Cat casserole: why are we outraged that people eat cats?

A scandal has erupted in Italy over a famous chef’s suggestion that people should eat cat meat because it tastes good.

Well, well, well…

The 77-year-old chef, Beppe Bigazzi (OK – I could not make up a funnier name if I tried…. the jokes about cats and cat lovers ‘Bepping’ his ‘Big-Azz-i’ pracally write themselves) used his show to give out a recipe for a cat casserole.  He advised that the skinned cat ought to be soaked in spring water for 3 days, to ensure the meat is tender….and that it tastes even better than rabbit!

As a person with a pet rabbit, I’d tan his hide for that crack about rabbits, but…

Mr. Bigazzi went on to  say that it is hypocritical for people to eat some meat, then turn around and criticize people who eat dog or cat meat.  He claims that ‘cat’ is a traditional Italian dish, which he himself has eaten many times, and that it is delicious!

He may have some point: cats have, historically, been eaten in Italy and considered a delicious white meat.  But now, eating cat is illegal in Italy and Mr. Bigazzi’s big mouth-y got him into a lot of hot water….there is even talk of criminal investigation of his eating habits as a result of his comments – which he now claims were ‘a joke’.

OK – I can see that ‘eating pets’ thing happening in times of famine.  Our rules for what is acceptable and not tend to be ‘stretched’ when we see our kids starving.  But, I also know of people who would eat cat and dog meat when they had other choices:  the cultural taboo made it that much more appealing to them.

So, are we hypocrites?

Is eating cat or dog meat the same as eating beef or chicken?  Are we hypocrites if we indulge in one while condemning those who partake of the other?

This question goes much deeper than many people give it credit.  It is very closely tied to things I’ve been ranting about, on and off – like, say, that various cultures interpret the concept of ‘murder’ quite differently.   Something very similar is at the heart of this, too.

It’s about ’empathy’ and ‘drawing lines’…

As much as we think of ourselves as gentle, caring creatures, our empathy is not limitless.  The more affluent we are, the more empathy we can afford to have.  That is the nature of empathy – and that the nature of humanity!

We can only empathize with someone or something if we can, in some way, on some level, identify with them.

Actually, this is something which comes up with the whole ‘Aspergers’ thing, too.  That is when I first started to think about the nature of empathy…

Some doctors – and some books ‘out there’ by ‘experts’ claim that Aspies are not empathetic.  This could not be further from the truth!  Aspies ARE empathetic.  They just do not think that empathy is warranted in the same instances that neurotypicals (non-Aspies) do!

Plus, most Aspies find it  embarassing  when others display empathy towards us, so, we usually attempt to suppress any show of empathy on our part, in order not to add to the other person’s discomfort.  Still,the more important thing here is that Aspies will often feel empathy when neurotypicals do not think it warranted, but do not see any reason to feel empathy in many instances where people around them expect an overt show of it.

So – why do we feel empathy, and when?

When I wrote about the different interpretations of  the concept of ‘murder’ (we consider ‘killing of another human being’ to be ‘murder’, while some cultures do not consider the killing of an unfamiliar human to be ‘murder’ – but killing a familiar animal that shares their dwelling is considered ‘murder’), our reaction depends on where we draw ‘the defining line’ of  ‘expectation of non-aggression’.  In other words, just about every culture considers ‘murder’ to be killing someone or something which has an expectation of protection or non-aggression from the one doing the killing.  If that expectation of ‘safety’ is not there, it is ‘killing’, not ‘murder’.

Similarly, when we take animals into our homes and them an expectation of safety/non-aggression from us, we have now drawn the line of ’empathy’ with them solidly on ‘our’ side of the dividing line.  They share our homes and we identify with them.  Therefore, we have empathy for them.

That is the big difference between a ‘pet animal’ and a ‘food animal’.  And that is why it is not hypocritical to eat the meat of a ‘food animal’ while being upset that someone would eat  a ‘pet animal’.

A really good example of this are rabbits….

My parents grew up in a culture where rabbits were 100% in the ‘food animal’ category.  When we got my son a pet rabbit, they were scandalized!   They thought it wrong to keep a rabbit in the same rooms as we live in!  It was just ‘wrong’!

Of course, they have come to accept him.  Sort of.  They still seem shocked to see him play with their dogs as if he were a dog himself…

But it was hard for them!

