This is my reply to a commentator who made the very public claim that all secular education has the Catholic church to thank for it's existence:-
I’ve been trying to resist the urge to correct this utterly ridiculous idea, currently being proffered, that Catholicism is the founding influence of the scientific method of enquiry or modern education.
Given the history of the (Christian orthodox) suppression of any understandings, that didn’t uphold it’s very superstitious dogma, for more than 1,000 years, I don’t know whether to laugh at its stupidity, or to be offended by its hypocrisy.
The scientific empiricism, experimentation, Socratic methods of setting and questioning a premise, was known to the ancient world prior to 300 BCE, and yet suppressed by the Christian authorities as late as the 17th century.
This is easy enough to demonstrate in the fact that Galileo was being persecuted and threatened, by the Catholic hierarchy in the 17th century, for heliocentricity, which was known to the likes of Eratosthenes and Aristarchus in the 4th century BCE.
The ideas of this ancient “age of science and reason”, even works of Plato and Aristotle on which Christianity was founded, were not openly available to any education system in early Christendom. - Indeed, the Catholic inquisitions were very big on destroying books.
There can be no doubt that early Catholicism is responsible for the dark ages!
The fact that it was the only influence on education, during a period of incredible ignorance and counter progress, in the wake of an enlightened age, is strong testimony of that.
Had it not been for the contemporaneously more progressive and broad minded Islamic world, from 600 to 1000 CE, we might have lost all of the wisdom from the Hellenistic/ancient world.
Had it not been for the Reconquista victories over the Moors in Spain, or the captured cultural literature of the crusades, it might well have been lost in the Dark Age brought about by the rise of Muslim fundamentalism.
Between the imposed ignorance of both Christian and Muslim dogmas, humanity has lost millennia of intellectual and scientific progress.
I’m sure you’re going to point out all the philosophers (too few, to my mind) and scientists that came out of this early christian education system.
These people were individuals, that had to make do with the system that was there, as the prevailing, default, and ONLY available information.
They were exceptions to the rule – if they weren’t, history couldn’t mark them as unique.
They succeeded despite Christianity- certainly not because of it
Heliocentricity, the big bang, many minor sub theories of evolution and many other understanding, came to us from Catholics.
Other scientists were Jewish, Muslim or other supernatural beliefs.
- So what?
That’s like saying Christianity is criminal, or Prison produces Christians, because there is a disproportionate number of Christians in US prisons.
All continental congress and the founding fathers of your country were subjects of the British king - and products of the very imperialistic culture they overthrew.
Are you saying that the British Empire is the purposeful creator of the constitution that overthrew its influence on the colonies at that time?
Jesus Christ, according to your legend, was said to be a circumcised practicing Jew – yet worship of him isn’t Judaism.
Most scientists ( if not all) before Darwin were creationist because the default belief was such.
Indeed the facts, that uncovered evolution, were from enquiries with a creationist or Christian presupposition, that were swayed to evolution by the consequential overwhelming evidence.
The same can be said of biblical archeology, sanctioned by the Christian Church to support , with evidence, the validity of the biblical stories. It has been forced to change its name because the evidence discovered doesn’t support the bible as historically true, and of course umsurmountable geological evidence which has disproved the biblical estimate for the age of the earth.
Can anyone realistically claim that all this dogma damning evidence was authored by foundational Christian dogma????
Did the mouse, in fact, invent the rodent trap?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
That wonderful Pascal's Wager......
I really must thank the theists who send me stuff to discuss in my blog page. I've been scratching my head as to where to start , having so much I want to say, and I realise that I'm being given the opportunity to make my points on a daily basis, being prompted by some silly argument that comes in the email or on a comment box.
Thanks for the inspiration , and the excuse, to write this blog guys!
This one is from a chap in the USA called "Walter", posing a perfectly classic "Pascal's wager".
Yeah, I know, done to death.....But I love it. I always know I'm winning an argument when pascal comes out , especially with that threat of Hellfire and eternal damnation.......
Oh....I'm "Thomas" on this , by the way:-
THEIST:-
"I can understand why Thomas is angry. He has a life without hope. But, that's how atheists exist. Christians, on the other hand, live with hope of eternal life. The best that Thomas can hope for, as an atheist, when he dies is NOTHING. The best that I hope for is eternal life in heaven. Now, if Thomas is right, then I get the same "reward" that he does. If I'm right, however, then I get heaven and Thomas gets eternal damnation. Thomas, tell me again why I should be an atheist?"
