals like Masaru Emoto’s ice crystals all hoaxes? We can’t fit the universe into Newton’s euclidian determinism. Likewise, we can’t make our lack of knowledge a convenience for our assumptions.
So, then, where do you draw your line? I’ll tell where I draw mine.
I take the doctor’s pill and tell everyone else with a physical problem to go to the doctor. When I want to accomplish something, I talk to an economist or something like one. When someone mentions a problem with “the system” I tell them they should consult a lawyer. (If the lawyer can’t help, they can refer them to an ombudsman or the like). If they simply lack faith in the law altogether- there’s market for that too.
When it comes to religious people and churches, I drop by and say “how’s it going?” or I tell them their views are interesting. Does that mean I exude myself as an atheist? Nothing wrong with that, but O contraire.
Think of scientology. Created by a science-fiction writer. So many million people still can be wrong. But if we disbelieve scientologists, can we still consider that there’s a need they’re trying to fulfill? In essence, I think that there is some reason behind using fiction we’re enthusiastic about to explain our daily lives. My metaphysical reality becomes tolkienesque. I worry that orcs and goblins are taking over our middle-earth, and that the importance for the future is in defense of places like the shire. I’ve never actually seen an orc in front of me, but they’re there somewhere.
These beliefs treated wrongly can make us demonize people for no good reason. That with some economic opportunity is the main cause for full-scale war. People recognizing “orcs” around them makes for an unhospitable home and greater crime. Still, I can make up for my lack of discipline in ethics and statistics by grounding myself in ideologies of good and evil. It’s admittedly wrong, but I believe in those good and evil. I also remember that it’s not prudent to automatically take up arms for war. Very effective people often concern themselves with trivial things like a cup of tea.
Do I hold a solid line between real earth and fictitious middle-earth? not quite. I know the difference, but I have faith that belief in things has a subtle yet direct impact on reality. As Darwin suggested, animals can’t all simply metamorph by will, but their mutation was more than natural selection. It was also their will and belief in things during life to make something. They may have instinctively wanted to fly consistently, generations onward.
Just as our will to believe, say, a giant peach in the sky doesn’t create one. But it projects something into the universe which mysteriously - maybe millennia later- will suggest anomalous results related to our belief. My only reasoning, which is nothing short of wild elaborations from quantum entanglement, is that there’s utility in thought projection. In thinking for its own sake, rather than sole ingenuity.
Does that make me a nutcase? You’re welcome to say so, I won’t be offended. You might have an interesting alternative.