One of the first people I sent The 5000 to was a well respected Atheist podcaster named Seth Andrews. David Smalley speaks very highly of Andrews so I followed him.
I tweeted:
Seth Wegher-Thompson@SethWegherT·May 31@SethAndrewsTTA I admire humanists and I'm interested in the truth and civility in discourse. Humbly tossing my hat in the ring. Love your comments on this if you have the time/interest. Thanks, Seth W-T
Well he replied right away (very cool of him) to me with this:
Seth Andrews@SethAndrewsTTA·Jun 1Replying to @SethWegherTWhen a defense includes, "If the story is true," we must plant a flag and camp there until the truth question is satisfactorily resolved. Otherwise, we're building our narrative on a hunch.
To which I replied:
Seth Wegher-Thompson@SethWegherT·Jun 7Replying to @SethAndrewsTTAThanks! With 23k followers, really cool of you to reply. I agree with you. To clarify, I tried (feebly?) to not offer a defense, or proof. The Thomas Test is the only defense or proof of a claim that the impossible became possible. Any comments re "relational trust"?
Unsurprisingly - I mean the guy has 23,0000 followers and I was really happy I got any reply at all in the first place - I did not see any reply. After waiting a couple weeks, I tried once more:
Seth Wegher-Thompson@SethWegherTReplying to @SethAndrewsTTAThanks for your reply. I used "reportedly"&"if the story is true" with respect that for many people the truth question has not yet been satisfactorily resolved. Will you discourse more about my ideas if I simply write "Jesus said" or "Thomas performed miracles"?11:58 PM · Jun 29, 2019·Twitter for Android
I have not received a reply. I am so green with my social media skills that I may well have missed a further reply from him. I really think it was cool for him to reply at all. I hope my question didn't come off as sarcastic. I was just bummed hat he "planted a flag" so soon and seemed to not want to give me any further engagement. I'm afraid that my writing skill may be too weak to accurately communicate my idea. I thought by freely acknowledging what I don't know, that I would increase the chance that folks might engage my idea and give me feedback about how I can believe something that is impossible. I am sincerely trying to challenge my belief and change it if needed, not defend it. I find it hard to understand why Andrews planted a flag and stopped engaging with my idea just because the veracity of all the facts surrounding the idea are not yet resolved.
Facts are useful to reduce the number of possibilities to consider, but aren't new possibilities often conceived by nagging "hunches" which lead to questions which lead to theories...
I think hunches are a great place to start building a narrative upon. I say let the facts take us where they will. I would just as soon get to a truth from a hunch as with a known fact. As long as I get to a truth.
I really suspect I am misunderstanding Andrews' point. It seems to me that he is saying that if I were sitting on a ledge admiring the view of the ocean below and someone tells me the ground under me is about to give way, I should "plant my flag" and wait " until the truth question is answered"?