[extropy-chat] proto-extropian religions

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Bryan Moss <bryan.moss at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> An interesting question might be: In lieu of actual
> knowledge, is it 
> better to have unjustified true belief or justified
> untrue belief (given 
> a pop philosophical notion of justification [and
> knowledge])?  I.e., who 
> would you prefer, someone who believes evolution to
> be true (a true 
> belief) but knows none of the arguments and none of
> the evidence, just 
> the raw fact "evolution is true," or someone who
> believes creationism is 
> true (an untrue belief) but has read the Bible from
> cover to cover and 
> has a bookshelf full of books on creation science,
> intelligent design, etc?
> 
> I submit that as long as the proles believe that
> evolution is true, the 
> details don't matter.

How about: they don't necessarily have the
justification on hand and memorized, but they know
where and how they can find it should it become an
issue.  Everyone has thus far had only a finite time
to learn things, and not everyone is a biologist,
educator, or some other profession where the details
of evolution matter.  But if they are challenged by
those who preach untruth, they should know how to form
defenses against it as needed (and not to accept the
new thing as fact until after checking it out, and
seeing what others have to say about it).