On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote:
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and university, and been flung out of a few classes taught by those who couldn't stand having their authority questioned. I'm the guy who corrects the error in what the lecturer just wrote on the board. The idea that I might accept something just because somebody said so is hilarious!
I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically disregarding authority is no better than categorically following them: it is equally foolish.
That's why one needs to figure out which authority figures actually know what they are talking about and which are authority figures because of monkey tribal nonsense. Which is why epistemology is important. I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last sentence you quoted.
The single greatest problem I see with categorically disregarding authority is that it seems to require one to know (practically) everything, be willing to learn (practically) everything, or suffer the consequences. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove them wrong.
That would be a very silly way of testing that claim.
I think the tendency persists, and it's hard to counter its effects sometimes. This suggests to me that those who do not believe in a deity are no more proof from believing wacky things than those who do,
It's true that many people are gullible and credulous and easily taken in by charlatans, and that this is a good explanation for the frequency of religious belief.
And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of faith.
No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an insulation against nonsense.
I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism is an indicator that someone is insulated against nonsense.
Not necessarily the only indicator, and not necessarily a reliable one.
True. And?
-- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX." - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
