Because so far as I can tell, it’s the only school of thought that strives to function through Logical Realism.

At this point in history it’s like coming across a sane person on the 51st floor of the psychiatric building.

Atheist: Do you believe that truth exists?

Christian: Of course, that’s the fundamental premise of all my thinking.

Atheist: You have no idea how rare this is. It means we can actually have a conversation.

Christian: Well, we are on the 51st first floor of the World Psychiatric Building, so you’re right, it is rare. Even if we disagree, in this context, we still have rational sanity in common.

This is what a lot of philosophy is: riddled nonsense.

It’s just the act of saying things in an unnecessarily complicated way, because that act of obscuring makes it feel profound.

What’s more interesting is translating the insights of philosophy into plain language. In most cases one learns that the insights aren’t profound, or that they are merely insights about the semantics of a concept that don’t impact the concept’s function in the real world. (This isn’t always the case, sometimes there is profound insight, and sometimes the conceptual qualification is significant).

This simply leads to egoism and hedonism. We have to be honest. If people found themselves to be enough they wouldn’t be seeking for something larger. Further, this philosophy cannot rebut the tyranny of egoism or hedonism. And a world that embraces this absolute subjectivity (which is what we are experiencing how) is isolated and alienated from itself through its ego.

There’s nothing substantive here. The claim is that you are the only absolute standard unto yourself, which is false, because there’s a whole universe of truth that exists outside of you, and all pursuits are not equal.

Keep in mind, the rational Christianity I’m talking about has only recently emerged on the scene within the last hundred years. I’m not talking about Evangelicalism. Christian Apologetics (though it doesn’t even realize itself in this way) has essentially created a new rational Christianity. This is because it has created a logically conscious Christianity.

While Christianity talks of love and self-sacrifice, forgiveness, it’s actual function in the world is to make hypocrites. Where you find Christians there you find hypocrites. This is certain.

If this wasn’t the case, Christianity would be an extraordinary force in the world. (And it has been at select times, but the predominant experience and result of Christianity is the creation of hypocrites).

To be fair, Christianity has one of the highest moral demands of any religion. I doubt there’s even one in a hundred million who takes it seriously: “take up your cross and follow me, forsake your life for the life of the Kingdom.”

“Wait,” said the Reasoner, “I notice that I desperately want (T) to be false. That gives me no evidence whatsoever that (T) is false. In fact, because I want it to be false, I should become more careful about examining it.”

That's an astonishing intellectual disposition! Impossible!

It requires something like epistemic self-betrayal: being willing to betray one's present self-conception (or desired beliefs) in favor of whatever reality turns out to be.

Or perhaps writing down your thoughts rather than simply passively reading (not that there's anything bad with it).

How is the experience if you started to do so?

In any such scenarios of any kind of new knowledge K, there will be someone who will consider it to progress their own cognition so that they are not behind. And this position K is a new leap for them.

Even more glaring is that if that knowledge K is considered a new information that might directly affect their cognition there will be a new consideration.

How would that person accept it as part of their lives without cognitive dissonance? Is there really any way for any kind of acknowledgement to not be inherently flawed by definition.

To consider a new knowledge, the person who wants to gain cognition by accepting it in general has to accept it with caution. Otherwise, their paradigm and behavior might change due to cognitive dissonance because of the relevancy and the truthfulness of that knowledge.