Our species has been maintaining its “truth” concept as a reason-independent and reason-superior basis for knowledge.
I don’t claim this as a truth, but simply, that my book’s essays demonstrate it. They demonstrate further that we have been on-balance wrong in doing it, and that we could now stop. These are vast claims. They are academic and epistemic-level, but they have large and direct implications for virtually all of our current higher level debates; in particular, and ‘tip of the iceberg’, for our re-escalating science vs. religion debate. If my arguments presented in Leaving Truth are found to be clear and cogent then their dissemination will effectively end that debate in science’s favor. I understand the enormity of this claim, and I mean every word of it. In alternative statement: I do not believe – and have not found in my own debates – any coherent answer to my arguments to be possible from the theist’s side.
From this position I think that the interests of all parties will be served by our atheist & free thought community’s urgent reengagement with the theists on the basis of ‘Leaving Truth’s arguments. If, as I believe, all of our religions are not ‘merely’ wrong, but dangerously and counterproductively so, then we owe it to the theists as much as to ourselves to finally convince them of this. In a nutshell, I think that we’ve been running a vast negative feedback loop between our religions and the reason antithetical imaginary knowledge basis from which we’ve been maintaining them. I can clearly understand this loop’s emotional appeal, but I think that its costs are now becoming untenable. I see our present inability to respond rationally to anthropogenic climate change as merely the tip of that iceberg.