Apparently curiosity is a "vice" that must be destroyed

[Merc]

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/does-curiosity-kill-more-than-the-cat/

Behold, an opinion piece from the New York Times which advocates that which everyone in the League of Reason already knows: religion thrives on actively suppressing any and all rational thought. Enjoy this literary abortion, if you can make it all the way through it that is. I won't lie, it took me 3 separate tries to read this from start to finish. :facepalm:

 

[Squawk]

Meh, I gave up as soon as the reference to god and adam started. The writer has pre-supposed literal creation in order to make the post. Since an argument rests on its assumptions/assertions I can and indeed will ignore everything beyond that point.

Fucking idiots.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Meh, I gave up as soon as the reference to god and adam started. The writer has pre-supposed literal creation in order to make the post. Since an argument rests on its assumptions/assertions I can and indeed will ignore everything beyond that point.

Fucking idiots.

I soon as I saw who the author was, I knew what I was in for. Stanley Fish has got to be one of the dumbest motherfuckers on Earth.

 

[Nick]

Well first I must acknowledge what has already been said, that was a painful read. It's obvious what the agenda of a piece of writing like this is as it's no secret that blind faith can not flourish in the presence of scientific knowledge, which in it's self is fueled by man's curiosity. The blog is nothing more than an attempt to suppress and wage war on science, which is, lets face it all creationists ever seem to do.

It is also no secret that this is and always has been one of religion's favourite tricks. The idea behind theistic religion is always to make the follower feel small and insignificant and therefore has no right to be questioning the deity (the almighty authority figure) involved.

On the other hand, the question of can we (humans) know too much is a question which is raised very seriously by theists and non-theists alike. Examples that are popular to include are those like the science behind the Atomic-Bomb. I find myself strongly lined upon on the oppisite side of this argument, reminding people that the knowledge we have already accumulated is the key to the luxurious life styles we can all afford compared to previous generations and also the reason that we can predict that those in a few generations from us will easily afford what would seem to us an absurd level of luxury. Moreover, I think the basic mechanism of thinking we can know too much (even in the extremely religious types) is fear, only some simply experience that fear, whilst others utilise it as a tool for evil and suppression. This is obviously a case of the latter.

Does anyone care to rebut what I've said? I think this is an important matter to address.

 

[Squawk]

Nick, can you be specific about which side of the argument you are on. I don't think it is clear, or at least it is not to me. Are you arguing that humans can know too much?

 

[Nick]

Nick, can you be specific about which side of the argument you are on. I don't think it is clear, or at least it is not to me. Are you arguing that humans can know too much?

Sorry I do tend to ramble. I was saying I felt that we should embrace the aqquisition of knowledge and the only reason to not do so would be fear of the unknown. In another words, I can't forsee a situation where I would be against embracing curioustiy.

Or to be even simpler, "no, I'm not".

 

[Squawk]

Nick, can you be specific about which side of the argument you are on. I don't think it is clear, or at least it is not to me. Are you arguing that humans can know too much?

Sorry I do tend to ramble. I was saying I felt that we should embrace the aqquisition of knowledge and the only reason to not do so would be fear of the unknown. In another words, I can't forsee a situation where I would be against embracing curioustiy.

Or to be even simpler, "no, I'm not".

Good, then I agree with you.

 

[borrofburi]

curiosity is a vice and even a sin

Griffiths, who is writing a book on the vice of curiosity, sees it as a sign of moral and spiritual danger

[electronics] have turned the vice of curiosity into a prescribed way of life

unmasking curiosity as a destructive and offensive device ...

They are obsessive and obsessed and exhibit something akin to a mental disorder.

 

[QuadEight]

To regard curiosity as "vanity" goes against the grain of human progress, and more so against nature itself. That is not to say however that progress does not have its drawbacks; the drawbacks instigated mainly by those who allow their self-interest to precede them.