When growing up, of course, they saw many rabbits.  And, as kids tend to be, they were attracted to them – rabbits, especially baby rabbits –  are uber cute!  But, because these were `food’, there were strict prohibitions against ‘playing with them’ and turning the rabbits into pets:   having to eat one’s pet is traumatic!

Here, in North America, rabbits are ‘mostly’ in the ‘pet animal’ category. My kids are scandalized at the idea of eating rabbits!

And rightly so!

Because it does not matter what the species of the animal is:  if it is in the ‘pet animal’ category somewhere deep in our brain, we identify with it as our companion (or potential companion) and we  ought to be scandalized at the thought of it being slaughtered and turned into a piece of meat!

Unfortunately, ‘food animals’ (and ‘food plants’ are on the ‘ far side’ of our ’empathy line’.  They have to be.  We can take steps to only purchase food from places where food animals had a good life and were treated with the least amount of cruelty possible at the end:  small farmers where you can see the living conditions yourself, and so on.  These days, so many people have this as their priority, it is easier to do than many people think.  Do the least amount of harm – that is the best we can do for now.

This does not make us hypocrites:  until we have Star Trek style food synthesizers,  we cannot afford to move that ’empathy’ line to embrace all living things!

Pat Condell: when the truth is illegal….

Laura Rosen Cohen: Freedom will set us free

Blazing Catfur has a guest-post by Laura Rosen Cohen:  Freedom will set us free.  This is a response to the ‘official Jewry’ calls for increased censorship as they fight a war long won, instead of facing an enemy ready for a new and bloody battle:

“Time after time, when Jewish “leaders” resort to their default position on hate speech and fatuous accusations of anti-Semitism, I am called upon by my exasperated pro-Israel gentile friends to explain why these “leaders” seem so hell bent on alienating them with their knee-jerk anti-Christian biases and their frankly completely un-Jewish moral support of censorship-such as the Canadian Jewish Congress’s support of the CHRC “Hate Speech” and other “Hate Crime” legislation.”

“The real danger facing the Jewish people, and the civilized world is not Nazi words-it is deeds; beheadings, suicide bombings and highjackings with the umbrella name of “jihad”. Furthermore, it is morally and intellectually dishonest to point to insulting words as the root cause of the Nazi dehumanization of Jews.

It was the disassembling of Jewish civil liberties and civil rights that began the downward spin toward hell on earth. The descent began when Jews were stripped by the state of their rights to own property and businesses. Their physical property and humanity were legally expropriated. When the state took away the Jews’ freedom to marry whom they chose, and when the state legally defined the Jews as less than human, the descent was unstoppable.”

“The Nazi state and its laws enabled the dehumanization of Jews-not words and insults. Concentrated, dictatorial legislative powers were Hitler’s best weapon and were among the Nazis most profoundly and rapidly absorbed anti-Jewish functions within German society.

Read the full post here.

And – Ms. Rosen Cohen – well said!

Winning back our liberty: the ‘religious right’ threat

Just read Ezra Levant’s ‘Christmas column’.  It sums up the problem rather well…

It has taken me a long time to write this post, because I just can’t seem to get the proper wording.

But, there is no easy way of saying this…

The ‘conservative movement’ or ‘right wing’ includes what is referred to as ‘the religious right’.

I am not referring to people who are conservative, but just happen to be religious.  Not at all.  Rather, I am referring to the people who see themselves as ‘conservatives’ because they have what they consider to be ‘conservative social values’.  But, their social values are not so much ‘conservative’ as ‘old-fashioned’, or, even better description would be ‘religiously motivated’.

There is no problem with holding these views – even though they mistakenly think them to be ‘conservative’.  Where the problem comes is that many of these people wish to impose these so-called ‘conservative’ values on all of our society:  they think that in order to be a ‘conservative’ a person must subscribe to their brand of religious ‘morality’.

To much of this  ‘religious right’, ‘freedom of religion’ appears to mean replacing the religious oppression of every member of the society by another religious faction by the religious oppression of every member of the society according to their own religious dogma.   All else they call ‘moral relativism’

And, they say this as if it were a bad thing!

Legislating one religious group’s morality to rule everybody is not freedom!

Which, I rather thought, is the whole point of separating the State from the Church (or Synagogue, or Mosque, or whatever other temple may wish to influence the State).

