Spot-on -- except, I think, for one wrinkle, or paradox: Your exhortation to question everything, while certainly valid as a mode of critical thinking in the abstract, jibes very uncomfortably with the MAGA-Right exhortation to "do your own research," which has provided jet fuel not just for a slew of really dangerous crackpot conspiracy theories (from chem trails to anti-vax to Great Replacement), but also for the triumph of Trump himself.
So there is more nuance in here somewhere (not 100% sure just where): There is all the difference in the world between a genuine process of questioning (say, of an "official story") and finding something contrary on the internet to justify and reinforce your disbelief. What does it mean to call Trump a liar against the backdrop of, say, the Resurrection and Assumption -- the systematized like of the Church and Bible that are, as you say, fed to us with our mother's milk? Why shouldn't the billions who believe in the Resurrection, the miracles, creationism, etc. also believe the shit that Trump&Co are shoveling?
So in some way it's less absolute -- about questioning everything -- than you depict. It comes down to how you question, how you build your view of the world and its various phenomenon. One still has to separate wheat from chaff when it comes to stories -- official or conspiratorial. Even for minds well trained in critical thinking, that process is by no means an easy one. For the lazy or the stupid, it is hopelessly difficult.
This makes the most sense for me. My father was Agnostic, my grandmother who kept us while my parents worked was a religious nut.
Thank you.
Spot-on -- except, I think, for one wrinkle, or paradox: Your exhortation to question everything, while certainly valid as a mode of critical thinking in the abstract, jibes very uncomfortably with the MAGA-Right exhortation to "do your own research," which has provided jet fuel not just for a slew of really dangerous crackpot conspiracy theories (from chem trails to anti-vax to Great Replacement), but also for the triumph of Trump himself.
So there is more nuance in here somewhere (not 100% sure just where): There is all the difference in the world between a genuine process of questioning (say, of an "official story") and finding something contrary on the internet to justify and reinforce your disbelief. What does it mean to call Trump a liar against the backdrop of, say, the Resurrection and Assumption -- the systematized like of the Church and Bible that are, as you say, fed to us with our mother's milk? Why shouldn't the billions who believe in the Resurrection, the miracles, creationism, etc. also believe the shit that Trump&Co are shoveling?
So in some way it's less absolute -- about questioning everything -- than you depict. It comes down to how you question, how you build your view of the world and its various phenomenon. One still has to separate wheat from chaff when it comes to stories -- official or conspiratorial. Even for minds well trained in critical thinking, that process is by no means an easy one. For the lazy or the stupid, it is hopelessly difficult.