Barry Arrington writes:

For years I have been bemused by the website called The Skeptical Zone.  Every few months I go over there and peruse the posts.  And I think to myself, if they are so skeptical, why does practically everything they say line up with the received dogmas and conventional wisdom of the early 21^st century Western intelligentsia?

Do they not know what the word “skeptical” means?  Are they going for ironical?

But in a flash of insight today, I finally figured it out.  The key is in the quote from Cromwell at the top of their homepage that serves as the motto for the site:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.

All of this time I mistakenly thought that they were using the aphorism the way Cromwell intended as in “We should bear in mind that each of us is fallible; it follows that each of us should always allow for the possibility that even his most intensely-held beliefs might possibly be mistaken.”

Yes, Barry, that is precisely what I intended it to mean.

No, that is not it.  It all becomes clear when you realize that they mean their motto quite literally and when they think of it they think of it this way:

I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that YOU may be mistaken.

 

The YOU refers to all those who read the words,  including the owner of the blog.

There you have it.  They are skeptical all right.  They are skeptical of everyone’s views but their own, which they hold with a breathtakingly dogmatic tenacity.  It all makes sense to me now

Well, we all tend to think that people who seem unable to see our point of view are holding that view “with a breathtaking dogmatic tenacity”.  After all, if we thought we were wrong, we’d change our minds, wouldn’t we?  It’s intrinsic to the nature of disagreement that we think the other guy is wrong, and greater the clarity with which we think we are seeing the truth, the more dogmatically tenacious the other guy seems to be for not seeing it.  Which simply goes to show that one [wo]man’s obvious is another [wo]man’s nonsense.

So: Just to remind everyone: No, the motto is neither ironical,  nor addressed to a subset of the world.  It is addressed to everyone, unironically, including me.  And of course Barry, should he come over, which I hope he will. Please regard it as the Primary Rule of this site.

Thanks 🙂

Edited to, I hope, avoid copyright violation.

Commenter ‘fifthmonarchyman’ from UD has joined us and has some thoughts on active information.

I’ll cross-post his comment from the Ewert thread below.

Barry ‘Banny’ Arrington has a new, rather confused post at UD:

On Invoking Non-Physical Mental States to “Solve the Problem” of Consciousness

Many of us are banned at UD, and those who aren’t banned are in danger of having their comments purged at any moment. Let’s avoid that cesspit and respond here at TSZ, where open discussion is encouraged and Arringtonian censorship is anathema.

…tries transparent rhetorical gambit

Details here:

Uncommon Descent

Will Barry be brave enough to leave his pillow fort to discuss this?

But I say to you who are hearing, Love your enemies, do good to those hating you, bless those cursing you, and pray for those accusing you falsely; and to him smiting thee upon the cheek, give also the other, and from him taking away from thee the mantle, also the coat thou mayest not keep back. And to every one who is asking of thee, be giving; and from him who is taking away thy goods, be not asking again; and as ye wish that men may do to you, do ye also to them in like manner; and — if ye love those loving you, what grace have ye? for also the sinful love those loving them; and if ye do good to those doing good to you, what grace have ye? for also the sinful do the same; and if ye lend to those of whom ye hope to receive back, what grace have ye? for also the sinful lend to sinners — that they may receive again as much. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward will be great, and ye shall be sons of the Highest, because He is kind unto the ungracious and evil; be ye therefore merciful, as also your Father is merciful. And judge not, and ye may not be judged; condemn not, and ye may not be condemned; release, and ye shall be released. Give, and it shall be given to you; good measure, pressed, and shaken, and running over, they shall give into your bosom; for with that measure with which ye measure, it shall be measured to you again.

– Some weird dude named Jesus. No wonder they killed Him.

Because no Christian organization  has spoken out against Matt McLaughlin’s hate-filled initiative proposal “The Sodomite Suppression Act”.

It’s better known as the Kill the Gays Act. It begins with:

“The People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

Look, anyone with the $200 filing fee and access to a typewriter or computer can submit an initiative proposal, so it’s not surprising that some dangerously deranged people start the process.

What’s surprising is that no christian leader, no christian-oriented news source, no official church spokesperson that I’ve heard, has repudiated McLaughlin’s despicable proposal.

Nor can they claim that they haven’t responded to it merely because it’s too minor to make the news.  Kill the Gays has made all the major papers in the state.  It is significant enough that it might trigger the CA state legislature to overhaul (finally!) the corruptible voter-initiative system.  Also, it’s already involved in a court case with the state AG tying to pre-empt placing this clearly-unconstitutional initiative on the state ballot.

So,  Christians, why are you silent?  What would your beloved Jesus say if he witnessed you silently accepting MM’s murderous desire?

Petrushka writes:

There’s a rumor that all of aurelio smith’s posts at UD have disappeared. Big win for Winston Ewert.

I looked, and sure enough, Smith’s comments are all gone — even from his guest thread.

UD has sunk to a new low.

Is there such a thing as a fair die?

Angels Glow Bacterium
Continue reading →

Sal Cordova mentioned Pascal’s Wager on the Randi thread, and I was surprised to find that there has never been a thread on that topic here at TSZ. Hence this OP.

Pascal was a brilliant guy, but his famous Wager is an irrational mess. (Religion can have that effect on otherwise bright people.) In the comments, let’s explain the Wager’s shortcomings to Sal.

To start things off, here is Wikipedia’s statement of the argument, using Pascal’s words:

Continue reading →