.

Dear Peter,

.

You wrote :

« We are here to glorify God »
.

Wow ! That's a magnificent ode to idolatry !

It’s also a very blunt statement, Peter – certain and final – presented as a well-established fact.

The only explanation (justification) you offer for what you consider to be an incontestable reality is : « that public discourse can now be judged as entering a "post-truth" age and that our social and personal lives and institutions are being eroded … ».

It seems that even you, Peter, have become a victim of what you qualify as an "erosion" – unless, of course, “post-truth” is just a modern term for religious dogma – in which case, there is no "erosion", but just the same discourse as usual.

You note sadly that :

« The young sense this and this realization saps them of the will to live »

You, nevertheless, confirm that :

« … empiricism is alive and well. Our experience of the world is accurate ».
.

Excellent article, Peter …

"Post-truthfully" speaking (of course) !

.

If you want truth you'll need to get rid of sex & money !

Daffy Duck and his personal struggle against the Gentiles.

Dan

Gee willackers, Peter.

You started your post pointing out how totalitarians are noted for their shameless lying, So, I thought you now realised that you must defend our democratic ideals? Especially free speech, from those who routinely suppress the truth. Just in case you have not noticed, it is the extreme Left side of politics who are presently the ones suppressing free speech. And that means free religious speech. Remember when the homosexual lobby in Tasmania had some priest prosecuted for doing nothing more than sending a letter to his parishioners urging them to not vote for homosexual "marriage"?

The Daffy extreme Left is leading the charge to attack the Christian churches and suppress Christian religious beliefs, while simultaneously claiming those "Progressive" beliefs that the Christian churches long advocated, belong to the Left.

So, that being the indisputable case, one would have thought that Peter would be cheering for Trump? As he was infinitely more popular with the religious right in the USA than that poor senile man Biden. Especially as no President in US history has had to endure the complete hostility of the mainstream press, who never stopped lying and spinning about Trump, while simultaneously exhibiting acute myopia with the real scandals surrounding Biden, and especially his crooked son.

When it comes to psychoanalysing the peculiar beliefs of people, I can only say that Peter Sellick is an interesting case. He seems to be attracted to the Left side of politics because the Left loves to portray itself as the champions of morality and virtue. And Peter seems to have a deep psychological need to be seen as morally virtuous too.

But you see, Peter, the claims by the Left that they are to font of all morality is just an act. They know it appeals to children and immature adults, and those who need to be moral puritans. Please watch "Elmer Gantry" staring Burt Lancaster and see how easy it is to con the morally pure.

Let's get back to basic principles.
We will assume that people can think and are also reasonable.
A belief is something one thinks is true.
Probably, a circumstance one has considered carefully, and decided is more likely than not to have validity.
To reach that conclusion, one must have considered many relevant facts?
These would be assessed objectively, and divided in to for and against?
The 'fors' being (much?) greater, one might conclude that the matter being thought about is likely to be true?
One might then proceed using that perceived truth as a basis for action, but even so, one would need to keep an open mind.
Be prepared at all times to reconsider 'beliefs', as life's experiences and new knowledge shape your understanding of the world?
This all assumes one has the ability to think and sift grains of truth from the chaff of life?

If the person has done his homework, and reached a valid conclusion, it shouldn't be too hard to convey that reasoning to another person.
Then that second person will have the opportunity to accept the 'belief' and all its benefits for himself.
This can never happen with a religious concept.
For there is simply no valid reason to justify the 'acceptance' of the so called 'beliefs' involved.
So no valid reasoning can be conveyed to another person.
Instead, a steady stream of statements is often made to emphasise the so called truth of a matter.
Whether or not the statements have validity appears to be irrelevant.
They are supposed to be accepted unquestioned?
I think this approach is called preaching?
When this fails, unpleasant coercion is often resorted to, to 'force' persons in to 'apparent' acceptance.
Altogether, a rather nasty state of affairs.