ATHEIST:-
Ha ha! What makes you think I’m angry that I’m an atheist? - Or that you’re a theist, for that matter?
We get the same “reward”, after we die, either way, Walter, regardless of what we believe.
The chances are, some poor animal, which was being humanely put down, has every reason to believe he’s going to live forever, even after the needle goes in.
He still has got the instinct to fear however, as you do.
I’ll be willing to bet that your fear of death is at least as powerful as mine Walter.
What does that tell you about your absolute confidence of an eternal reward? …eh?? LOL!
Seriously consider, if there is the Omni benevolent, omniscient, ultra sentient “cause of all existence” that we might call “God”, do you really think he would be of the mindset and motivations of the incompetent, malevolent, prick that your religion defines, and that you feel the need to bow down to???
You people who get your ideas from the ignorance within ancient and primitive cultures make me laugh!
Consider the super reasoning that theists attribute to god:
He can work out what is going to happen in every contingency, even the ones he doesn’t sanction, because he allows free will - Yet he sulks and condemns people to eternal torture because, through increasingly better evidence and reasoning, they don’t believe “He” exists???
Ha ha!! Get real Walter!! – This is the 21st century, not the Dark ages!!
The other point I would deal with immediately, is your apparent suggestion that I could choose to be a theist or atheist.....
I believe what I believe, because of the overwhelming evidence, that the god you pray to is a bronze age fantasy figure
He's not real. ......He doesn't exist.......What the hell do you expect me to do about that??!!
How about if I believe in him anyway?...... Perhaps there's a rationality blocking drug?....... Maybe I could see a hypnotist??....
How do you suppose you can plant and grow a delusion in the mind of a man who has all the evidence and rationality to know that a fantasy is not real?
Pascal's wager is a truly stupid idea - I'm surprised at ol' Blaise!
However, to answer your ultimate question - I don’t necessarily think you should be an atheist!
By your own suggestion, you seem to need this delusion. Possibly you need it to feel more secure about your existence, and to be a more complete person generally?
It’s possible that your morality is so informed by the whims of this superstition that, without the confines of its commandment, you might feel free to be a rapist or mass murderer or any other kind of miscreant. - Is that the case?
If you need your “faith”, in order to remain as normal, moral and self secure, as any other secular, rationally motivated human being, please hold on to it!!
However, I do care when you try to impose your superstitions on other harmless members of society - but that’s a different debate!
That said, if you’re asking me how I can face up to the finiteness of my biological life, and my own inevitable mortality, without fantasizing up the emotional placebo that you religious and superstitious seem to need, I would say that my “reward” was TRUE SENTIENCE.
An eternity of oblivion is a tiny price to pay for the privilege of a single second of human experience and knowledge.
I’ve already had decades of it! It’s very important to me that what I’m experiencing is as real as I can possibly percieve it.
For example, the most basic Christian (of the many versions) accepts that Christ died to pay for the sins of man, at, and to redeem mankind from the consequences, of the ‘fall”
Leaving aside the ridiculous notion of this all powerful god becoming himself incarnate, so he can pray to himself, and sacrifice himself to himself, in order to pay for his own mistakes, that he blames mankind for, the whole idea of redemption is contingent on the “fall” being a fact of human history.
This would require the creation tale as laid down in Genesis to also be historical fact. - There is no way round that.
The writers of the gospels believed it.
According to them, Jesus believed it...
The founders of Christian canon and dogma at Nicaea believed it.
It’s the base decree of Christianity, yet, in the light of modern secular knowledge, the more established, institutionalised religions, are forced to relegate it to allegory.
The Catholic Church, for one, has been forced to do some embarrassing backpedalling, and make some humiliating apologies, to correct earlier decrees of divine knowledge, and persecutions of dissenters.
The “infallible Pope”, at this point in time, has been reduced to saying “believe what you want” with regard to origins, purely because there are so many of his flock in both camps that he daren’t risk alienating either side.
As someone, who relies on this kind of confused institution, to tell him what to think, you have to share this absolute confusion as to what is real.
An atheist, on the other hand, is free to believe the universe as it is presenting itself
in reality, without having to make it conform to priestly decrees that are based on ancient superstitions.
