Do many (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments?

[harvey1]

I realize that there's many (a)theists that accept philosophical arguments, but there's many here who seem very distrustful of philosophical arguments. Indeed, there's some (a)theists who give me the impression that they would never change their philosophy based on a philosophical argument. My question is how highly do you think most (a)theists rate the importance of philosophy in establishing what they believe with regard to God's existence. Is philosophy unimportant to most (a)theists--is that the right policy? Or, do many or most (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments because they are distrustful of any beliefs that are not established directly by science(/faith)?

[Rob]

I realize that there's many (a)theists that accept philosophical arguments, but there's many here who seem very distrustful of philosophical arguments. Indeed, there's some (a)theists who give me the impression that they would never change their philosophy based on a philosophical argument. My question is how highly do you think most (a)theists rate the importance of philosophy in establishing what they believe with regard to God's existence. Is philosophy unimportant to most (a)theists--is that the right policy? Or, do many or most (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments because they are distrustful of any beliefs that are not established directly by science(/faith)?

Do you really think, Harvey, that anyone finds the living experiential realization of God by philosophy? Philosophy is a secondary experience; it is an intellectual attempt to coordinate our experience of inner spiritual reality with outer material reality, and comes after our intuitive experience of reality. It is based upon logic and reason, aided by both scientific fact and true spiritual insight.

No matter how sound the philosophy, it cannot replace or overcome a mind that does not love the truth and is not willing to follow it wherever it might lead. Some, are bitter and resentful because of the evils of institutional religion, and the ignorant and stupid theological doctrines that have given birth to numerous ignorant and enslaving superstitions, and they are unable to exercise that critical thought that is able to see past these shortcomings of instititutional religion to find the real religion of personal spiritual experience. Some, are simply blinded by their own so-called scientific thinking, which amounts to little more than a shallow form of scientism which in its very nature denies and/or ignores the very evidence of science which undermines such a mechanistic materialism itself. Truly, the blind leading the blind.

When you find God in your philosophy, in truth you have already found prior to any philosophy God (or more appropriately, God has already found you) in your intuitive spiritual experience. Where both science and philosophy fail, living faith succeeds in finding the living God. And living faith is not mere belief, for one can hold erroneous beliefs, yet still experience that saving faith which is dynamic and living and yields the fruits of the spirit. The most humble and ignorant mortal, despite his erroneous ideas about God, and lack of sophisticated philosophical ideas or ideals, can still find the living God though that living faith which is itself a gift from the living God. And that is the good news of Jesus' gospel: that by faith we can realize our sonship/daughtership with God, and become friends with God here and now as we toil and struggle in this mortal life.

Science ends its reason-search in the hypothesis of a First Cause. Religion does not stop in its flight of faith until it is sure of a God of salvation. The discriminating study of science logically suggests the reality and existence of an Absolute. Religion believes unreservedly in the existence and reality of a God who fosters personality survival. What metaphysics fails utterly in doing, and what even philosophy fails partially in doing, revelation does; that is, affirms that this First Cause of science and religion's God of salvation are one and the same Deity. (1106.6)

The realization of religion never has been, and never will be, dependent on great learning or clever logic. It is spiritual insight, and that is just the reason why some of the world's greatest religious teachers, even the prophets, have sometimes possessed so little of the wisdom of the world. Religious faith is available alike to the learned and the unlearned. (1107.5)

And even the Buddhists know this:

If financing towers and statues are a condition for salvation, then hopeless are the poor; if wisdom and ability are a condition, hopeless are the foolish; if vast learning is a condition, hopeless the unschooled; if observation of precepts is a condition, hopeless are the disobedient. The list goes on; however, few are the rich, the wise, the learned, and the observant, while many the poor, the foolish, the unschooled, and the disobedient.... Thus Amida vowed vocal-nembutsu, a practice open to all.

-- Machida, Soho. Renegade Monk: Honen and Japanese Pure Land Buddhism. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1999; c1999 p. 10.

The reformer of Shin Buddhism, Kiyozawa Manshi (1863-1901), studied Western philosophy at Tokyo University under Ernest F. Fenollosa, among others, and one of his major works is 'A Skeleton of a Philosophy of Religion' (1892) from which the following excerpt is taken. In it he strangely echoes the contemporary debate on religion and science in the West.

