 It seems rather alarming that Cotta the avowed sceptic should tell us that he accepts positions on authority rather than through reason and imply that he (unlike Balbus) is no philosopher. One has some sympathy with Balbus’ riposte that, if Cotta is already convinced that the gods exist, why should he want anything from him? (3.7). Of course, Cotta as a proponent of scepticism is prepared to use the weapons of reason against a philosopher. But one suspects that there is more to his disclaimers than a sly false modesty designed to provoke Balbus. We might think that appeal to authority is, in the religious case, very much to the point.