I don't know, thinking that it's preposterous that you could be wrong is itself preposterous. — The Great Whatever

Thanks for twisting my words. I don't think that it's preposterous that I could be wrong. Acknowledgment that I could be wrong is implicit in my statement, since I stated that it's highly unlikely, as opposed to impossible. I do, however, think that it's preposterous to claim that so many people, myself included, are deluded in that respect, given such strong evidence to the contrary.

I am denying that you have experiences of Stoicism solving life's problems because as a matter of fact it doesn't, regardless of what you claim. — The Great Whatever

Well, it does, as a matter of fact, in the way that I described, given all of my qualifications. I'm not sure whether or not you've taken that into account, based on the phrasing in your reply, and the general impression that you've given me. If you're looking for an absolute, perfect solution to cure us of such problems, without fault, indefinitely, then the search for a solution would be misguided from the start, as it's bound to fail. If, on the other hand, you're looking for a realistic, productive means of dealing with such problems, then Stoicism has produced good results - regardless of what you claim, as it happens.

Your denial is indeed preposterous. As preposterous as if I were to deny that you have experience of the gravity of such problems, as emphasised by Pessimism. The truth of the matter lies between the two extreme notions of, on the one hand, such problems being severe, relentless, inescapable, irresolvable; and, on the other, such problems being something that can be easily and finally solved simply with a bit of will power: 'Stop, problem, you may not do that!'.

Thanks for twisting my words. — Sapientia

I'm not twisting your words; you aren't considering what you're saying.

I do, however, think that it's preposterous to claim that so many people, myself included, are deluded in that respect, given such strong evidence to the contrary. — Sapientia

How many people believe something is irrelevant to its truth.

If, on the other hand, you're looking for a realistic, productive means of dealing with such problems, then Stoicism has produced good results - regardless of what you claim, as it happens. — Sapientia

But Stoicism is in no way realistic -- its goal is sagelike perfection and its suggestions involve no practical action. It also produces no worthwhile results, in that reading about Stoicism or trying to practice it will not actually resolve your life's major problems.

You're beating around the bush here. What specific part of Stoicism do you find does not work to solve these problems? Can you explain why Stoicism is not the answer to these problems? Can you even identify these problems to begin with? And can you identify the problems that Stoicism is even concerned with so that you make sure you aren't constructing a straw man? — darthbarracuda

Read the thread.

If you can't answer these questions without appealing to vagueness or attacks on the personal, subjective feelings of others, kindly step off the stage. — darthbarracuda

I have attacked no one's feelings; I have attacked publicly espoused positions.

I have attacked no one's feelings; I have attacked publicly espoused positions. — The Great Whatever

Positions that nobody is forcing you to accept. If Stoicism does not work for you, then it does not work for you. Discussing why this is is perfectly fine, but beating everyone over the head repeatedly with the same vague denying drivel is not argument.

Positions that nobody is forcing you to accept. If Stoicism does not work for you, then it does not work for you. Discussing why this is is perfectly fine, but beating everyone over the head repeatedly with the same vague denying drivel is not argument. — darthbarracuda

I never said anyone was forcing me to accept them. I was just pointing out that they're wrong.

But Stoicism is in no way realistic -- its goal is sagelike perfection and its suggestions involve no practical action. It also produces no worthwhile results, in that reading about Stoicism or trying to practice it will not actually resolve your life's major problems. — TheGreatWhatever

Is it not merely suggesting that its practise is worthwhile?

Seems to me the Stoic is trying to create future states (the practice of Stoicism) which are present instead of various states of pain. Whether you are counting this as a resolution of pain or merely distraction from it, I don't think it matters. Either way, any underlying problems remain (e.g. death, work, suffering). Stoicism isn't about solving any problems at all.

But then I don't think that matters to the Stoic. There goal is to do something worthwhile, do something which makes them feel good, do something which resolves/distracts from the pain for a moment or three. They aren't really interested in Stoicism solving their problems.

And not backing any of it up, might I add.

I have patiently argued cogently in good faith and good sense in the face of numerous logical fallacies employed by my interlocutors. Alas, I am not perfect, so I cannot immediately convince and satisfy everyone.

I'm not twisting your words; you aren't considering what you're saying. — The Great Whatever

You are twisting my words; you aren't considering what I'm saying.

