• Atheist message adorns billboard near 55 (OC Reg, 8/18)
• Some take offense at atheist message on billboard (OC Reg, 8/19)
• Backyard Skeptics
I dunno. I too want my fellow citizens to be more rational, reasonable. But I prefer an approach that teaches reasoning per se rather than one that “teaches” the alleged fruit or consequences of reason.* If people were taught to respect reason, avoid fallacy, refrain from thinking and behavior that makes sheep- and mob-like phenomena possible—well, if such were the case, I’d be in a pretty damned good community, or at least a far better one.** I wonder sometimes if these organizations (Backyard Skeptics, etc.) aren’t willing to skip that step. That makes me wonder if, in the end, they’re much better than the irrationalists they seek to convert.
It’s like “teaching” democracy, I suppose. I wouldn’t want to impose democracy on a nondemocratic society.*** We need to ask first, what sort of person would be happy in a democratic society? For what sort of people is democratic government the best type? —BvT
*In my view, an embrace of rationality and reasonableness would inevitably weaken the hold most religions have on people. But it is impossible to be certain about such things.
**I’m certainly open to the possibility (not the probability!) that a robust embrace of rationality and reasonableness may leave available modes of belief that are religious or at least quasi-religious. Some will be mystified by that position. They will insist that religious belief by its very nature is irrational—insofar as it entails such things as faith, a believing without evidence. They may be right. Being a conservative fellow, I’m not in a hurry to embrace a final conclusion about that. Certainty is usually evidence of folly.
***Of course, one might impose democracy as a way of getting people to be the sort who would enjoy democracy. Tricky business, that.
Highly recommended:
• Unemployment is rising – or is that statistical noise? (Ben Goldacre, the Guardian)
• The genius who lives downstairs – extract (The Guardian)
Aged three, Simon Phillips Norton had an IQ of 178. By five, he could rattle off his 91 times table. At Cambridge, he was the greatest maths prodigy they had ever seen. So what happened to his career? Alexander Masters on a story that doesn't add up
No comments:
Post a Comment