[ExI] Why is there Anti-Intellectualism?

[jameschoate at austin.rr.com]

---- John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote: 
 
> 1)Thinking is harder than accepting and nature often follows the path of least action.

Malarky. Two people can see the exact same information and come to distinctly different conclusions. In fact their conclusions may be diametric.

Everyone thinks. To believe that a religious person is somehow stupid or lazy is itself anti-intellectual. The question is what is the qualitative difference? I would contend that from an intellectual perspective a theist and an atheist are both anti-intellectual. They're both dogmatic and absolutist in their perspectives. They both deny any potential for being wrong fundamentally.

> 2)Logic does not always give the answer that people want to hear.

Logic doesn't always give the write answer. See paraconsistent logic as well as Godel. A reliance on logic for giving the right answer is no different than relying on some other book for the right answer.

> 3)Many believe that being certain is more important than being correct.

This implies some absolutism to reality. I take it you are a Platonist then?

--
 -- -- -- --
Venimus, Vidimus, Dolavimus

jameschoate at austin.rr.com
james.choate at g.austincc.edu
james.choate at twcable.com
h: 512-657-1279
w: 512-845-8989
www.ssz.com
http://www.twine.com/twine/1128gqhxn-dwr/solar-soyuz-zaibatsu
http://www.twine.com/twine/1178v3j0v-76w/confusion-research-center

Adapt, Adopt, Improvise
 -- -- -- --