For example, science tells us that all matter, and currently observed laws of physics, can be traced to a singularity that occurred circa 13.7 billion years ago
.
( Many people are even suggesting it as being the absolute beginning of the universe. Though no intellectually honest empiricist would offer that as a conclusion.)
The evidence for big bang cosmology is very compelling so I accept it.
Neither my physical nor spiritual survival depends on my believing that however.
Therefore, when new evidence for matter that appear to be say, older (there are some glimmers of this) presents hitherto unknown possibilities, I am free to pursue that hypothesis, without a sense of disloyalty to the presenters of any previous hypothesis.
I don’t have to deny new knowledge, in order to believe, for example, that the universe is a few thousand years old - because the people who invented the god I pray to commanded that belief, as some Christians do
This one ability, that I possess - and you don’t - makes life infinitely more precious to me than to some one who feels he needs to wait around to die, in order to derive the true wonder of sentience, or indeed any reward, from his existence
I have the daily privilege of discovering something new about the universe, without asking permission of someone who was far more ignorant than I am in the first place.
That’s exactly what you have to, with the barbaric, ignorant authors of your world view.
Thanks for the inspiration , and the excuse, to write this blog guys!
This one is from a chap in the USA called "Walter", posing a perfectly classic "Pascal's wager".
Yeah, I know, done to death.....But I love it. I always know I'm winning an argument when pascal comes out , especially with that threat of Hellfire and eternal damnation.......
Oh....I'm "Thomas" on this , by the way:-
THEIST:-
"I can understand why Thomas is angry. He has a life without hope. But, that's how atheists exist. Christians, on the other hand, live with hope of eternal life. The best that Thomas can hope for, as an atheist, when he dies is NOTHING. The best that I hope for is eternal life in heaven. Now, if Thomas is right, then I get the same "reward" that he does. If I'm right, however, then I get heaven and Thomas gets eternal damnation. Thomas, tell me again why I should be an atheist?"
ATHEIST:-
Ha ha! What makes you think I’m angry that I’m an atheist? - Or that you’re a theist, for that matter?
We get the same “reward”, after we die, either way, Walter, regardless of what we believe.
The chances are, some poor animal, which was being humanely put down, has every reason to believe he’s going to live forever, even after the needle goes in.
He still has got the instinct to fear however, as you do.
I’ll be willing to bet that your fear of death is at least as powerful as mine Walter.
What does that tell you about your absolute confidence of an eternal reward? …eh?? LOL!
Seriously consider, if there is the Omni benevolent, omniscient, ultra sentient “cause of all existence” that we might call “God”, do you really think he would be of the mindset and motivations of the incompetent, malevolent, prick that your religion defines, and that you feel the need to bow down to???
You people who get your ideas from the ignorance within ancient and primitive cultures make me laugh!
Consider the super reasoning that theists attribute to god:
He can work out what is going to happen in every contingency, even the ones he doesn’t sanction, because he allows free will - Yet he sulks and condemns people to eternal torture because, through increasingly better evidence and reasoning, they don’t believe “He” exists???
Ha ha!! Get real Walter!! – This is the 21st century, not the Dark ages!!
The other point I would deal with immediately, is your apparent suggestion that I could choose to be a theist or atheist.....
I believe what I believe, because of the overwhelming evidence, that the god you pray to is a bronze age fantasy figure
He's not real. ......He doesn't exist.......What the hell do you expect me to do about that??!!
How about if I believe in him anyway?...... Perhaps there's a rationality blocking drug?....... Maybe I could see a hypnotist??....
How do you suppose you can plant and grow a delusion in the mind of a man who has all the evidence and rationality to know that a fantasy is not real?
Pascal's wager is a truly stupid idea - I'm surprised at ol' Blaise!
However, to answer your ultimate question - I don’t necessarily think you should be an atheist!
By your own suggestion, you seem to need this delusion. Possibly you need it to feel more secure about your existence, and to be a more complete person generally?
It’s possible that your morality is so informed by the whims of this superstition that, without the confines of its commandment, you might feel free to be a rapist or mass murderer or any other kind of miscreant. - Is that the case?
If you need your “faith”, in order to remain as normal, moral and self secure, as any other secular, rationally motivated human being, please hold on to it!!
However, I do care when you try to impose your superstitions on other harmless members of society - but that’s a different debate!
