This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← We asked "Do you really believe ___" and they said yes. Now what?

Mark Jones's Avatar Jump to comment 618 by Mark Jones

Comment 615 by Shrommer

My whole point about the radishes and susanlatimer's response "Who could have seen that coming?", is that if nobody could have seen that coming and the person ate something that killed them, the person was still being reasonable in eating it. This is in contrast to susanlatimer's definition of "reasonable" as only in cases where something is known to be true as the quantifiable conclusion of a test.

Reasonable doesn't equate to truth. People know that (see Hume's Indian Prince). The question is, why would you go against what is reasonable? The Indian Prince is behaving reasonably; a theist isn't, even if she's right.

The only 'reason' to go against reason is arbitrary. Why be arbitrary?

Sun, 27 May 2012 00:25:52 UTC | #943735