3. Faith and Reason. It may be argued that, not the religious faculty or faith alone, but the intellectual faculty or reason also has the infinite for its object. Is not philosophy conversant about the infinite? Yes, indeed; but philosophy intends to investigate it while religion believes it.... Reason or philosophy begins with the search about the infinite and never stops its pursuit until it finally grasps at it; when, however, it grasps at it or realizes its object, the work of reason is over, and philosophy is finished: And this is just the starting point of faith or religion. In other words, faith or religion begins by believing the existence of the infinite and tries to enjoy its blessings. So may we state that, at the point where philosophy completes its work, there begins the business of religion.... there is no need of studying philosophy for those who can at once believe in the existence of the infinite. Such being the case, we take up the old distinction and say that philosophy accords to the demands of reason and religion to those of faith.

4. The Relation of Reason and Faith. Does then the religion reject the use of reason within its province? By no means. Although its fundamental characteristic is belief, yet it never refuses the service of reason in explaining and extinguishing the doubts. which arise in the bosom of religion itself. ...

-- Manshi, Kiyozawa. On Faith and Reason. In Popular Buddhism in Japan: Shin Buddhist Religion & Culture. (Andreasen, Esben, ed.).: Japan Library; 1998; c1998 pp. 40-41.

But religion cannot fabricate whatever it pleases; it must work in perfect accord with the intellect. As the essential nature of man does not consist solely in intellect, or will, or feeling, but in the coordination of these psychical elements, religion must gaurd herself against the unrestrained flight of imagination. Most of the superstitions fondly cherished by a pious heart are due to the disregard of the intellectual element in religion.

The imagination creates : the intellect discriminates. Creation without discrimination is wild : discrimination without creation is barren. Religion and science, when they do not work with mutual understanding, are sure to be one-sided.

-- Suzuki, D. T. Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism. New Deli: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers; 2000; c2000 p. 27.

Science teaches man to speak the new language of mathematics and trains his thoughts along lines of exacting precision. And science also stabilizes philosophy through the elimination of error, while it purifies religion by the destruction of superstition. (907.7)

The philosophic elimination of religious fear and the steady progress of science add greatly to the mortality of false gods; and even though these casualties of man-made deities may momentarily befog the spiritual vision, they eventually destroy that ignorance and superstition which so long obscured the living God of eternal love. The relation between the creature and the Creator is a living experience, a dynamic religious faith, which is not subject to precise definition. To isolate part of life and call it religion is to disintegrate life and to distort religion. And this is just why the God of worship claims all allegiance or none. (1124.3)

How foolish it is for material-minded man to allow such vulnerable theories as those of a mechanistic universe to deprive him of the vast spiritual resources of the personal experience of true religion. Facts never quarrel with real spiritual faith; theories may. Better that science should be devoted to the destruction of superstition rather than attempting the overthrow of religious faith--human belief in spiritual realities and divine values. (2078.4)

A one-eyed person can never hope to visualize depth of perspective. Neither can single-eyed material scientists nor single-eyed spiritual mystics and allegorists correctly visualize and adequately comprehend the true depths of universe reality. All true values of creature experience are concealed in depth of recognition. (1434: 3)

The issue between religious realism and no-realism, then, is the issue between two fundamentally opposed conceptions of the nature of the universe as it affects our human existence in its world-wide and history-long totality. The non-realist faith starts from and returns to the naturalistic conception that we are simply complex animals who live and die, the circumstances of our lives happening to be fortunate for some and unfortunate for others.... Thus, the non-realist forms of religion, presupposing this naturalistic interpretation of the human situation, abandon hope for humankind as a whole. However, one seldom sees any awareness of this in the writings of our non-realist colleagues. They could, in my view, learn at this point from Bertrand Russell, who faced unflinchingly the harsh implications of his naturalistic philosophy -- as in this well-known passage:

That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man's achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins -- all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy that rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built. [Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic (1918) pp. 47-8.]

The language here is somewhat florid, as indeed Russell himself noted in a letter some 40 years later. But, he added, 'my outlook on the cosmos and on human life is substantially unchanged.' And this, surely, is where a candid religious non-realist should start.

