When people ask me what my problem with religion is, one answer is not enough

[Thu Thu Train]

Any VN's attending MCD University of Divinity in 2012 ?   

I'm teaching Introductory to Bullshit there!

[nacho]

It is not an outright rejection of reason, per se; religion can string premises together in a valid manner, but the gripes most hold is that it lacks any content in its premises. For instance, to make the claim that god is omnipotent and lets the terrible malaise of atrocities and diseases pester the human race seems ineffably cruel. These premises seem so intuitively erroneous, to any perceiving human being, it cannot act as a prominent model to structure society in a humane manner or as a solid foundation for ethics.

The majority of religious believers are holding onto premises that are formally, by the consensus of academics and the most learned of subjects (however dubiously we want to treat the scientific disciplines), to be absolute bunkum. To assert an agent took it upon itself to allow all entities to exist and handpicked the transmission of blatantly defective alleles as an act of benevolence should bring up some qualms about the soundness of these premises. You want to come to the conclusion a deity exists and is benevolent (which you can do by the tool of logic) and then look around at the world you live in. Each permutation of most monotheistic faiths is an attempt at an absolute normative model that threatens people who live in a dynamic reality. It abandons well-supported, rigorously tested and reputable information from being incorporated into people's moral considerations because it proves contrary to the incantations of some addle nomads from Mesopotamia.

The antitheist movement has not been waged against spirituality by all its proponents; for example, Sam Harris practices many rituals associated to Eastern faith and argues that emotional awareness, or spirituality, is a part of the neurobiology of humans. Additionally, people like the vociferous Christopher Hitchens claims that we have this form of need of meaning and value and it can be define as spirituality; however, Richard Dawkins remains seemingly sceptical of such a proposition. Firstly, you are attacking the antitheist movements as being grounded on flaunting or championing reason. This is true in the sense that it believes an empirical dissection of reality leaves the question of an intelligent agent creating all entities to be, at best, deistic (if some form of deity exists, he is indifferent or uncaring; this is in staunch opposition to the omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent concoction many extoll). Secondly, many antitheists are aware that violence and the like is inherently a part of the psychology of man; we are apes of sorts with a bigger cerebral cortex and have the ability to keep our history of bloodshed. However, the argument is that the absolutist nature of the model monotheistic faiths preach, is that it subverts reputable consideration of reality by science, denies the origins of man or the biodiversity of the planet and totes a very distinctly controversial substance dualism in regards to an afterlife – this afterlife subordinates the only defensibly existent life we live now; see Nietzsche’s amor fati argument. 

The status of science is an interesting topic. We can tell by Kuhn’s model that it takes a crisis and the weakening of a theory by ad hoc or auxiliary theories to be a sign for the scientific community to re-evaluate the presuppositions of their disciplines. This is all true. Scientific theories are tentative theses; they are there to coincide with the revelation of more details by findings. I do not think science has a telos (an ultimate goal) that is “truth”; I think it seeks to be a problem-solver and to help humanity develop. This is a very evolutionary view of science, which accommodates the possible falsity of all models of science (something religion does not do with their models). Many therefore reject religion because it stunts this problem solving; think of the example of stem cell research and also think about how difficult fundamentalist lobbies protest abortion and try and argue living entities devoid of preference fit into a preference utilitarian model (they assume fertilized eggs want to be alive and assume foetuses want to be born, despite the fact they lack capacity for such at a certain stage of development with re: to foetuses). However, we have to listen to spiels about the sanctity of life as people die from potentially curable diseases, people who fit into the utilitarian preference model our legal system seems to be based on with regards to rights.

I would also like to state that I am not wishing anything against religious folk or even condemning their morality in entirety. I just wish to clarify some of the rationale behind the rejection of religion and why it seems so lacking in coinciding with the evolution of information that science seems to be fulfilling. It also allows for some atrocities to be committed that may not have been committed if this information was considered and the absolutist zeitgeist of nomads from the past abandoned for something a little bit more avant gadre than adamic sin, serpentine meddling and wonderfully repressive views of sexuality.

you raise some very valid points there

[enwiabe]

Any VN's attending MCD University of Divinity in 2012 ?   

I'm teaching Introductory to Bullshit there!

