> in view of modern biological and neurological knowledge How do we know that our mind is interpreting what this knowledge is in a coherent manner? The researc

> in view of modern biological and neurological knowledge How do we know that our mind is interpreting what this knowledge is in a coherent manner? The researchers themselves are already making a philosophical claim that truth is knowable to get to any meaningful conclusions about what can be learned about the mind. Note that I'm saying this assuming your premise is true, then using it to undermine your own claim so using this logic against me is not coherent. > is not a particularly defensible position. Defensibility is defined outside itself. For example: "Is the city defensible?" Is a reasonable question, but without defining the threat vector (comets, horsemen, etc) the statement on its own is meaningless. So please understand that from your own vantage point this claim may seem indefensible, but you are again assuming the premise; and this is, essentially, the number one problem I see in modern thought. Thinkers in our era have taken a leap of faith to defend rationality and science then proceed to deny that faith had anything to do with it, or, even worse in the case of Sam Harris, deride faith as "surely the devil's masterpiece" beating out ignorance, hatred, greed. I find this especially rich in light of the damage that greed and hatred have done to the modern world built upon our technological societies. I'm not anti-technology, in fact I am pro-technology, but without the underpinnings that come with faith that is acknowledged and serviced, I believe we'll end up damaging the world more than we aid it over time.