Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
"I believe X because so many people I trust believe X" is a step in the right direction. It isn't a proof, of course, and it assumes the trust is well-placed, but it's nonetheless much different than the unqualified "so many."
I don't mean to make light, but that logic would quickly lead to justifying that Jews really ought to be exterminated. Now, you throw in the word "trust" ... while I personally don't trust that dogma or the spin that created it, enough other people certainly do. This applies equally well to racist, homosexuality and religious hatred/oppression.
The conclusion that X is valid should never be justified because Y people believe it. X should only be valid if facts A, B and C are irrefutable.
To put a little different spin on this than VnutZ did, let me also point out that one of the indicators of whether the trust is well-placed ought to be whether the candidate is really in a position to have real knowledge on the issue.
When you're facing a medical decision, you trust doctors you barely know much more than your best friend who has no medical training.
When the question is "what the gods want", it might be useful to consult a clergyman - they spend their time trying to figure that out. But if the question is "do the gods exist", they're a waste of time. They assume it to be true and work from there. You're better off asking a physicist - their lives are about studying the nature of reality.
RSS
RE: How Quaint and a revisit of the Atheist Wager
there must be a god because so many people believe it
You're right; that's a horrible argument given the track record of "the masses."
Throw in a couple of other words, however, and the argument starts to gain legitimacy - or at least utility. "I believe X because so many people I trust believe X" is a step in the right direction. It isn't a proof, of course, and it assumes the trust is well-placed, but it's nonetheless much different than the unqualified "so many."
View Full Discussion