In other words, you are insisting that even though you do not have access to all that would need to be known ontologically [teleologically?] about the very existence of Reality itself [or the very reality of Existence itself] you are still confident that that which you construe to be “essential truths” about the relationship between “in my head” and “out in the world” prevails.
And, if, pertaining to any possible discrepancies between you and, say, James S. Saint, your essential truths are more truly essential than his own.
And we are asked to believe this because you say so.
And that this is all true in turn pertaining to your assessment of God and religion as that is pertinent to the behaviors that you choose on this side of the grave as they will gain you access to one or another rendition of immortality, salvation and divine justice.
Whatever this even means to you. Let alone your capacity to encompass what it means to you for the rest of us.
Now, over and over and over again, I make it abundantly clear that short of the fabled “theory [and understanding] of everything”, mathematics, the laws of nature, the empirical world around us and the logical rules of language would certainly seem to qualify as essential truths.
One can state “essential truths” about the physical universe without having “access to all the facts”.
I don’t agree. Until we have a complete understanding of how and why anything and everything exists at all, we come up against Hume’s speculation about the difference between correlation and cause and effect. All we can ever know about the Reality of Existence [and the “human condition” that is a part of it “here and now”] is predicated on the knowledge that we have been able to accumulate “so far”.
That’s just common sense.
And even philosophers have speculated endlessly regarding that which epistemologically we either can or cannot know. Or has one of them actually pinned this part…
Noumenon [plural Noumena] in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing as it appears to an observer. the precise relationship between noumenal and phenomenal existence.
…down.
Hell, they can’t even pin down the precise relationship between memes and genes. Or determine if this exchange is only as it ever could have been.
One can build a telephone system based on some facts about electricity without knowing everything. It’s possible that our understanding of electrons is basically wrong but it’s not so wrong that we can’t build electronic devices.
Yes, but what is the “essential truth” regarding this: Ought the NSA be using the telephone system to spy on American citizens in the name of “national security”?