Posted by Gunnar on March 05, 1999 at 21:52:57:
In Reply to: Why, Gunnar - such flattery! posted by Heisenberg on March 05, 1999 at 11:05:02:
It was not my intention to be insulting, but I remain convinced that the idea that one doesn't necessarily have to have conclusive, objective evidence for something before claiming to know without doubt that it is true is inherently arrogant, dishonest and silly.
It is certainly true that human judgment and reason are not infallible, but nothing more clearly demonstrates the truth of that than the abundant nonsense and numerous atrocities that men have perpetrated on each other in the guise of religion and in the very name of God!
It seems that the more absurd the doctrine, the more likely it is that some solemn idiot will claim divine authority for it, and dismiss even the most abundant and incontrovertible contrary evidence and reason as merely "mans evidence and reason." After all, how else is it possible to continue to justify continued belief in false and therefore unprovable claims, especially in the face of overwhelming, objective and contrary evidence?
I heartily endorse Carl Sagan's statement in the forward to his book, BROCA'S BRAIN; "Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights are winnowed from deep nonsense." This makes more sense to me than anything I have ever heard in a class on religious doctrine.