Do you think the debate between monotheism and atheism has obscured the truth behind some of the timeless philosophical questions humans ask? Why or why not?

Tagged:

The timeless philosophical questions are asked and debated in the academy, and nothing is taken seriously unless it’s thought about by an academic philosopher.

Academic philosophy these days revolves around some really, shall I say, niche questions, many times in the field of logic. It’s not of interest to me. The stuff that is interesting to me, metaphysics and ethics, doesn’t earn breakthroughs often enough to be interesting for me.

I think the atheism-theism debate is still pretty relevant and even though we don’t and can’t have a rigorous answer to it, we can still hack at smaller questions. Most people never get to a novel position, but the act of trying to convince people of one position or another has interesting wriggles.

Where I’m at right now is having to acknowledge that the mindsets are just too different to accomplish a dramatic goal on the time scale that a debate has to constrain itself to. The equation points to a deeper truth that can be apprehended. But you can only apprehend that truth by trying and failing at the nominal goal.