How many people believe something is irrelevant to its truth. — The Great Whatever

Yes, and that reply is itself irrelevant, since my point was about the likelihood of a given number of people being deluded in a certain respect, and in light of strong evidence to the contrary, which isn't equivalent to your straw man: "because a given number of people believe/disbelieve something, it is therefore true/false (or even likely true/false)".

But Stoicism is in no way realistic -- its goal is sagelike perfection and its suggestions involve no practical action. It also produces no worthwhile results, in that reading about Stoicism or trying to practice it will not actually resolve your life's major problems. — The Great Whatever

Yes, that's an ideal, as I see it, and is not essential to my more moderate, stoic-like position; but working towards it, even if unachievable, can, has, and does, in at least some cases, produce real results. So, in that sense, it is a realistic (and worthwhile) means of dealing with such problems as have been mentioned.

Now, what major problems do you claim that it won't resolve? Because the Stoic-like mind-set and method of dealing with problems has certainly helped at times. It has helped me at least, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard. I'd say that stress, for example, is one of life's major problems, and I can give countless examples in which the stoic-like response has helped me to reduce or avoid the detrimental consequences of stressful situations.

tgw, you don't need to use fancy words like "cogently" and "interlocutors" to make a case. That's just pretentious sophistry...aka, bullshit. Say what you need to say, don't dress it up without any reason to.

Here's some examples taken from the previous pages that I feel exemplify how I feel you have been treating this thread:

I doubt it. — The Great Whatever

...with nothing else to say.

But this just isn't true. That would impute extraordinary powers of control over me. — The Great Whatever

Which is like the greatest non-answer. Dismissive handwaving.

I don't see any reason to believe this. Sounds like New Age crap. — The Great Whatever

Like I said previously, dismissive handwaving.

I really don't think the position that all psychological pain is self-inflicted deserves serious response. So no, I think a handwave is fine. — The Great Whatever

Like I said previously, a dismissive handwave to excuse a dismissive handwave.

Sure it can be criticized -- if the problems in fact don't get solved where they claim to be. And let's be real, Stoicism has never solved any of these problems for anyone. Anyone espousing its virtues in this very thread can reflect on that honestly and see for themselves. 'Yes, but--' no, no buts, just be honest. — The Great Whatever

wtf does this even mean. Non-answer. Once again, you are asserting without explaining that Stoicism has never solved these problems.

You can have an opinion about whatever you want, but that doesn't mean your opinion is right or even worth taking seriously. Your opinions do not have any magical powers or authority, and people's espoused beliefs most often have little or nothing to do with their lives, since the sphere of opinion is free to circulate without any grounding or credit whatsoever precisely for the reason that you say, that it permits itself ultimate authority regardless of any inconsistencies or possible evidence to the contrary. — The Great Whatever

It's this kind of pretentious bullshit that gets spread around the internet simply because of anonymity. Do you really act like this in real life? Sorry, mate, but honestly do you expect people to respect you when you are implying that their position is outrageously silly, especially when it concerns the evaluation of the value of someone else's own life?!

This thread started out alright. It went to shit pretty quickly.

since my point was about the likelihood of a given number of people being deluded in a certain respect — Sapientia

which isn't equivalent to your straw man: "because a given number of people believe/disbelieve something, it is therefore true/false (or even likely true/false)". — Sapientia

???

Yes, that's an ideal...

even if unachievable...

So, in that sense, it is a realistic (and worthwhile) means of dealing with such problems as have been mentioned. — Sapientia

Ah, but this is okay, because you are not a Stoic. You are Stoic-like.

not essential to my more moderate, stoic-like position;

It's this kind of pretentious bullshit that gets spread around the internet simply because of anonymity. Do you really act like this in real life? Sorry, mate, but honestly do you expect people to respect you when you are implying that their position is outrageously silly, especially when it concerns the evaluation of the value of someone else's own life?! — darthbarracuda

Isn't it better to be right than respected?

Your last reply to me doesn't even dignify a proper response. I guess our discussion is over.

Perhaps pessimists are just lying to themselves? Secretly they're all happy and bursting with joy, and just refusing to admit it.

Isn't it better to be right than respected? — The Great Whatever

To which I would reply that you are currently neither.

Keep in mind that I have read though this thread several times.

