It struck me while reading Thucydides, that the Semite's view of 
truth was what somebody coming back from the desert or mountains 
said was the word of God.  Whereas, in the Greeks, when a leader 
like Pericles or Brasidas speaks, he begins with what is already 
well known, and pointing out related data, continues to conclude 
what the truth is.  Faith in the authority of the speaker is not 
relevant. There is the expectation that the audience is rational 
enough to understand the logic needed to support the truth.   
 
To some considerable extent, this habit of mind is still here; I 
present some collection of observations, and my rebuttal is some 
quotation from the Bible, despite the fact that I have made very 
plain that I do not count the Bible as reliable or authoritive. 
 
To some considerable extent, this resembles George Orwell's 1984 
and Goebell's methods which perhaps originated the idea that the 
lie repeated often enough will be believed.  Psychology has many 
studies of people dealing with data that contradicts a long held 
belief, and they do not do well with it.  Reason, in such a case 
as this, is fundamentally inadequate to expose the truth to most 
fundamentalist minds. 
 
To some considerable extent, people make the decision about what 
they will believe well before they are mature enough with enough 
significant data to reach a well reasoned position, and are then 
stuck with it.  The shrinks have shown that when a belief is put 
to a test with contradictory data, that most people react with a 
good deal of anxiety and even aggression... hence flamethrowers. 
___ 
 * OFFLINE 1.58 
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------