In a free society, the citizens must not permit anyone to legislate morality or to turn religious prejudices into laws which rule the land!

Most of you have doubtlessly heard a variation of this statement:

“Our Western values of freedom of speech and religion are deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition and it was time we became true to our roots!”

This statement is so ludicrous, I do not know where to start…or even if I need to…to debunk it!

It is in the scientific revolution that our society has its roots!

It is through the rejection of Judeo-Christian principles that we have gained freedom of speech and freedom of religion!

In ancient Greece, thinkers and philosophers (‘yellow horses’ included) reasoned out that so much of what was happening around them – and which was attributed to deities – was no more and no less than natural phenomena.  This freed their thinking of the blind desire to be servants to invisible, intangible deities.  Their now unfettered minds were free to reason – truly reason – about their surroundings.  This led to new advances in science and technology, raising everyone’s standard of living.

The beginning of the end of this era of free thought was ‘the conversion of Constantine’ to Christianity.  The event that marked the final end, the ‘death blow’ to the religious tolerance which people then took for granted, the demise of the very ancient Greek civilization, was the brutal murder of Hypatia of Alexandria.

Hypatia grew up in the famed Library of Alexandria, as her father, Theon, the astronomer and mathematician,was the second last curator of the library.  She became the last (if one is to take Carl Sagan’s word for it).

Famous for her breadth and depth of knowledge and wisdom beyond her years, Hypatia was a much sought after teacher, astronomer, philosopher and mathematician in her own right. Historical records indisputably demonstrate that she headed up the Neoplatonic school of Philosophy at the main site of the Alexandrian Library, the Museum (named for the Muses).  She was highly respected – even by Christians, many of whom attended her lectures.

St. Cyril, the Christian Bishop of Alexandria at that time, was attempting to fuse the power of the state with religion – with himself in full charge of ruling Alexandria.  Famously – and illegally – his mob of ‘monks’ leveled all the synagogues of Alexandria and expelled the Jews.  He destroyed the churches of Christian sects he deemed too moderate.  But, he did not forget the ‘pagans’!

Cyril declared that ‘learning and intellectual pursuits’ kept people form ‘religious fervor’ and therefore had to be destroyed.  His predecessor (and uncle) had started, by burning thousands of scrolls which recorded scientific knowledge.  Cyril continued.

And, he could not suffer the popular symbol of Greek learning and wisdom, Hypatia, to live.

A mob of Christians, led by St. Cyril’s right-hand henchman, Peter,  dragged Hypatia from her carriage/chariot and stripped her naked, dragged her through the streets, into a Christian Church, placed her on the altar and scraped her flesh off her bones with sharp oyster shells.  They then set her on fire, in an attempt to disguise the crime…

The end of the ancient Greek period of enlightenment ended when Christians took the reigns of secular power in the Roman empire, burned and destroyed libraries, and imposed ‘Christian morality’ on all the land!

Yes, this ascension of Christianity into a position of power brought us – what was it?  Ah, yes, the Dark Ages.

And when science began to re-emerge in our society, when Copernicus made his observations, what did the Christian culture respond with?   What was the most widely printed and circulated (aside from the Bible) book Christiandom produced then?  Ah, that wonderful treatise on religious tolerance and love between all humans:  Malleus Maleficarum!

It had excellent instructions on opening inter-faith dialogues!

Are these the Judeo-Christian principles in which our modern freedoms are rooted?

Is this what we want to return to?

Because that is what theocracies inevitably degenerate into!

If you listen to the ‘religious right’, that would seem to be the plan….except that they truly seem to think this is ‘freedom’.

That is why I think that so many people do not wish to be associated with ‘the right wing’:  very few people wish to be lumped together with the people who wish to impose their religious ‘morals’ onto the whole society.

The worst thing is that our society is, slowly but incrementally, submitting to Islamic religious ‘morals’ – and this push is coming from the ‘left’, under the guise of ‘tolerance’.  Which it is not.  Again, I do not understand how so many people can have such a large blind spot.

Fighting imposition of Islamic ‘morals’ on our society by attempting to impose Christian ‘morals’ on us instead is not the way to win back our freedom!

If we do not recognize that, we are doomed…

Thank you for all your excellent comments!

First, I would like to thank all of you who come here, read and comment.