.... In contrast to this, the great world traditions see the universe as, from our human point of view, ultimately good. As William James put it, religion 'says that the best things are the more eternal things, the things in the universe that throw the last stone, so to speak'. This does not mean that present pain and suffering, injustince, unfulfilment and tragedy are not appallingly real. But it does mean that they are not the universe's last word. The total process of the universe, whether visualised in Judeo-Christian-Islamic or in Buddhist or Hindu terms, has at its heart a Reality that is conceived as the limitless love or grace of God, the being-consciousness-bliss (satchitananda) of the Brahman which lies in the depths of our being, or the infinite outflowing compassion of the eternal Dharmakaya.

-- Hick, John. Disputed Questions. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1993; c1993 pp. 13-14.

THE FOUNDATIONS OF RELIGIOUS FAITH

To the unbelieving materialist, man is simply an evolutionary accident. His hopes of survival are strung on a figment of mortal imagination; his fears, loves, longings, and beliefs are but the reaction of the incidental juxtaposition of certain lifeless atoms of matter. No display of energy nor expression of trust can carry him beyond the grave. The devotional labors and inspirational genius of the best of men are doomed to be extinguished by death, the long and lonely night of eternal oblivion and soul extinction. Nameless despair is man's only reward for living and toiling under the temporal sun of mortal existence. Each day of life slowly and surely tightens the grasp of a pitiless doom which a hostile and relentless universe of matter has decreed shall be the crowning insult to everything in human desire which is beautiful, noble, lofty, and good. (1118.1)

But such is not man's end and eternal destiny; such a vision is but the cry of despair uttered by some wandering soul who has become lost in spiritual darkness, and who bravely struggles on in the face of the mechanistic sophistries of a material philosophy, blinded by the confusion and distortion of a complex learning. And all this doom of darkness and all this destiny of despair are forever dispelled by one brave stretch of faith on the part of the most humble and unlearned of God's children on earth. (1118.2)

This saving faith has its birth in the human heart when the moral consciousness of man realizes that human values may be translated in mortal experience from the material to the spiritual, from the human to the divine, from time to eternity. (1118.3)

Faith is the basis of the Path, the mother of virtues,
Nourishing and growing all good ways,
Cutting away the net of doubt, freeing from the torrent of passion,
Revealing the unsurpassed road of ultimate peace.

When faith is undefiled, the mind is pure;
Obliterating pride, it is the root of reverence,
And the foremost wealth in the treasury of religion,
Being a pure hand to receive the practices.

Faith is generous, the mind not begrudging;
Faith can joyfully enter the Buddha's teaching;
Faith can increase knowledge and virtue;
Faith can assure arrival at enlightenment.

Faith makes the faculties pure, clear and sharp;
The power of faith is strong and indestructible.
Faith can annihilate the root of affliction,
Faith can turn one wholly to the virtues of buddhahood.

Faith has no attachment to objects:
Transcending difficulties, it reaches freedom from trouble.
Faith can go beyond the pathways of [selfishness],
And reveal the unsurpassed road of [self-forgetfulness and selfless] liberation [in loving service].

Faith is the unspoiled seed of virtue,
Faith can grow the seed of enlightenment.
Faith can increase supreme knowledge,
Faith can reveal all Buddhas.
....

Faith is most powerful, very difficult to have;
It's like in all worlds having
The wondrous [hope]-fulfilling pearl.

-- Cleary, Thomas. The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. Boston: Shambhala Publications; 1993; c1993 pp. 331-332.

[McCulloch]

There is good reason to distrust philosophical arguments. Isn't that what the The Critique of Pure Reason was all about? Actually, there is good reason to distrust any arguments. A certain amount of skepticism is healthy.

[juliod]

Is philosophy unimportant to most (a)theists--is that the right policy?

I don't claim it is right, but that is how I think most people feel. I don't think philosophy (narrowly defined) is of much use, except to the extent that it can help an individual clarify what he or she believes.

As I said to you in another thread, I think people accept a particular philosophy simply because they choose to. Philosophy never convinces people on it's own or falsifies one belief or another. And it doesn't have the immediate, social force of an organized religion.