What issues do you have with Stoicism that make it a problematic philosophy to follow? I don't want to see your replies to other people to try to understand what your issue is with it. I need to know what your position is exactly so I know what I am arguing against.

You can't have read through the thread several times, because if you had, you wouldn't ask that question. Why do I have to repeat myself for your benefit?

You don't have to, but it'd be nice.

I don't feel like it, and given your attitude it'd be a waste of time anyway.

And what attitude might that be?

This thread started out alright. It went to shit pretty quickly. — darthbarracuda

Spot on. I thought this was going to be an insightful and inquisitive comparison between pessimism and stoicism (my first post set out to be, anyway), a topic that could have been extremely interesting - but it it quickly turned into people defending their psycho-philosophical dispositions, as per usual.

What blows my mind is how little some people understand stoicism but still think it's fine to talk about it regardless, which is of course absolutely fine, except that they then at the same time think adamantly that what they're saying is factually correct as well. What is one of the most successful philosophies in western history is being reduced to a comical caricature - it's extremely cynical and disingenuous.

One way you can tell a mature philosopher from the rest is by how respectful they are to their opponents position, by the lengths they go to to honestly present it in it's strongest and most reasonable form before they go about deconstructing it. Beating straw men isn't hard. Why anyone would think they've defeated their opponent when they've intentionally crippled them is beyond me. Without this intellectual virtue, you're not doing (good) philosophy - you're just arguing on the internet.

As for stoicism simply "not working", some of it's most important psychological insights have been used in the basis of modern approaches to psychotherapy, with positive empirical effect. The gall of claiming that you know better than rational and intelligent people regarding their experiences than they themselves do is beyond uncharitable. But no, they're just mistaken about, for example, the therapeutic affect felt after reminding themselves, when stuck in traffic and late for work, of the stoic concept of letting go of the things they cannot control. You are the one in the privileged position, sitting on the other side of the internet with your a priori arguments, of telling other people you do not know what is and is not working for them. It's really up to you what is and is not bad for other people, it doesn't matter what value judgement each individual places on the things that happen to them. You know better; you're objective - not them.

I don't usually engage in rhetoric, but it felt fit for purpose here. Stoicism can work if you make it work.

Yes, I've seen it. I made a post a few years ago about the difference between common and philosophical pessimism and Thorongil also had some good posts clarifying something similar though he uses "temperamental pessimist" vs. "philosophical pessimist".

I also think that the pessimists have an aesthetic that the world has an underlying suffering that cannot be avoided whereas Stoics seem to have this optimism that as long as they strengthen their capacity for indifference, this can be largely avoided or overcome. Stoicism goes well with therapy and self-help practices because it provides a solution-based outcome. Stoicism tries to mitigate the fact that life presents itself as a problem (problems) to overcome, and pessimists are quick to point out that life has problems to overcome in the first place and this is not a good thing. Why should people have to cope with the problem? Why be given the problem? — schopenhauer1

That's what I said.. which is pretty much what you said here.

I also said

Fair enough, and I think you made a good point that not all philosophies are going to resonate with everyone. I guess part of my post was to ask whether following Stoic principles justifies or solves the evils of life and thus supposedly renders the pessimist's evaluation moot (if one were to follow the program).

I agree with much of TGW's sentiments. I have a couple follow up questions for TGW: — schopenhauer1

The point of the thread is: does stoicism solve the problems that pessimism offers?

Julian Young wrote about Schopenhauer

It may be remembered that one of Schopenhauer's sharp-eyed criticisms of Stocism is that in teaching mere detachment from, rather than abandonment of, desire it forgets that things to which we become accustomed usually become a necessity. For this reason, he preferred the genuine poverty preached by the Stoics' predecessors, the Cynics, and regards Stoicism as a bourgeois debasement of Cynicism (WR II: 155-6; see pp 35-6 above). — Julian Young in his book Schopenhauer

Don't get me wrong, I know you had the best of intentions when starting this thread. My post wasn't aimed at you in particular, schopenhauer1, more at TGW.

