Q&A Three Question Two

Why is anti-empiricism at the root of all totalitarianism (assuming this is so)? Is totalitarianism therefore impossible because our discourse is based on empiricism?

I know that the author does eventually argue that empiricism can also be a totalitarian ideology, but I don't believe that this is really consistent. If empiricism is free dialogue based on the available facts of a situation then totalitarianism can only happen when that dialogue breaks down, because the dialog must necessarily be discussing the facts of the situation which includes that totalitarianism is a negative force that does not create a space where rational dialog can be had.

Q&A Three Question One

Why is there two ideologies at all? Why not just one that is right? (try avoiding sociological/psychological reasons) 

Avoiding sociological reasons are hard. It's really tempting to believe from a empiricist/naturalist point of view that supernaturalism is a view held by people of weak intellectually or emotional strengths. That these people are physiologically inclined to endorse supernaturalism as an emotional palliative because they cannot deal with empirically based reality.

Much more charitably, I think supernaturalism may better explain certain emotional ('spiritual') states that empiricism just doesn't seem to jell with in the mind. These may be intuitive and subjective states, but because of the limits placed on investigation based on empiricism we cannot, using that ideology, investigate certain aspects of mental experience. This might be where the supernaturalist approach is satisfying and rewarding in ways the empiricist cannot take part in.