Sparsh

Continuing our exploration of the blind faith, this part of essay will focus on Denialism. First part of the trilogy was on Prohibition . Generally, Denialism is taken as choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth. It is much more than that. Denialism is not simply the knee-jerk refusal to accept the truth; it is a deliberate and often sophisticated attempt to create a kind of pseudo scholarship. Attacks on scientific consensus employ the simulacra of scholarship and a deceptively readable idiom. Those who debunk the deniers tend to be old-fashioned rationalists or committed activists. Neither group are particularly well suited to looking at the deeper reasons behind denialism, warns Keith Kahn-Harris. We can better read about denialism in this essay Unreasonable Doubt in much precise analytical way. Just quoting one paragraph here - But one of the most serious failings of a rational, scientific enlightenment is its propensity to be turned against itself,...

Liberty will not descend to a people; a people must raise themselves to liberty. It is a privilege that must be earned before it can be enjoyed. It's a quote by a 19th century English cleric and writer, Charles Caleb Colton, which can be found in his 1820 publication "Lacon, or Many Things in Few Words, addressed to those who think". When a state becomes involved in any cultural or physical warfare, the identities of people began to change in the public. New symbols have to be waved loud and pertaining to exhibitionism. There is always persecution of people with different opinion that party high command found is seen in every communist nation. Ethnically targeted state repression in Balkan countries where Slovak, Czech, Muslims, Serbs Croats and Roma people are targeting each other based on demographic strength. While the worse form comes in the military dictatorship where authority exploit the majority for their like in Burma and North Korea. There is nothing to compa...

Why "moderate" Muslims almost never admit that Muslim terrorists are doing acts of terror in placing their supreme faith in the Islam ? I will explain this with a fallacy what is called the “ No true Scotsman ” fallacy, a fallacy of equivocation and question begging. Here it is, from Thinking about Thinking (1975), by Andrew Flew: Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again.” Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.” When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denyin...