Samantha writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> > Why not? Yes, if people are going to entertain false beliefs,
> > I'd of course prefer that they do it in solitude. But it still
> > has to be stated that not only is what they believe false, but
> > that there is something very wrong with how they think.
[For the record, I do wish to amend my first sentence. I don't
wish people with false beliefs to be any quieter than anyone
else, because how else can their bad beliefs be criticized?]
> I can't believe what I am reading. You have enough knowledge
> and information to form an opinion. You do not have enough
> knowledge and information to be dead certain that all those who
> have religious/spiritual beliefs are believing falsehoods and
> "there is something wrong with how they think". I hope I
> misunderstand you here. This looks like one of the most
> dogmatic and intolerant opinions I have ever seen anywhere, even
> from among fundies.
"Dead certain"? Obviously, I have to be much less certain
that there is something wrong with how they think, than I
am that what they think is wrong. Suppose that someone
adamantly believes that NASA's people walking on the moon
was a hoax. I'm 99.9% convinced that they're wrong. I'm
only about 80% convinced that there is something wrong with
*how* they think. But what else am I supposed to think?
Suppose that I have a computer program that gives what I
think is a 99.9% chance of being a wrong answer. I simply
MUST entertain the hypothesis that there is something wrong
with the program.
There comes a point in disagreeing with people who seem
reality challenged that one cannot be blamed for inquiring
as to why they are so bad at understanding the world.
"Most dogmatic and intolerant opinions" you've ever seen?
I think that you are exaggerating.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:44 MDT