I think most people here do not consider your philosophy-style arguments even moderatly convincing. I do not, and I don't mean that as a criticism of you.

I don't think it is unjust to ignore the arguments. Philosophy is like science, but without the results. It never gets to the point where we could determine by test or experiment if the conclusions of a philosophy are true or not.

DanZ

[harvey1]

...I think people accept a particular philosophy simply because they choose to. Philosophy never convinces people on it's own or falsifies one belief or another. And it doesn't have the immediate, social force of an organized religion. I think most people here do not consider your philosophy-style arguments even moderatly convincing. I do not, and I don't mean that as a criticism of you.

That kind of shocks me Juliod because it means that people do not rely on rational thinking for their beliefs. Last night I was reading Daniel Dennett's book on "Breaking the Spell," and I thought it was really a good read because it tries to introduce rational thinking to the person of faith. It attempts to approach someone having a strong belief in faith, but asks them to consider what this very astute philosopher has to say.

I thought what was excellent about the book is that the author did not scoff at religion, he didn't demean it, or anything like that. I thought he tried to rationally reach his readers by the arguments of philosophy in an open minded manner. It was a good job to say the least.

Now, if I were the kind of person that I felt that rational thought has no bearing on what I believe, I might just wave off his points and say they just don't apply to the way I think. But, I feel that I could never do that. My way of analyzing problems forces me to look very deeply at what Dennett says, and give it great consideration each step in his argument. In other words, if I am to reject Dennett's arguments, I need a very good reason to do so. I just can't sum it all up after my reading his book and say, "I think most people [of faith will] not consider [his] philosophy-style arguments even moderatly convincing." That's irrational in my view, and very dangerous since irrational thinking produces great amount of horrible consequences in the world.

So, I wish that our society could accept the importance of a book like Dennett's, because it is very important to grasp these kind of arguments. On the other side of the equation, Dennett is not presenting gospel truth either, and so the arguments that dispute Dennett's more vigorous arguments should also come to light. Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen. I think most people will just say to Dennett in their places of worship, "I think most people here do not consider your philosophy-style arguments even moderatly convincing."

[juliod]

That kind of shocks me Juliod because it means that people do not rely on rational thinking for their beliefs.

No!

There is an additional component that you neglect but I rate higher than philosophy. That component is evidence.

The gold nugget of philosophy is the technique of logic and rhetoric. But these only show you how to construct a valid argument. They do not guarantee truth.

I only in the last year or so heard of two fallacies that are critically important: the Fallacy Fallacy and the Logical Fallacy. The first is the wrong belief that the conclusion of a fallacious argument is automatically false. The second is the wrong belief that the conclusion of a valid argument is necessarily true.

These two show the limits of philosophy and pure reason. Logic and reason are not sufficient. At every step you must verify your argument with evidence or else you will end up with error after all.

Rational thinking is critical to my point of view, and also my profession. But it is the junior partner. I like to say that Rationalism is the "tyranny of evidence". A proper Rationalist has no choice over what to believe or disbelieve. It is dictated by the evidence to hand at any moment.

Now, if I were the kind of person that I felt that rational thought has no bearing on what I believe, I might just wave off his points and say they just don't apply to the way I think.

That is quite true. I think most (nearly all) theists are Irrationalists (even if they are genuine rationalists for other aspects of their lives). I have had innumerable conversations where the theist cannot make a rebuttal, but ends "Well, I still believe it anyway." That's Irrationalism.

That's irrational in my view, and very dangerous since irrational thinking produces great amount of horrible consequences in the world.

Yes, religion for a start. The key point, of course, is that religion is not based on either evidence or argument, but on social, psychological or political pressure.

I think most people will just say to Dennett in their places of worship, "I think most people here do not consider your philosophy-style arguments even moderatly convincing."

I'm sure they will. It is a truism in atheist circles that most theists cannot even follow a logical argument. Look at the problems I had in the Problem of Evil thread. Most theists cannot even try to see that there are problems with concepts like "infinitely powerful" or "infinitely good". No matter how carefully you explain, you can't get through that "infinite" means something other than "large". But since "omnipotent" and the others sound like compliments, they must be applied to god. For 99% of adherents to organized religion, that's as far as it goes, and is another expression of irrationalism.

