Anti-Climacus

NICK RESPONDETH THUS:

Well, in the first place, I hope you're not a theist, because (speaking as one) there exists no good argument to prove God exists using simply scientific or epistemological terms, and anyone who tells you there is is either a failure as a scientist, a thinker, or both.

But moreover, as Wittgenstein said, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." Certainly, there is much of life (indeed, most of life), which is beyond the purview of scientific reasoning. Think of dating, or forming friendships, or appreciating works of art: totally unique, non-generalizable experiences about which we can form judgments, which are no less true for their applying only to us. The Brothers Karamazov is probably the best book ever written, and that's an opinion no one will ever disabuse me of, because the opinion of others matter precisely not.

I will make one other largely procedural point:

If Hucul is willing to submit to the idea that there exist such things as human constructions of the world around us, he has already undermined his point. Who has the authority to decide what is a human construction and what is the actual world? How do we know they aren't subject to constructions of their own that make them see the world in a certain way? And doesn't this make it theoretically possible for people to hold different views of the world around them without either being false or both being mutually exclusive (we can take a tour through Hegel, memory, and truth, if you like)