That said, if you’re asking me how I can face up to the finiteness of my biological life, and my own inevitable mortality, without fantasizing up the emotional placebo that you religious and superstitious seem to need, I would say that my “reward” was TRUE SENTIENCE.
An eternity of oblivion is a tiny price to pay for the privilege of a single second of human experience and knowledge.
I’ve already had decades of it! It’s very important to me that what I’m experiencing is as real as I can possibly percieve it.
For example, the most basic Christian (of the many versions) accepts that Christ died to pay for the sins of man, at, and to redeem mankind from the consequences, of the ‘fall”
Leaving aside the ridiculous notion of this all powerful god becoming himself incarnate, so he can pray to himself, and sacrifice himself to himself, in order to pay for his own mistakes, that he blames mankind for, the whole idea of redemption is contingent on the “fall” being a fact of human history.
This would require the creation tale as laid down in Genesis to also be historical fact. - There is no way round that.
The writers of the gospels believed it.
According to them, Jesus believed it...
The founders of Christian canon and dogma at Nicaea believed it.
It’s the base decree of Christianity, yet, in the light of modern secular knowledge, the more established, institutionalised religions, are forced to relegate it to allegory.
The Catholic Church, for one, has been forced to do some embarrassing backpedalling, and make some humiliating apologies, to correct earlier decrees of divine knowledge, and persecutions of dissenters.
The “infallible Pope”, at this point in time, has been reduced to saying “believe what you want” with regard to origins, purely because there are so many of his flock in both camps that he daren’t risk alienating either side.
As someone, who relies on this kind of confused institution, to tell him what to think, you have to share this absolute confusion as to what is real.
An atheist, on the other hand, is free to believe the universe as it is presenting itself
in reality, without having to make it conform to priestly decrees that are based on ancient superstitions.
For example, science tells us that all matter, and currently observed laws of physics, can be traced to a singularity that occurred circa 13.7 billion years ago
.
( Many people are even suggesting it as being the absolute beginning of the universe. Though no intellectually honest empiricist would offer that as a conclusion.)
The evidence for big bang cosmology is very compelling so I accept it.
Neither my physical nor spiritual survival depends on my believing that however.
Therefore, when new evidence for matter that appear to be say, older (there are some glimmers of this) presents hitherto unknown possibilities, I am free to pursue that hypothesis, without a sense of disloyalty to the presenters of any previous hypothesis.
I don’t have to deny new knowledge, in order to believe, for example, that the universe is a few thousand years old - because the people who invented the god I pray to commanded that belief, as some Christians do
This one ability, that I possess - and you don’t - makes life infinitely more precious to me than to some one who feels he needs to wait around to die, in order to derive the true wonder of sentience, or indeed any reward, from his existence
I have the daily privilege of discovering something new about the universe, without asking permission of someone who was far more ignorant than I am in the first place.
That’s exactly what you have to, with the barbaric, ignorant authors of your world view.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Why wait for a rational theist to debate?
Greetings,
I thought I would debut my blog page with an easy one.
Easy because, with a little editing, it is mainly just a cut and paste from one of many debates I have with the Christian right on FaceBook and YouTube etc.
It’s probably not the best example(a tad sparse), but I still think it epitomizes the reasoning and motivation of the Christian AND conservative view point applied to rational justification.
The content of the argument is not as important as how the argument was obviously expected to achieve for the guy who initiated it, and his conduct( or lack of it) when he didn't get the non-response he obviously wanted to make his point for him.
More simply put: He invited a debate. Why didn't he want it enough to reply ?
Hope you can follow this:
Christian apologist:-
"Hey Darwinians. Why would you care if the Polar Bear becomes extinct? (Not that it is.) Aren't you interfering with evolution? "
Our hero waits a full 8 hours before deciding he has totally stumped every “evolutionist" out there (Bearing in mind, he is on his own page dominated by his Christian fundamentalist/creationist friends)
Christian apologist:-
"Hmmm. No answers. Interesting. "
I came across it maybe a day later
ME:-
"I can’t speak for other “Darwinians”, but my “silence” was due to the fact that I didn’t see your post.
Personally, I would relish the opportunity to discuss the subject of biological evolution with you, if only to introduce you to some facts that you have obviously been systematically trying to dodge up to now.