JY's quote regarding Schopenhauer is interesting. But, I don't really think it's all that "sharp-eyed", to be honest. The things we become accustomed to don't, in fact, become a necessity. You'll soon realise the difference between a Necessity and a 'necessity', when you are forced to go without each of them. There are plenty of things in life we don't think we can go without, until we have to, and we realise they weren't all that important to begin with. There's been periods when I've gone without things I desire - alcohol, a hot meal, sex, friends, books, a comfortable bed, my full 8 hours a night, time to myself. At first it's challenging, but after a while you stop wanting them, and you adjust. It's like giving up smoking - eventually you don't want the nicotine. We've both employed the phenomena of hedonic adaptation against optimists, it's only fair we accept that it works against Schopenhauers argument here. That we become accustomed to something does not thereby make it a necessity, in the same sense as actual necessities. I don't doubt that this is even something a lot of non-philosopher types have come to notice through experience. We often get deprived of things we want and just get used to not having them to the point we don't want them anymore, therefore they are not 'necessities'.

Yes, I agree with you @WhiskeyWhiskers. TGW's attitude in this thread has been abysmal, and he is clearly wrong on all counts. I think it's more useful to consider the views expressed in Chekhov's Ward 6 against Stoicism by Ivan, rather than TGW's literarily non-existent "arguments".

"There is no real difference between a warm, snug study and this ward," said Andrey Yefimitch. "A man's peace and contentment do not lie outside a man, but in himself."

"What do you mean?"

"The ordinary man looks for good and evil in external things-- that is, in carriages, in studies--but a thinking man looks for it in himself."

"You should go and preach that philosophy in Greece, where it's warm and fragrant with the scent of pomegranates, but here it is not suited to the climate. With whom was it I was talking of Diogenes? Was it with you?"

"Yes, with me yesterday."

"Diogenes did not need a study or a warm habitation; it's hot there without. You can lie in your tub and eat oranges and olives. But bring him to Russia to live: he'd be begging to be let indoors in May, let alone December. He'd be doubled up with the cold."

"No. One can be insensible to cold as to every other pain. Marcus Aurelius says: 'A pain is a vivid idea of pain; make an effort of will to change that idea, dismiss it, cease to complain, and the pain will disappear.' That is true. The wise man, or simply the reflecting, thoughtful man, is distinguished precisely by his contempt for suffering; he is always contented and surprised at nothing."

"Then I am an idiot, since I suffer and am discontented and surprised at the baseness of mankind."

"You are wrong in that; if you will reflect more on the subject you will understand how insignificant is all that external world that agitates us. One must strive for the comprehension of life, and in that is true happiness."

"Comprehension . . ." repeated Ivan Dmitritch frowning. "External, internal. . . . Excuse me, but I don t understand it. I only know," he said, getting up and looking angrily at the doctor--"I only know that God has created me of warm blood and nerves, yes, indeed! If organic tissue is capable of life it must react to every stimulus. And I do! To pain I respond with tears and outcries, to baseness with indignation, to filth with loathing. To my mind, that is just what is called life. The lower the organism, the less sensitive it is, and the more feebly it reacts to stimulus; and the higher it is, the more responsively and vigorously it reacts to reality. How is it you don't know that? A doctor, and not know such trifles! To despise suffering, to be always contented, and to be surprised at nothing, one must reach this condition"--and Ivan Dmitritch pointed to the peasant who was a mass of fat--"or to harden oneself by suffering to such a point that one loses all sensibility to it-- that is, in other words, to cease to live. You must excuse me, I am not a sage or a philosopher," Ivan Dmitritch continued with irritation, "and I don't understand anything about it. I am not capable of reasoning."

"On the contrary, your reasoning is excellent."

"The Stoics, whom you are parodying, were remarkable people, but their doctrine crystallized two thousand years ago and has not advanced, and will not advance, an inch forward, since it is not practical or living. It had a success only with the minority which spends its life in savouring all sorts of theories and ruminating over them; the majority did not understand it. A doctrine which advocates indifference to wealth and to the comforts of life, and a contempt for suffering and death, is quite unintelligible to the vast majority of men, since that majority has never known wealth or the comforts of life; and to despise suffering would mean to it despising life itself, since the whole existence of man is made up of the sensations of hunger, cold, injury, and a Hamlet-like dread of death. The whole of life lies in these sensations; one may be oppressed by it, one may hate it, but one cannot despise it. Yes, so, I repeat, the doctrine of the Stoics can never have a future; from the beginning of time up to to-day you see continually increasing the struggle, the sensibility to pain, the capacity of responding to stimulus."