[harvey1]

No! There is an additional component that you neglect but I rate higher than philosophy. That component is evidence. The gold nugget of philosophy is the technique of logic and rhetoric. But these only show you how to construct a valid argument. They do not guarantee truth... These two show the limits of philosophy and pure reason. Logic and reason are not sufficient. At every step you must verify your argument with evidence or else you will end up with error after all.

Yes and no. "Yes" if the issue confronting us is indeterministic with regard to logic and reason, then evidence becomes critically important to decide which is the truth of the matter. However, I also say "no" if the issue is deterministic with regard to logic and reasoning. So, for example, in the movie Brief History of Time (yes, they made a movie of it too), a big plot of the movie happened when Hawking gave up the notion that time moves backward once the universe begins to contract toward a big crunch (this movie was prior to the knowledge of an accelerating universe) once the mathematical logic determined that this was not possible. There was no need in looking for physical evidence in the universe with this notion since, mathematically, this idea couldn't get off the ground. Similarly, there's many hypotheses which are not considered simply because they aren't coherent. If they aren't coherent, they are not published and generally theorists do not waste time in developing those notions any further.

That is quite true. I think most (nearly all) theists are Irrationalists (even if they are genuine rationalists for other aspects of their lives). I have had innumerable conversations where the theist cannot make a rebuttal, but ends "Well, I still believe it anyway." That's Irrationalism.

I think that most people (theists, agnostics, and atheists included) are not dedicated to rationally laying out their ideas of their philosophies from first principles. Theists often do not feel compelled to build their beliefs from simple first principles since they think God exists to make all of that seemingly unnecessary, and atheists often do not feel compelled to do so either because they think God doesn't exist and therefore any 'ole solution will work (but they don't actually try and get it to work). Personally, I don't get that at all. If you can't produce what you believe from a simple set of statements about the world, then it doesn't seem well founded to me.

Yes, religion for a start. The key point, of course, is that religion is not based on either evidence or argument, but on social, psychological or political pressure.

Not just religion. Unfortunately you do not live in an atheist world where God was never held to exist, but if you did live in that world I think you would see that such a world just as affected by other social, psychological, and political pressures. It's hard for any of us to conceive what those worlds would look like, but in my opinion this is the world that 19th and 20th century socialist societies tried to create. Now, I'm not saying that an atheist society is destined to repeat the same mistakes, but I think we live in the best of all times when the State and the Church are separate in their balance of powers.

I'm sure they will. It is a truism in atheist circles that most theists cannot even follow a logical argument. Look at the problems I had in the Problem of Evil thread. Most theists cannot even try to see that there are problems with concepts like "infinitely powerful" or "infinitely good". No matter how carefully you explain, you can't get through that "infinite" means something other than "large". But since "omnipotent" and the others sound like compliments, they must be applied to god. For 99% of adherents to organized religion, that's as far as it goes, and is another expression of irrationalism.

Well, I think you're sort of missing my point, Juliod. The point of bringing up Dennett is not to demonstrate the plight of religion, rather it is to point out the dangers of accepting a particular creed without being committed to a rational undertaking of defending our views of the world. I feel lucky because I have debated people from the ex-Soviet bloc, and what I noticed in some of those debates is how unwilling they are to inspect their ideologies that were taught to them in their Soviet school system. Now, I realize that they have absolute confidence that their view is correct, but what I found was an unwillingness to consider that their ideology was incorrect. There was also little in the way of commitment to argue for their ideologies on logical grounds.

This is why I applaud Dennett's book. He wasn't trying to beat people with a stick with his ideology. Rather, he made a solid attempt to reach people through rational discourse. This is very important in a world that is getting ever smaller--and unfortunately less prone to reach out to others with different viewpoints. But, as Dennett strongly suggested, it is necessary that we uphold reasoning otherwise there's no means by which to communicate rationally with each other.

[juliod]

owever, I also say "no" if the issue is deterministic with regard to logic and reasoning.

I have very grave doubts about the reality of deterministic logic and reasoning, except perhaps some very very simple and trivial proofs.

Math is a particular example. We can often "prove" things on an absolute scale with math. But since math can at best approximate things in the real world, a proof need not be obeyed by a physical reality.

once the mathematical logic determined that this was not possible. There was no need in looking for physical evidence in the universe with this notion since, mathematically, this idea couldn't get off the ground.

