Arrogance = Being correct and saying so

From the Raving Atheist's comments on this entry:

Plainly, Nall wants atheists to concede that their beliefs are no better than those of the fundamentalists. In Nall's book, there is no such thing as actually "knowing" anything -- to claim so would be presumptive arrogance of some sort. It's as if he said that "doctors should realize that spiteful antics and attitudes of superiority sadly mirror the presumptive, 'all-knowing' mentality of faith healers." But doctors are perfectly entitled to do so, and to declare war on faith healing. Medicine and quackery just aren't equal, and it's more arrogant to claim that they are than to correctly claim that medicine is superior.

When I was on a radio show recently, a caller told me I was "arrogant" for disparaging religious faith as unreasonable. I asked her what she felt I should do instead. She replied that I should only offer my opinion if asked. The host then pointed out that he had asked me to come on the show.

The caller had rigged the game so much in favor of faith-based unreason that obviously I wasn't supposed to state my opinion even if invited on a radio show and asked point-blank for that opinion.

I know that many people have a natural desire to avoid confrontation. But the emperor is naked. Your choices are, roughly:

1) Believe that the naked emperor is actually wearing clothes.
2) Acknowledge to yourself that the naked emperor is naked, but stay quiet and respect the beliefs of Group #1.
3) State out loud that the naked emperor is naked.

Of course, if you don't care that the naked emperor is naked, I suppose you'd fall into Group #2. But I happen to care. I don't see how that's arrogance.

But, as TRA points out, when you're in Group #2 and you criticize Group #3 for simply stating out loud what you believe yourself, that is something approaching arrogance.