Ivan Dmitritch suddenly lost the thread of his thoughts, stopped, and rubbed his forehead with vexation.

"I meant to say something important, but I have lost it," he said. "What was I saying? Oh, yes! This is what I mean: one of the Stoics sold himself into slavery to redeem his neighbour, so, you see, even a Stoic did react to stimulus, since, for such a generous act as the destruction of oneself for the sake of one's neighbour, he must have had a soul capable of pity and indignation. Here in prison I have forgotten everything I have learned, or else I could have recalled something else. Take Christ, for instance: Christ responded to reality by weeping, smiling, being sorrowful and moved to wrath, even overcome by misery. He did not go to meet His sufferings with a smile, He did not despise death, but prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane that this cup might pass Him by."

Ivan Dmitritch laughed and sat down.

"Granted that a man's peace and contentment lie not outside but in himself," he said, "granted that one must despise suffering and not be surprised at anything, yet on what ground do you preach the theory? Are you a sage? A philosopher?"

"No, I am not a philosopher, but everyone ought to preach it because it is reasonable."

"No, I want to know how it is that you consider yourself competent to judge of 'comprehension,' contempt for suffering, and so on. Have you ever suffered? Have you any idea of suffering? Allow me to ask you, were you ever thrashed in your childhood?"

"No, my parents had an aversion for corporal punishment."

"My father used to flog me cruelly; my father was a harsh, sickly Government clerk with a long nose and a yellow neck. But let us talk of you. No one has laid a finger on you all your life, no one has scared you nor beaten you; you are as strong as a bull. You grew up under your father's wing and studied at his expense, and then you dropped at once into a sinecure. For more than twenty years you have lived rent free with heating, lighting, and service all provided, and had the right to work how you pleased and as much as you pleased, even to do nothing. You were naturally a flabby, lazy man, and so you have tried to arrange your life so that nothing should disturb you or make you move. You have handed over your work to the assistant and the rest of the rabble while you sit in peace and warmth, save money, read, amuse yourself with reflections, with all sorts of lofty nonsense, and" (Ivan Dmitritch looked at the doctor's red nose) "with boozing; in fact, you have seen nothing of life, you know absolutely nothing of it, and are only theoretically acquainted with reality; you despise suffering and are surprised at nothing for a very simple reason: vanity of vanities, the external and the internal, contempt for life, for suffering and for death, comprehension, true happiness--that's the philosophy that suits the Russian sluggard best. You see a peasant beating his wife, for instance. Why interfere? Let him beat her, they will both die sooner or later, anyway; and, besides, he who beats injures by his blows, not the person he is beating, but himself. To get drunk is stupid and unseemly, but if you drink you die, and if you don't drink you die. A peasant woman comes with toothache . . . well, what of it? Pain is the idea of pain, and besides 'there is no living in this world without illness; we shall all die, and so, go away, woman, don't hinder me from thinking and drinking vodka.' A young man asks advice, what he is to do, how he is to live; anyone else would think before answering, but you have got the answer ready: strive for 'comprehension' or for true happiness. And what is that fantastic 'true happiness'? There's no answer, of course. We are kept here behind barred windows, tortured, left to rot; but that is very good and reasonable, because there is no difference at all between this ward and a warm, snug study. A convenient philosophy. You can do nothing, and your conscience is clear, and you feel you are wise . . . . No, sir, it is not philosophy, it's not thinking, it's not breadth of vision, but laziness, fakirism, drowsy stupefaction. Yes," cried Ivan Dmitritch, getting angry again, "you despise suffering, but I'll be bound if you pinch your finger in the door you will howl at the top of your voice."

"And perhaps I shouldn't howl," said Andrey Yefimitch, with a gentle smile.

"Oh, I dare say! Well, if you had a stroke of paralysis, or supposing some fool or bully took advantage of his position and rank to insult you in public, and if you knew he could do it with impunity, then you would understand what it means to put people off with comprehension and true happiness."

"That's original," said Andrey Yefimitch, laughing with pleasure and rubbing his hands. "I am agreeably struck by your inclination for drawing generalizations, and the sketch of my character you have just drawn is simply brilliant. I must confess that talking to you gives me great pleasure. Well, I've listened to you, and now you must graciously listen to me." — Chekhov

Ooh, looks like a good read. I delved into Russian literature in recent years, and have read some of the other greats: Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Turgenev... but not Chekhov.

