Peter Kirby

Layman,

My position is not that of the O.P.; it is explained in my Blazing Saddles post in conjunction with the last reply to you. With that made clear, you can attempt to reply anew to what my position is, or you can attempt to score points and prolong the thread--if the latter, don't be surprised if I don't join you.

Brother Daniel

Roger,

I will present some statements of opinion. You will disagree with some of them, I think. I am interested in finding out exactly which ones you disagree with:

1. To be free of bias would be a very good thing, if it could be achieved.

2. It is a good thing to try to identify one's own biases and to try to overcome them (in the sense of weakening or eliminating them, not in the sense of hypercorrecting to an equal or greater bias in a different direction).

3. It is a bad thing to maintain one's biases consciously and willfully.

4. In particular, it is a bad thing to be committed in matters of belief -- that is, to maintain, consciously and willfully, such a strong bias in favour of one's present beliefs that those beliefs become, in effect, unfalsifiable.

5. When a scholar is committed in belief, scholarship that investigates questions of direct relevance to those (committed) beliefs will inevitably be tainted by intellectual dishonesty.

6. Explicit encouragement to remain committed in one's beliefs is a common* feature of Christian culture, but exceedingly rare** among infidels.

7. Displaying such commitment as a badge of honour is also a common* behaviour among Christians, but exceedingly rare** among infidels.

8. Based on observations #6 and #7, commitment in belief is probably a far more widespread phenomenon among Christians than among infidels.

9. It is nevertheless possible in principle for a Christian belief-set to be held without commitment.

That's enough for now.

- - - - - -

*footnote: I use the word "common" in the sense of "frequent", not in the sense of "ubiquitous".

**footnote: In fact I have never seen such a thing among infidels. But of course it could happen.

Sauron

Ah. It's quite enjoyable reading the comments of others as they point out the self-flagellation that Layman appears to be engaged in, based entirely upon his deliberate misunderstanding of Peter's comments.

Right about now I'm wishing there existed an "I-told-you-so" smiley that I could post for Layman. :devil:

Sauron

I don't pretend to understand what Peter is going through. I've already chalked it up to "journey in progress", and I'll be tuning in from time to time see what Peter finds during his wandering in the desert.

However, the original comment by Brother Daniel is correct. Skeptics do not encourage steadfast belief in anything, since belief is not a valid foundation for taking a stand on a question. The prevailing recommendation from skeptics is to follow the evidence wherever it leads, and let the chips fall where they may.


1. Peter is not an atheist, nor are several others around here. Just more rigorous in their logic than you are, and apparently that *looks* like atheism in action to you.

2. More prone to considering themselves insightful and intelligent? That's rich - from the same poster who accuses his opponents of not having studied the material and/or a lack of introspection? Pot-kettle-black, monsieur.

3. As far as I can see, it's far more common for biased christians to try and accuse everyone else of the same crime of bias, in hopes of relieving themselves of the burden to shed their bias and cease their rejection of evidence. They borrow this trick from creationists who like to say "evolution is only a theory". Both groups know that their pet positions can't stand rigorous scrutiny, so they look for ways to level the playing field. The method they have both chosen is semantic wiggling and reductio ad absurdiem.