So, to answer your question, I must first correct the fallacy in its premise.
By “Darwinian” I assume you mean everyone who accepts the fact of biological evolution, as an explanation of the diversity of taxonomy of life on this planet???
(I also include almost every expert in the relevant fields).
By the tone of your question, I feel you that you are assuming it is a belief, opinion, or a moral worldview, that needs to be defended emotionally, much the way your religion is, rather than just an understanding of current scientific knowledge?
I accept “Darwinian evolution” as a scientific fact in the light of the abundant evidence, full stop. (Or as you guys say: “period”)
That said, you asked a moral question, which I answer thus: -
As a compassionate man, I would be loath to see such a beautiful creature disappear off the face of the earth.
If you think humanity, with our unique intellect and sentience, has any responsibility to ensure that natural selection works, as it has always done without interference, I would say that this particular ship has already sailed!
It is long underway within the nature of our compassionate social order, formed millennia ago. Today, more than ever, we protect the weaker and less adaptable in human society. Humanity now ensures the survival of those who would possibly not survive without the protection of society as a whole.
Before you point it out, I will admit that the liberal/socialists among us have always promoted a welfare state, and other mechanisms, that enhance this human “interference” with nature.
Having said that, as we ourselves are a product of evolution, are we not also conforming to our own natural characteristics??
Feel free to ask, or try to catch me with, some more questions on this. I enjoy this subject! Especially with pseudo intellectuals who think the universe is as old as the book of Genesis tells them it is, and who think they can prove it!! LOL!! "
I posted this immediately after the previous reply:
ME:
"It wouldn't be surprising, if in 8 hours, I was also saying of you: -
“Hmm, no answers? ...interesting..."
Damn!!...should have waited - then I could have copied and pasted from yours!! "
And this one many days later…….
ME:-
"Hmm, no answers.....interesting.... lol!! "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My point is- this same apologist makes all kinds of ad homonym comments throughout his facebook account, to, and with, people of exactly the same persuasion as himself, - of others who are never there to defend themselves.
He and his friends speculate, about the motives of anyone who disagrees with him, without asking them what their actual beliefs, motives or point may be.
They attribute arguments to the opposition, rather than listening to what its spokesman actually has to say.
When they are confronted with a response, they run away and sulk.
I watch a great deal of Christian TV and read a lot of right wing blogs etc.
Anyone else who does, will notice the “sermon approach” employed by these guys, to “debunk” secular reasoning, or any acceptance that doesn’t include their own particular superstition.
It applies a decree, by fiat, that something is undeniably true, then with strategic mis-reasoning, they hang whatever garbage they need you to believe, on that one fallacious premise.
They then offer the other guys argument, in his absence of course, and of course totally misrepresenting it to a point where even a religious fundamentalist congregation would find it laughably illogical (remember – they believe in resurrections, talking snakes, global floods, virgins who get pregnant, and people who can walk on water!).
They then start to decimate their own version of the absentee opposition debater’s argument.
It must surely be the duty of every rational thinker to make these people either justify, or face up to, the unreasonableness of their thought patterns at every opportunity?
If for no other reason, isn't this important to keep bad ideas from informing electoral decisions that affect us all?
And bad ideas don’t seem to need a great deal of rational justification to take hold of a group of people, as we’ve all seen!
When you get this opportunity, don’t feel guilty that you're taking advantage of someone who’s rationally challenged, or that you’re being aggressively opinionated (as you will be accused of being, when you start to successfully refute their hitherto unchallenged arguments).
You are, in fact, giving them an opportunity and a forum for their ideas to be expressed openly, and tested critically.
The fact that they are bullshit ideas, that don’t withstand logical scrutiny, is their problem.
I thought I would debut my blog page with an easy one.
Easy because, with a little editing, it is mainly just a cut and paste from one of many debates I have with the Christian right on FaceBook and YouTube etc.
It’s probably not the best example(a tad sparse), but I still think it epitomizes the reasoning and motivation of the Christian AND conservative view point applied to rational justification.
The content of the argument is not as important as how the argument was obviously expected to achieve for the guy who initiated it, and his conduct( or lack of it) when he didn't get the non-response he obviously wanted to make his point for him.
More simply put: He invited a debate. Why didn't he want it enough to reply ?