Yeah, Chekhov has some very nice books as well! After Tolstoy/Dostoyevsky he's my favourite Russian author.

Insulting someone is the last refuge of a person with no argument. It's worth reflecting on why, when upset that your position is challenged, you have no tools to defend that position, rather than attacking the one who makes those criticisms on grounds besides the argument they've made.

Of course, it's arrogant to claim a position is wrong, but not to claim that it's right (which is, in effect, to claim that another one is wrong). 'Intelligent' people believe whatever you please: it's beneath a philosopher to appeal to authority and/or popularity. I think everyone upset in this thread knows that, but on the other hand has literally no better defense.

Of course, it's arrogant to claim a position is wrong, but not to claim that it's right (which is, in effect, to claim that another one is wrong). 'Intelligent' people believe whatever you please: it's beneath a philosopher to appeal to authority and/or popularity. I think everyone upset in this thread knows that, but on the other hand has literally no better defense. — The Great Whatever

What a load of rubbish. tgw, it's not arrogant to claim a position is wrong, nor is it arrogant to claim is position is right (stop martyring yourself). This is a philosophy forum for Pete's sake. It's only arrogant, no, silly, to claim a position is wrong without any real arguments.

Insulting someone is the last refuge of a person with no argument. — The Great Whatever

So is martyrdom.

One of my favourite pieces of fiction, ironically (Y)

Insulting someone is the last refuge of a person with no argument. It's worth reflecting on why, when upset that your position is challenged, you have no tools to defend that position, rather than attacking the one who makes those criticisms on grounds besides the argument they've made.

Of course, it's arrogant to claim a position is wrong, but not to claim that it's right (which is, in effect, to claim that another one is wrong). 'Intelligent' people believe whatever you please: it's beneath a philosopher to appeal to authority and/or popularity. I think everyone upset in this thread knows that, but on the other hand has literally no better defense. — The Great Whatever

Except that it is impossible to argue with you. You do not make any claims which can be falsified by reasonable argument, you merely claim some things as facts, you never explain why they are facts to everyone else. You claim it's a fact that stoicism cannot decrease one's suffering. What's there to argue with that? You have retreated in an unassailable fortress, but you cannot touch any of us, simply because you do not have any arguments; you have no troops to allow you to move out of your fortress. You merely make claims that certain things are facts. I tell you that stoicism does help people (which is a reasonable explanation of the fact that millions claim to have been helped by stoicism), to which you respond that they are deluding themselves. Well how the fuck do you know? And who has more evidence? You have absolutely 0 evidence for your position, except a theoretical construct. There is no empirical evidence of what you say being true. And there is tons upon tons of evidence for stoicism being true: cognitive behaviour therapy, rational emotive behavior therapy, etc. Really TGW, if you claim stoicism is useless, you have no fucking clue what planet you're living on. It's not even worth arguing with you. There's nothing to argue in that. All that I can say is what Avicenna said: "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned". There is insurmountable evidence for the claim that people have at least been helped (even if not completely saved). How can I argue with you, if you do not even admit this basic fact? It's like we are five people and we all look out the window, and we say there's a tree there, and you look and say "I'm looking, there actually is no tree there. You guys need to look harder". The only thing we can do is hit you over the head and tell you to stop fucking around.

I tell you that stoicism does help people (which is a reasonable explanation of the fact that millions claim to have been helped by stoicism), to which you respond that they are deluding themselves. — Agustino

And when I brought up the likelihood of those millions of people being deluded in that respect, given evidence to the contrary, he mistakenly took that to be the fallacy of appealing to the masses. Of course, masses of people have turned out to be deluded in various respects throughout history, but we can still make a reasonable assessment given various factors: the content of the belief, the number of people that beleive it and the basis for their belief, the available evidence... If, out of millions, only a single person P believes X because of Y, it's possible that P is a genius and that the rest are mistaken, but clearly Y is compelling evidence, and lacking proof, this ought to be taken into consideration.

Needless to say, I don't think we have encountered a Copernican revolution in this discussion.

This point is relevant because it's about justification. Even if those millions of people are deluded, unless this can be demonstrated (which it hasn't been in this discussion), it's reasonable to look at what the evidence suggests, and it suggests otherwise.