Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
that logic would quickly lead to justifying that Jews really ought to be exterminated
Yes, it could (emphasis on the "c").
I'm not sure why you're protesting this point, though. I didn't defend any and all qualifiers as being sufficient, I only noted such would be a step in the right direction. In other words, when something cannot be known individually, it may make sense to consider the beliefs of others. Determining which "others" are trustworthy and which aren't is, of course, the crucial issue - but to dismiss any and all appeal to outside knowledge as blind mob-following is misleading and inaccurate. (I'm not accusing you of doing so, but that's the point I'm making nonetheless.)
This comment has 20 replies.
RSS
RE: How Quaint and a revisit of the Atheist Wager
"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.
View Full Discussion