Will you then be taking "Intro to Grammar"?

[Thu Thu Train]

Any VN's attending MCD University of Divinity in 2012 ?   

I'm teaching Introductory to Bullshit there!

Will you then be taking "Intro to Grammar"?

No! That's why I'm transferring to Arts!

[nisha]

Your Just looking at what religion has caused over history, Being religious does not always cause problems. In many religions those who are religious teaches them peace & honestly as well as controling their anger, but also aswell as accepting other religions. If you havn't noticed the religious people are always the calm ones, despite what religion their from christianity,  islam or buddhism.

Ultimately, it is not the religion, but the misinterpretation by ignorant individuals on what the meanings of their scriptures are and what to learn from them.

I agree, that the EXTREMISTS are terrible, and give religion, a bad name. But in the end, it is them, the extremists. Not the religion. Religion, in each culture has lasted thousands upon thousands of years, and it is only now that people become fundamentalists, and take words, and then twist it to their liking.

[Russ]

The entire "science isn't proving things" post was completely irrelevant. Yeah, Popper and Kuhn and Lakatos did their crap with respect to the model of scientific learning but the only time the entire falsification vs. proof thing is relevant is when you're specifically discussing the evolution of scientific theory and how we support it. Literally every time scientists explain things to the lay public they lie to them. Not maliciously, but because if they didn't then it would be substantially harder to explain stuff. The average citizen doesn't have a degree, so you have to dumb things down and make them more accessible. The last time the scientific community tried to be honest about not "proving" something but merely "not disproving" it, people died (MMR controversy, google it).

So, yeah, scientists know that they can't prove things. But saying "we have not disproved it to the nth level of significance" is just a pain and in many cases is completely synonymous with proving it. Also, the flaws in the scientific theory are again irrelevant to a discussion of evidence in this thread. I feel that you're just splitting hairs and posting that because you studied it this year.

[kensan]

I love watching videos where Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins are debating against religion, so much ownage haha

I don't get why people base their lives off a sacred book written thousands of years ago. I just assume it's because they were fed that information since they were a child. I went to a church service one time (for a school project), and in one segment they got all the kids to form a circle around the pastor and he was reading verses out of the bible that were complete BS! And after that they were given colouring kits (brainwashing and bribing lol).
I just don't like how religion goes and teaches all their "facts" about the world that science has already proved wrong. Science is willing to say "ok we made a mistake, lets find/try/do another way."
"Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions." - Frater Ravus


I don't hate religious people, but I do have a problem with religion.

[ShortBlackChick]

I dont really know where to begin, but I dont think religion is the cause of all of society's fuckups. Religion is just a factor in what causes conflicts in the world. It gives people an excuse to use religious fundamentality as a cause for their extremist views that arise from cultural reasons or mental dislocation from reality. I think people get greedy for what they dont have regardless of the repercussions their actions bring on others. I dont think its religion thats fucking up humanity. Its Humanity fucking up Humanity. And I think there are millions of religious and atheist people who are nomal, rational and amazing beings whose good deeds far outweigh the malicious and merciless side of society in terms of significance.

Religion is something that you can base your life on, as a guide on how to be a decent person, and its up to people to decide how they will perceive and translate the teachings presented to them through the use of their own morality and character. I think this is where people begin to use religion to pursue their own beliefs and sense or morality irregardless of the true teachings and meanings of their religion.

I'm a Buddhist and I went to a Catholic School for 2 years, and not once did anyone- the students, the teachers, or the school itself, try to impose its beliefs on me and try to convert me. During R.E we discussed topics of controversial nature like abortion, use of contraceptives, and gay rights, and everyone was allowed to have a say and had their beliefs treated with respect and acknowledgement despite it sometimes being against the teachings of the Bible and the Catholic Church and despite my school for being known as a Cult in terms of religious feverence. Some of the practices of Catholicism I didnt quite agree with, but I didnt need to voice my opinions on that because people of that faith were doing it for me! I even did a presentation in R.E comparing Christianity and Buddhism and the whole class, my teacher and a Sister listened quite attentively (it wasnt that great, google has great resources for comparing religions to plagiarize from) I think thats just evidence that people of different religions and views can have a peaceful co-existence with religious tolerance.

