“我因为自己的工作经验丰富而怀疑别人的能力，大王和大师们则因为自得于自己的科学知识而怀疑别人的理性。”【疯和尚：会有没有理性的自由和民主吗？？】

你固然可以“因为自己的工作经验丰富而怀疑别人的能力”，但我们仅仅“因为自得于自己的科学知识而怀疑别人的理性”了么？我们列举的文傻们非理性的证据都被狗吃了？

“所以，无需担心自由和民主会侵害理性与科学，相反，要警惕的是以任何借口，包括科学和理性，对以他人自由为界的个人自由的限制与扼杀和对民主原则的背离。”【疯和尚：会有没有理性的自由和民主吗？？】

我们当然要担心“自由和民主会侵害理性与科学”。你去查查道金斯为什么不遗余力鼓吹militant atheism，再去查查Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0是怎么回事。

基于非理性（不讲逻辑、坚持没有证据的信仰）的自由和民主绝对不是好东西，绝对会伤害科学与理性。证据在我的文章中比比皆是。当然，如果你选择性失明，谁能奈你何？

另外，自由和民主，都是理性张扬的后果，而非原因。看下面17世纪的“理性时代”和18世纪的“启蒙时代”的wiki注释，理性的首领地位毋庸置疑。

“The Age of Enlightenment or The Enlightenment is a term used to describe a phase in Western philosophy and cultural life centered upon the eighteenth century, in which Reason was advocated as the primary source and basis of authority. Developing in Germany, France, the Netherlands and Britain, the movement spread through much of Europe, including Russia and Scandinavia. The signatories of the American Declaration of Independence, the United States Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were motivated by “Enlightenment” principles (although the English Bill of Rights predates the era).

The intellectual and philosophical developments of that age (and their impact in moral and social reform) aspired towards governmental consolidation, centralization and primacy of the nation-state, and greater rights for common people. There was also a strong attempt to supplant the authority of aristocracy and established churches in social and political life: forces that were viewed as reactionary, oppressive and superstitious.

……

The terminology Enlightenment or Age of Enlightenment does not represent a single movement or school of thought, for these philosophies were often mutually contradictory or divergent. The Enlightenment was less a set of ideas than it was a set of attitudes. At its core was a critical questioning of traditional institutions, customs, and morals. Some classifications of this period also include the late 17th century, which is typically known as the Age of Reason or Age of Rationalism.”