One of the ingenious compromises they came up with for dealing with beliefs that exist outside rational examination appears in two of the most brilliant parts of the First Amendment: the Free Exercise Clause, which says you can believe whatever non-falsifiable doctrine you wish, paired with the Establishment Clause, which says you may not mandate belief in your non-falsifiable system for everyone else.
But what do we do in a situation where so much of what we call ideology has essentially taken the place of religion, and too many of us—especially in academia, but also outside it—hold non-falsifiable beliefs and wish to impose them on reality? There is no clear way to distinguish those rigid beliefs from any others, because they do not call themselves religion or faith. I know people have proposed something like an Establishment Clause for ideology, but I don’t see how that could possibly work in practice. All future debates would just turn into each side trying to prove that the other guy’s belief system, but not their own, is religion-like ideology. Naturally, their own view would simply be “truth.” I’ve been puzzling over this a lot lately.
Truth-seeking simply cannot work in an environment where too many people are afraid to play devil’s advocate, engage in thought experimentation, and take seriously the possibility that they might be wrong on the most important issues. Such an environment simply becomes a dogma factory, where people are motivated to rationalize whatever their tribe wishes to be true.