All religions, at its core, I believe, are similar. See The Ten Commandments of Christianity and the Five Precepts of Buddhism (I violated Number 4 about 3 times in this post) Its just that they all have different ways of worship and implementation and that people have different interpretations of the teachings.

[ninwa]

@Aurelian, very intelligent friend read your post and would like to reply.
> indicates a quote from you

> They are all philosophers – the champions of reason.

Ah... hahahahahahahaha... hahahahahaha!

Fallacious appeal to authority, proof by example, and "innocence by association" on weak grounds. That some smart people have believed an idea tells us nothing unless unless we know the sufficient reason reason they had to do so. Also, just citing a few examples doesn't tell us anything about the whole. In fact we see only 16% ([1] http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Philosophy+faculty+or+PhD&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse) of philosophers with PhD's are theists. "Christianity" embodies a number of ideas, citing Descartes does us no greater favor than citing Koresh and just because there have been intellectual Christians at one point does not excuse the anti-intellectual Christians of today.

Furthermore, in some contexts Descartes did reject logic as he argued that God can do logically impossible things ([2] http://www.jstor.org/pss/40231381)

> To claim that all religious thought is a “rejection of logic and reason” is blatantly false.

To build logically from an illogical or unverified thought or premise is still a rejection of logic and reason.

> (although the latter gets nearer to the mark, provided you feel the numbers properly)

I... what? Is he feeling the numbers with his *penis*, and building his wanking numeracy?

> But this point I will not try and explain more properly, as it is by its nature largely unexplainable.

If something is unexplainable, it is nonsense worth rejecting.

> For now I will even be generous and grant the validity of sense experience and epistemological empiricism (though such generosity is unwarranted)

This argument is absolute nonsense and it annoys me to no end. If anyone has ever, anywhere, found another valid system to live by then by all means have them raise their fucking hand. If not, please shut up and keep pretending your nostril is actually a whale. We have a duty to ourselves and others to act as if our best understanding of reality is in fact congruent with reality, while constantly seeking to improve it. There is overwhelming reason to believe that reality is as it appears to be, and none to believe that it is not. By abstracting the standard of proof backwards into unfalsifiable impossibility, you serve no one, not even yourself, and accomplish nothing.

Incidentally, I'm pretty damn certain that science is in fact not guilty of such ridiculous fallacy. Its purpose is to build a working predictive model of the laws the universe operates by. If you see a great deal of cats, and no other four-legged animals, and it is relevant to you to know what the next four-legged animal you see will be, it is reasonable to assume that the next four-legged animal you see will be a cat. If it is not a cat, you *revise the model*. This is not fallacious, it is how we must practically and pragmatically operate. It is reasonable to be certain of things while admitting the possibility that you may be incorrect, and not ignoring the facts if you do in fact turn out to be. Otherwise we would never take a step, unless we fell into the ceiling.

> Falsification also has its problems but ceebs until it actually comes up.

Are we even speaking english?

> Quite the contrary, I’d say that in some areas the religious mode of thought is far more reasonable than science,

And you'd be lying.

> Militant atheism is just as dangerous and just as dogmatic and fudamentalist religion.

It is not dogmatic to reject dogma. This is the most ridiculous of false equivalencies, driven by a need to feel superior to everyone, as outlined in good old xkcd #774.  We are, in fact, champions of reason and will continue to assert such until you start reasoning better than we do rather than shouting empty criticisms. It is practical to quantify the world, and we have every reason to believe that the world can be quantifiable based on the success of our efforts to do so thus far, and no reason to believe that it cannot.

> You believe that science holds that answers to all when it does not, and can never answer essential questions about the human condition.

Pray tell, what answers does science not potentially hold? It is important to remember that our current body of understanding and knowledge, generated by the scientific method, is not equivalent with what science *can* answer. There is what science has answered, and what science hasn't answered yet. Please present what evidence you have that suggests there are meaningful questions outside of these two categories. Furthermore, what 'essential questions' do you refer to? Or is it that you are merely making empty accusations, rather than presenting a cogent argument?

> Unfortunately, however, such militant atheists are rarely able to see the error of their ways. Just like fundamentalists, they can generally never be persuaded; they are simply to blind, too dogmatic.