Some of the comment-threads that develop are very interesting and I usually not just enjoy them, but I also learn from them.  A lot.  Thank you.

The comments on my recent post ‘Are Canadian cops following illegal orders?’ are a good example of the comments I mean.  CodeSlinger even went out and researched the laws, and, using specific references answered that in one of the instances I raised, the cops were indeed upholding the laws, and acting correctly.

Then, Lieutenant Calculus and CodeSlinger got into an excellent discussion on the nature and origin of human rights.  Now, I know I have posted this video before, but, I think it is relevant to this thread and I like it, and this is an excellent excuse to re-post it.

From STOPandLOOK,  here is ‘The Nature and Origin of Human Rights’:

(The video is part 1 of a series.  Here are part 2 – ‘Group Supremacy‘, part 3 – ‘Coercion vs Freedom’, part 4 – Equality and Inequality under law and part 5 – ‘Proper Role of Government’ …  That last part is having trouble with the audio, therefore I recommend two longer videos which contain all that ‘part 5’ does, but in greater detail: ‘The Truth About Big Government part 1’ and ‘The Truth About Big Government part 2’. )

While I have mentioned only CodeSlinger and Lieutenant Calculus by name here – and I do thank them for their comments, this is because I was responding to their specific comment thread and it does not mean I do not appreciate all the other most excellent comments from each and every one of you.  I do!  And, I thank you all!

What an interesting post by Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.!

There is very little my commentary could add to this most interesting post!

Systematic Misrepresentation of the Science of Disasters and Climate Change

It was written in June 2009 – long before the infamous CRU emails were published by a whistle-blower. The tone, the exact wording, the  systematic presentation of evidence of the flaws in the IPCC review process and why it is broken.

I had come across it while following a link from his current post about the IPCC knowingly misrepresenting the whole Himalayan glacier melting…

He describes a pattern that is more disturbing than many observers realize:  instead of re-butting, debunking or answering much of the most serious, scientifically supported criticisms directed at the IPCC reports (all of them), the IPCC simply ignores them. Refuses to acknowledge that the criticism was even made….and, since there is no ‘noise’, nobody reports on it….and nobody ever learns of the criticism.  That’s what we get for drawing our journalists from the among ‘social sciences’ majors!

But, back to the Himalayan glacier story: the IPCC’s ‘consensus of the world’s scientists’ that the ‘Himalayan glaciers would melt by the year 2035’ – and which was blindly accepted and repeated by the media – was based on a journalist’s mis-quotation of a scientist, published in a news paper…not a study, not a scientific paper, not peer-reviewed, not published in a scientific journal….  Just a single mis-quotation of a single scientist, by a single reporter, in a non-scientific publication….

What is worse, Dr. Pielke Jr. points out, the error was reported within the frame of the IPCC review, prior to publication, by scientists who were IPCC reviewers,  but it was not corrected.  It was just ignored.  And, despite this, the IPCC’s lead scientist, Dr. Ragendra Pachauri (reportedly soon to beat out Al Gore to become the world’s first ‘carbon-cap-trading billionaire’), vigorously defended the ‘Himalayan glacier melt’ claim as ‘scientific consensus’ even recently….

Dr. Pielke Jr. correctly points out:  either Dr. Pachauri knew about this mistake, or he did not.  Given the evidence Dr. Pirlke Jr. presents, it is hard to say which is worse…

Update:  fixed a broken link – thanks.

UPDATE:  MORE ON THIS FROM ‘THE REFERENCE FRAME’, AND DR. ROGER PIELKE JR.’S BLOG HERE, HERE the IPCC statement….and from Watts Up With That.the skeptical blogosphere is abuzz…

Who’s helping Haiti

The earthquake in Haiti is a terrible tragedy…

It made me angry when I saw some deranged fanatics from several ‘leading’ religions had used it to further their religious propaganda:  Christian, Muslim (sorry – can’t find the link right now…) and AGW Warm-monger alike.  It just goes to show that the religious fundamentalists are pretty much alike, regardless of the specific religion:  whatever happens, they see is as proof that their particular set of beliefs is the absolute truth!

Nuts aside, it is great to see that ‘regular people’ are responding to the tragedy and helping.

Regardless of anything else, when something this bad happens, people from all over the world send help – and so it should be.

So, who is helping Haiti, and how much?