I don't agree with this. Find the evidence first, then worry about applying a physical (mathematical) model to it. If we did have actual evidence to support the reality of time going backwards, or whatever, then no mathematical argument would hold any strength.

...more later....

DanZ

[juliod]

...where was I...

The worst that would happen is that we'd have to adopt a new mathematical model.

I think that most people (theists, agnostics, and atheists included) are not dedicated to rationally laying out their ideas of their philosophies from first principles. Theists often do not feel compelled to build their beliefs from simple first principles since they think God exists to make all of that seemingly unnecessary, and atheists often do not feel compelled to do so either because they think God doesn't exist and therefore any 'ole solution will work (but they don't actually try and get it to work).

I think you are not right in the description of atheists. As it is now, almost no one is raised as an atheist, and so most atheists have come through a process of reexamining their beliefs from the ground up. Perhaps not from "first principles", as I think these are largely illusions. But they go back to "fundemental evidence". Most atheists (not me) are "weak atheists" who make a fetish of evidence, demanding of theists "Show me the evidence for you god, then I will consider it."

Personally, I don't get that at all. If you can't produce what you believe from a simple set of statements about the world, then it doesn't seem well founded to me.

I look at it exactly the opposite. The plurality of evidences that we can all experience in the world is what shows what "truth" is. The world is like a fractal, the closer you look, the more complex it becomes. Simple statements are unlikely (in my view) to be true. Well-founded comes from being supported by masses of evidence.

The point of bringing up Dennett is not to demonstrate the plight of religion, rather it is to point out the dangers of accepting a particular creed without being committed to a rational undertaking of defending our views of the world.

I think that most atheists who get to the point of calling themselves an atheist are well committed to that rational undertaking. This may be merely an artifact of there being very few low-class, uneducated atheists. In our society, most totaly unenlightened people are considered (and consider themselves) to be theists.

But the point is, on these forums, you don't see atheists declining to examine their views from basic principles. The theists, OTOH, often do that, replying with trite praise-the-lord type arguments.

But, as Dennett strongly suggested, it is necessary that we uphold reasoning otherwise there's no means by which to communicate rationally with each other.

Let me know if you find a way of getting a typical theist to participate in that.

DanZ

[HughDP]

Harvey, I can see how our recent debates might have motivated you to start this topic (but it's an interesting topic nevertheless).

What is philosophy? What does it actually tell us about the way the world works?

I'd suggest that philosophy leads us to answers, but it doesn't actually give us any. I wouldn't deny the foundation that philosophy sets and the influence it has on our thinking, but what does it actually tell us as fact about the world?

I think, Harvey, that you'd put across an argument (and probably a very good one!) that philosophy is all there is when we're talking about the metaphysical and up to a point you're right. There are unknowables experimentally that may remain in the domain of philosophy for a long time, but I'd be looking for actual evidence in the end. Philosophy doesn't provide that. It will always be a 'guess'.

I'm going to contradict my own argument now and say that, to some extent, science is also a best guess. Newton's laws of gravity are a good guess, but they're wrong. Einstein's are better, but maybe they're wrong too; maybe a quantum gravity will fine-tune Einstein's laws a bit further.

But there's a difference. Science sets itself up at the outset to be falsifiable; it provides a method by which things can be challenged. Philosophy is a bit different in that respect as it doesn't set itself up to be falsifiable with anything other than thought. A good philosopher could probably create a water-tight argument for there being a Holy Guardian Sprout at the centre of all existence but - and this is the point - there has to be a final test; something which tells us an actual 'truth'. Even if we accept that it's only a truth 'for the moment', we need some basis upon which to separate reality from thought-work.

We could quite easily go mad otherwise (maybe we have!).

I do see Juliod's point too. With the work of Goedel and Tarski we have a no-win situation with logic, which could be said to be the basis of all we talk about. They both strained with idea that logic cannot be both complete and consistent at the same time.

I sometimes wonder - and think about this as a philosophy in itself - how much of what we say is an ad hominen response. Maybe that's all there is?

That's kind of deep. Perception is all there is in the end.