That's a lot to take in. I'll try to respond as best as I could.

1. Indeed, blind trust in authority isn't good. But what I'm arguing here is not "blind" in any way. Lucid people who've considered the arguments of both sides could be genuinely indecisive. I trust that they're genuine. Thus, I seek an explanation for their putative "moral confusion." The problem is not an easy one. Why are there agnostics about God but no agnostics about GMOs, vaccines, or medicine? Sure there are skeptics. But the equivalent of skepticism is atheism - because one is doubting the existence of God.

What I'm interested in is the (seemingly puzzling) sociological phenomenon of agnosticism. I believe much of it is political. Hence, my thesis is that this has something to do with trust in authority.

2. Philosophers don't just ignore the evidence. I'm not sure what books you're reading, though. We don't handle "evidence" because that's beyond our expertise. To claim that something is "evidence" for an argument would then completely shift the nature of our theses and argument. To say that we're ignoring evidence isn't fair. We don't generate arguments based on revelations.

Furthermore, the nature of "evidence" is also up for debate in philosophy. What constitutes "evidence" for someone may well not be evidence for someone else. This is why talking to flat-earthers is so frustrating. If someone doesn't value "evidence" as we do, there's no amount of evidence we could produce to convince him about the value of evidence.

You're right that philosophers are trapped in their "cultural bubble" insofar as philosophical discourse is unscientific in many ways. But if we were to read Japanese books without any knowledge of the Japanese language, it will forever seem that Japanese authors are trapped in their own "cultural bubble." Philosophy admits that "evidence" is as value-laden as a langauge. Evidence is used for communication. As such, we attempt to seek other means of communication. That's why it's a trying discipline that lacks a proper paradigm.

I've said perhaps too much. Hope this helps. :)

I was once asked about the origins of the universe. So, here I am doing philosophy. Ethics | Intellectual History | Chinese Comparative Philosophy

I was once asked about the origins of the universe. So, here I am doing philosophy. Ethics | Intellectual History | Chinese Comparative Philosophy