I came across this interesting chart on Dvorak Uncensored:

Interesting, isn’t it?

Pat Condell: ‘Thank God for Andy Choudary’

Pat Condell raises some important points…

One thing he mentions is ‘Halal meat‘.

For a while, I have been trying to compose a post about this….but have been having a lot of trouble (I have a lot of trouble with things where there is serious cruelty to animals).  So, let me just urge you to read up about what the whole ‘Halal’ thing is about on your own.  I can’t even do links – sorry – it just bothers me to see this stuff so much…

While you do, I would like to ask you to pay attention to two separate ways in which ‘Halal food’ production will impact our society.

First and foremost is the cruelty with which animals must be slaughtered in order to be considered ‘Halal’.  This is obvious.

So, when choosing restaurants and fast food outlets, I always make sure to avoid ‘Halal certified’ places.  And, if you find the place you are in is serving ‘Halal’ meat, and you choose to walk out, please, tell them why.

Or, perhaps, if enough people ask  Peta, they might organize a ‘Halal-awareness Campaign’!  They’d be very good at it!

And, perhaps they would reveal just how ‘stealthily’ this ‘Halal-compliant’ food is entering our food chain.  Because some of the multinational food corporations are ‘standardizing’ their practices:  often, this means slaughtering all animals in compliance with ‘Halal’ rules, but only labeling the bits for their Muslim customers as such.  And, especially many school cafeterias are purchasing ‘Halal-only’ meat, in order to cater to the needs of their Muslim students.  (In other words, they are taking ‘Halal’ as the ‘common denominator’ and serving it to everyone!)

The other thing to keep in mind while reading up on ‘Halal’ food is just how incompatible the requirements to keep food ‘Halal’ are with the laws of our society!

For example, a non-Muslim may not be trusted to keep any food ‘Halal’ – and  must not be believed that any food they handled retains its ‘Halal’ status  (unless a ‘trusted, moral Muslim’ supervises their every move) .

Regardless of how closely the technique of  ‘Halal slaughter’ is adhered to, it may only be performed by a ‘moral Muslim’, or a Christian or Jew under close and direct and close supervision of a ‘moral Muslim’.

And, this continues throughout the food-preparation and delivery process.

In other words, a person’s employment is determined by their religious faith!

An employer is forced to hire preferably Muslims only, or, in a pinch, also Christians or Jews – as long as their supervisor is a Muslim…. and absolutely no non-Muslim supervisors are allowed!  As for anyone who does not follow one of the three Abrahamic faiths – they are not permitted to touch or handle the food, ever.  Sorry, Sikhs, Buddhists, non-believers or anyone else!  No work for you in the food industry!

But, an employer is not permitted, by law, to discriminate in their hiring or promotion practices based on a person’s religious beliefs!  Isn’t that right up there, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Therefore, by the very fact that they are certified ‘Halal’, these places of employment are openly admitting that they are breaking the laws of our land!  That they are actively committing religious discrimination in their hiring practices!

If only we had some some sort of a Commission that would be able to  look into this….

Support ‘One Law for All and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain’

If you’ll be in London, UK, on the 28th of January, 2010, you might be interested in this (this is an email I received):

Hello,

As you know, working against Sharia and religious laws, or coming out publicly as an ex-Muslim to break the taboo that comes with renouncing religion (an act punishable by death under Sharia) is not easy in this day and age. We’ve managed to do quite a good job nonetheless, thanks in large part to the support of people like you. But there is much more to be done and we can’t do it without your financial support, however small.

If you haven’t already done so, one way you can support the work of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and One Law for All is to join the January 28 fundraiser dinner, which is only two weeks away. Tickets are still available so if you’re in London or can get here, please do try and come to the event. It is a good opportunity to support our important work whilst also enjoying a three-course dinner in an intimate environment.

The event’s keynote speaker will be AC Grayling, the renowned philosopher, author, writer, reviewer, and broadcaster. Comedian Nick Doody, Singer/Songwriter David Fisher and Magician Neil Edwards will also be there to entertain our guests.

To purchase a ticket(s) at £45.00 per person, you can either post a cheque made payable to One Law for All or CEMB to BM Box 2387, London WC1N 3XX or pay via Paypal: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/donate.html or Worldpay: http://ex-muslim.org.uk/indexDonate.html. If you’re paying by cheque, please make sure you email us so we know to reserve a place for you.