Hope you can follow this:
Christian apologist:-
"Hey Darwinians. Why would you care if the Polar Bear becomes extinct? (Not that it is.) Aren't you interfering with evolution? "
Our hero waits a full 8 hours before deciding he has totally stumped every “evolutionist" out there (Bearing in mind, he is on his own page dominated by his Christian fundamentalist/creationist friends)
Christian apologist:-
"Hmmm. No answers. Interesting. "
I came across it maybe a day later
ME:-
"I can’t speak for other “Darwinians”, but my “silence” was due to the fact that I didn’t see your post.
Personally, I would relish the opportunity to discuss the subject of biological evolution with you, if only to introduce you to some facts that you have obviously been systematically trying to dodge up to now.
So, to answer your question, I must first correct the fallacy in its premise.
By “Darwinian” I assume you mean everyone who accepts the fact of biological evolution, as an explanation of the diversity of taxonomy of life on this planet???
(I also include almost every expert in the relevant fields).
By the tone of your question, I feel you that you are assuming it is a belief, opinion, or a moral worldview, that needs to be defended emotionally, much the way your religion is, rather than just an understanding of current scientific knowledge?
I accept “Darwinian evolution” as a scientific fact in the light of the abundant evidence, full stop. (Or as you guys say: “period”)
That said, you asked a moral question, which I answer thus: -
As a compassionate man, I would be loath to see such a beautiful creature disappear off the face of the earth.
If you think humanity, with our unique intellect and sentience, has any responsibility to ensure that natural selection works, as it has always done without interference, I would say that this particular ship has already sailed!
It is long underway within the nature of our compassionate social order, formed millennia ago. Today, more than ever, we protect the weaker and less adaptable in human society. Humanity now ensures the survival of those who would possibly not survive without the protection of society as a whole.
Before you point it out, I will admit that the liberal/socialists among us have always promoted a welfare state, and other mechanisms, that enhance this human “interference” with nature.
Having said that, as we ourselves are a product of evolution, are we not also conforming to our own natural characteristics??
Feel free to ask, or try to catch me with, some more questions on this. I enjoy this subject! Especially with pseudo intellectuals who think the universe is as old as the book of Genesis tells them it is, and who think they can prove it!! LOL!! "
I posted this immediately after the previous reply:
ME:
"It wouldn't be surprising, if in 8 hours, I was also saying of you: -
“Hmm, no answers? ...interesting..."
Damn!!...should have waited - then I could have copied and pasted from yours!! "
And this one many days later…….
ME:-
"Hmm, no answers.....interesting.... lol!! "
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My point is- this same apologist makes all kinds of ad homonym comments throughout his facebook account, to, and with, people of exactly the same persuasion as himself, - of others who are never there to defend themselves.
He and his friends speculate, about the motives of anyone who disagrees with him, without asking them what their actual beliefs, motives or point may be.
They attribute arguments to the opposition, rather than listening to what its spokesman actually has to say.
When they are confronted with a response, they run away and sulk.
I watch a great deal of Christian TV and read a lot of right wing blogs etc.
Anyone else who does, will notice the “sermon approach” employed by these guys, to “debunk” secular reasoning, or any acceptance that doesn’t include their own particular superstition.
It applies a decree, by fiat, that something is undeniably true, then with strategic mis-reasoning, they hang whatever garbage they need you to believe, on that one fallacious premise.
They then offer the other guys argument, in his absence of course, and of course totally misrepresenting it to a point where even a religious fundamentalist congregation would find it laughably illogical (remember – they believe in resurrections, talking snakes, global floods, virgins who get pregnant, and people who can walk on water!).
They then start to decimate their own version of the absentee opposition debater’s argument.
It must surely be the duty of every rational thinker to make these people either justify, or face up to, the unreasonableness of their thought patterns at every opportunity?
If for no other reason, isn't this important to keep bad ideas from informing electoral decisions that affect us all?
And bad ideas don’t seem to need a great deal of rational justification to take hold of a group of people, as we’ve all seen!
When you get this opportunity, don’t feel guilty that you're taking advantage of someone who’s rationally challenged, or that you’re being aggressively opinionated (as you will be accused of being, when you start to successfully refute their hitherto unchallenged arguments).
You are, in fact, giving them an opportunity and a forum for their ideas to be expressed openly, and tested critically.
The fact that they are bullshit ideas, that don’t withstand logical scrutiny, is their problem.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
