In Kalevala the ancient Finnish folk epic, hero Wainamoinen pesters the young Youkahainen, asking him what he knows about things.

“Tell me now, my golden youngster,
What thou knowest more than others,”

This is how the Youkahainen boasted:

“I was present as a hero,
Sixth of wise and ancient heroes,
Seventh of all primeval heroes,
When the heavens were created,”

But Wainamoinen did not buy it:

“Thou wert never seen or heard of When the earth was first created,”

The fact that Wainamoinen didn’t believe Youkahainen’s story didn’t please him:

““Then, sir, since I fail in wisdom,
With the sword I offer battle;
Come thou, famous bard and minstrel, ..
Let us try our strength with broadswords,”

And what happened to Youkahainen? He got swalloved by the swamp on the force of Wainamoinen’s incantation.

Even in the ancient lore of Kalevala it is inescapably demonstrated that knowledge is power. Practical knowledge. Who knows the origin of the world? Who else but the one who made it. You learn by doing.

In today’s world, it’s the same question that is the subject of the “singing competition”. Who knows “the titmouse-fountains”? Who was there laboring to make it happen “When the Moon was placed in orbit, When the silver Sun was planted,”, when all this came into being?

Cosmic background radiation is now being monitored hard with perky sensors. DNA is being interpreted and fossils are in the microscope.
Where did it all come from and how? Who knows? Who gets to make the claims? And who is “sung to be transformed into swine”;

The mighty youtube algorithm, on the other hand, will provide entertainment suitable for this topic:

It is interesting to watch this contest. Scientific “fact” versus theistic concept of man. I have to admit that I could only watch the first 10 minutes. Are they going to stand around for over an hour arguing in that manner?

It is an exercise of guessing at what point people talk past each other and why? Why can’t we just acknowledge that at the end of the day knowledge is pretty limited whether you’re a theist or an atheist.

Ney, if you dost not think like I do, then the marching order is to “Stamp him in the mire and bedding, In the rubbish of the stable.”

I confess. I’m biased. I have made the mistake of indiscriminately acquiring a philosophical education in the scatterbrain hybrid of my youth. And my antennae go up when someone says “scientific fact”. What is scientific fact? Is a research finding a scientific fact? Most obviously. Literally. It’s a fact that the result is the result it is and since it’s part of the process of scientific activity it shall be “scientific”. But is it a fact? That then depends on many things. Nutrition science is a fine example of what it means to be a scientific fact. Indeed, disproving previous research findings come out of the assembly line every day.

On the other hand, there is activity called conceptualization. How do you name things? The concept of gravity is a classic example. This concept was unknown – they claim – before it was invented. But the phenomenon it described, was of course not unknown. And yet the essential part of the progress was that invention of the concept.

Then quantum mechanics was invented and the limits of conceptualization were discovered. In practice, the limits of scientific worldview and coherence were discovered. The concepts we use to describe reality were no longer enough. How should facts then be interpreted? Or how to reconcile certain phenomena with the prevailing human image or culture. The conceptualisation attempts of quantum mechanics in a way prove that the whole conceptualisation framework is in crisis and with it the coherence of the human world view. Is this a threat or an opportunity?

A crisis of the scientific worldview it is. A kind of silent one. Of course, if the individual’s worldview is based on mysticism, then this does not matter. The world is fundamentally wonderful and full of wonders. Miracles and wonders are then commonplace. Would the miraculous then suffer from inflation? The miraculous may become “mundane”? Do we then need a harder fix? Is walking on water or levitation not enough? One wants the miracles of inner experience. Something that gets into your bones and your core. But do you need it if you’re happy? What if you’re ecstatically happy? That wouldn’t last long. An ecstatic, surge protection breaking feeling of joy, if it lasts for more than ten seconds, can you survive it without significant side effects? Who dares to recommend trying it. But then again, the slogan is to “try everything” as a popular motto declares. The problem is that it might not be possible to do it just like that, with your own devices. Sensory stimulation or chemical stimulants usually bring with them some kind of hangover. It’s easy to get some irrational grumpiness for which there should be no reason, or to feel wilted or even sick. And addictions that threaten your health and the health and life of others are a separate issue. The kind of ecstatic or harmonious state of happiness and joy that a person is looking for, if it were one that didn’t involve any grumpiness, hangover or addiction, it would be a pretty good deal. But you have to pay something for it. Nothing is free. Something has to be sacrificed? Maybe some old habits have to go? Maybe it requires discipline? If there were an unshakeable joy and truth to be found in anything, what should the price to pay be?

So we come back to this scientific fact theme and what I call the sleight of hand trick. The sleight of hand is in itself just a tool. And the end justifies the means. But then the end must be good and the means at least neutral or good. The sleight of hand is a neutral means. Isn’t it? And that’s what conceptualization is. It’s doing the sleight of hand. It’s a way of reorienting your perspective. Here’s this conceptualization sleight of hand: What is the worst kind of human psycho-pathological disorder? What else is it but aging. For he who gets old in such a way that the vitality of the body degenerates is sooner or later doomed to die. It is a deathly dangerous kind of aging. And what could be a worse psycho-pathological disorder than one that leads to death? And what could unite us humans more than this disorder.

“Socrates is a man, Man is mortal, and from this it can be concluded that Socrates is mortal” is the classic example from a basic logic course. From the point of view of logic, it would be an equally valid deduction to say that Man is immortal and therefore Socrates is immortal, since he is a man. The problem, of course, is that Socrates was condemned to death. He arrogantly exposed the ignorance of man. Then the inner ‘mob-man’ reared its bully head with lines like: “since I fail in wisdom, With the sword I offer battle.”
And here the “sword” was a poisoned chalice that Socrates was to swallow.

What does it take to break this psycho-pathological disorder?