If you can’t come to the event but would like to support us nonetheless, please send in a donation so we can cover the cost of the activities we have planned for 2010. These include a March 8 seminar on legal and legislative ways to get rid of Sharia and religious laws in Britain; an art gallery show in spring; a June 20 rally against Sharia and political Islam and in support of people resisting it everywhere; a December conference on apostasy and Sharia law and much more…

We hope to see you at the fundraiser event or hear from you about how you can help us with the important work that lies ahead.

Thank you for your continued support.

Best wishes,

Maryam

Maryam Namazie
Spokesperson
One Law for All and Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain
BM Box 2387
London WC1N 3XX, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 7719166731
onelawforall@gmail.com
http://www.onelawforall.org.uk
http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk

Musings on the existence of God – and of Richard Dawkins

A few days ago, Walker Morrow had a fun, humorous bit : Is there evidence for the existence of Richard Dawkins?

In it is embeded  this link to a video (scroll down a little) which, in what I am told is a humorous manner, mocks Dawkins’s way of questioning the existence of God to question the existence of Richard Dawkins himself!

The flippant answer would be, of course, that I’ve seen a YouTube video where Thunderf00t interviews Richard Dawkins, and, when I see a video of Thunderf00t interviewing ‘God’, I’ll believe in ‘God’, too!

But, of course, my real answer is a little wordier….and weirder!

I do not know that Richard Dawkins exists!

And, making that realization is essential!

OK – perhaps this is the Aspie in me, or perhaps it is the scientist in me – or, some combination thereof.  But, by the time I was 13 (I grew up behind the Iron Curtain, so I had no access to philosophical or theological writing of any kind – this was just my simple, peasant-brain reasoning), I realized that I could not objectively prove that I myself exist!

My original formulation was very clumsy and I have not really refined the wording much, just shortened it a bit (OK – a lot) :

  1. The only way we learn about/observe/get data from our surroundings is via our senses.
  2. Our senses are demonstrably subjective (I could demonstrate this to myself, as my right eye perceives colours quite differently than my left eye does…but only just  before the onset of a migraine headache.  So, I concluded that our senses necessarily colour (pun intended)  our perceptions, making them definitely ‘not objective’.)
  3. Since the only information reaching ‘us’ about our surroundings is subjective (through the senses), it can be manipulated and we cannot make any objective conclusions based on it…like, say, to assert that any self-awareness we think we perceive is ‘our own’.

OK – so the argument is a bit ‘rough-around-the-edges’, but, you get the gist of it.

Some people think this is pointless prattle –  nothing but what Scott Adams would have called ‘mental masturbation’…

I beg to disagree!

Before a scientists makes any observation, she/he calibrates the instruments to be used.  This is important, because it sets the ‘baseline’ against which any results can be evaluated:  how good were the instruments, the accuracy of any measurements, the error margins, and all that.  If, for example, a thermometer measures temperature to the nearest degree, it will not reliably show variations of one-thousandth of a degree, and so on.

Similarly, if we are aware that all our perceptions are subjective and that we cannot even prove that ‘we’ are the bit we think of as our ‘self’, that we cannot objectively prove anything ‘absolutely’, not even our own existence as we perceive ourselves to be, it ‘calibrates’ our credulousness of what we perceive – so to speak!

Thus, if we are ‘objective’ in our reasoning, we are forced to admit that we  lack the capacity to ‘accept anything as absolute truth’ – or, if you will, as a tenet of faith.   To do so regardless would be irresponsible, to say the least.

Therefore, I ‘do not believe that Richard Dawkins exists’, any more than I ‘believe that I exist’!

It is essential that we understand that this ‘calibration’ does not mean that I can assume any such foolish thing as ‘I do not exist’ or ‘I do not need to behave as if I exist’ – not in the least.  The absence of belief in something does not imply the belief in the non-existence of it!   That is an important distinction – one too often lost on people not trained in logic.

It simply alerts me that everything has an ‘error margin’ and that nothing ought to be accepted ‘absolutely’, without reservations, without an implied error-margin.

Perhaps this is the manifesto of the ever-questioning skeptic….  Still, it prevents me (and many others like me) from being able to just ‘believe’ things, to have ‘religious faith’ – of any kind.