I suppose that foolish is as foolish does

William Vallicella, exposing (once again) his foolishness (*): "Which is worse? To deny that there is truth or to suppose that one is in secure possession of it? Either way inquiry is at an end and the road to truth blocked."

The sentiment that Vallicella expresses above (for, I cannot bring myself to call it a rational thought) is of a piece with another wrong-headed and anti-rational belief which he is fond of asserting, namely that "[t]here are no compelling arguments one way or the other when it comes to God ..." (most recently here).

To paraphrase Chesterton, just as the whole point of opening one's mouth is to close it on something substantial with which to nourish the body, so too the whole point of 'opening one's mind' is to close it on something substantial with which to nourish the mind/spirit. The point of inquiry is not the "road", but the destination: the point of inquiry is not neverendingly to ask a question, but rather to put "inquiry [] at an end " by finding the truth. And, having found the truth of the matter, "one is [indeed] in secure possession of it", and thus to continue to ask the question is to play false to reason, it is to be unreasonable and irrational; it is, in fact, to be anti-rational.

Contrary to Vallicella's frequent assertion, there are multiple compelling arguments showing that the proposition "God is" is true, and that the proposition "God is not" is false. That human beings -- being agents, being free wills -- are free to deny the truth of these arguments without ever even attempting to show that they are flawed or erroneous does not make the arguments uncompelling. And, in fact, this freedom itself leads directly to a compelling argument against God-denial.

(*) and his hypocrisy ... but I repeat myself.