Faith and justification, and the use of faith and justification differs from the use of science and falsification.

The former (justification) enforces priors and causes stagnation, the latter (falsification) defeats priors and causes evolution.

I don’t make justifications or pragmatisms. I just solve for what’s true.

If it’s true I ask if it’s existentially possible.

If it’s possible I ask if its a rational choice.

If it’s a rational choice I ask if it will be reciprocated, and if it will be reciprocated I as if it will produce externalities and be survivable under competition.

I do my job as judge. That’s what I do.

To persuade me that a theocratic solution is possible, you’d have to persuade me that (a) a bringing about a theocracy was existentially possible by some means, (b) that it was possible without dictatorship to impose it for enough generations that the theological decline (end) could be reversed, and (c) that the rules were in fact moral in practice, (d) that such moral rules didn’t produce damaging externalities, (e) that people in time, place, and circumstance would adopt them or institution them and demonstrate them, and (f) that such moral rules were a competitive advantage, and therefore survivable.

I mean, if you can answer those questions I’ll say it’s a possibility. I don’t ‘support’ anything. Propositions are either true, operationally possible, and moral; or they’re contingently so in the face of competing propositions, or they’re nonsense.

As far as I know no theology is possible when by all accounts aristotelianism (empiricism or ‘descriptivism’) has replaced theology, and continues to do so, and the only people who do otherwise are either aging out of the pool, or those with below the threshold (95) group IQ’s.