That would be because you haven't fucking pointed out any error, or even made any real argument. If you want to persuade us, *try being fucking persuasive.* The blind and the sighted are equally poor at seeing things beyond the visible realm.

> But I argue that this kind of militant atheism is not much better.

No you don't, you state it.

> Critical thinking is wonderful - but this is just not it.

Try explaining why.

> the essence of religious thought is utterly essential to humanity. If man is does not embrace, he is doomed.

Pray tell, how are you championing reason with this statement? Do you have anything to back it up whatsoever, or are you merely feeling the numbers?

Also, basically, he doesn't quite understand mathematics, or its sub-discipline of logic.

• A => B (A, therefore B) is not the same as B => A (B, therefore A)
• He confuses this with A <=> B (A is equivalent to B)

He needs to read up on the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions.

edit: an addition

> Wherever you attept to “confirm” a hypothesis you are committing just > this.
> If A then B. B, therefore A.

This is not how one confirms a hypothesis. A better way to formulate a hypothesis is as a proposition P, which, assuming certain conditions are met, has as a logical consequence the statement
    if A then B.
Preferably, it has other consequences, such as
    A if and only if C,
    if D then E.
To confirm the hypothesis, you test these consequences. If the consequences above statements hold in every observation satisfying the conditions of P, and no contradictory results have been observed, then the hypothesis is considered, at least provisionally, as true.

When evidence which contradicts P is observed, then P is either discarded, or reformulated as a similar yet distinct hypothesis P*.

If there is a second hypothesis, Q, which has equal evidence as P but contradicts P, then neither P nor Q are considered to be true until more evidence can be collected.

[EvangelionZeta]

Sigh...

Fallacious appeal to authority, proof by example, and "innocence by association" on weak grounds. That some smart people have believed an idea tells us nothing unless unless we know the sufficient reason reason they had to do so. Also, just citing a few examples doesn't tell us anything about the whole. In fact we see only 16% ([1] http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=Philosophy+faculty+or+PhD&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=coarse) of philosophers with PhD's are theists. "Christianity" embodies a number of ideas, citing Descartes does us no greater favor than citing Koresh and just because there have been intellectual Christians at one point does not excuse the anti-intellectual Christians of today.

Aurelian's point is more about how you can be extremely rational and still hold a strong view-point for God.  If you'd actually read Descartes, he offers a rational (yes, 100% logic-based) proof for God which is kind of odd, but surprisingly difficult to pick apart.  Look it up on the Stanford encyclopedia if you really want. 

Furthermore, in some contexts Descartes did reject logic as he argued that God can do logically impossible things ([2] http://www.jstor.org/pss/40231381)

I love how the very first page (hell, the abstract) of the article you cite states the article is actually arguing for why Descartes didn't actually believe in a logically impossible God...

If something is unexplainable, it is nonsense worth rejecting.

Explain logic, same challenge I offered Dan.  Linguists (Linguistic philosophers?) will tell you also that explanation is in itself often not exactly a certainty - after all, what are words but a series of signifiers?  Can we actually provide a 100% certain definition of anything, using simply language?  Food for thought.

To build logically from an illogical or unverified thought or premise is still a rejection of logic and reason.

Most scientific claims taken for granted aren't verified in an absolute sense, they're just very likely true.  Scientists will admit this.  But then what intuitively seems very likely true is something which differs from person to person - what do you say to this?

This argument is absolute nonsense and it annoys me to no end. If anyone has ever, anywhere, found another valid system to live by then by all means have them raise their fucking hand. If not, please shut up and keep pretending your nostril is actually a whale.

See: Buddhism.  Hell, see pretty much every single philosophical (and I don't mean this in terms of wank philosophy, I mean accessible stuff like 'existentialism') ever.  None of this necessarily relies on science, although science is often useful, perhaps.

Incidentally, I'm pretty damn certain that science is in fact not guilty of such ridiculous fallacy. Its purpose is to build a working predictive model of the laws the universe operates by. If you see a great deal of cats, and no other four-legged animals, and it is relevant to you to know what the next four-legged animal you see will be, it is reasonable to assume that the next four-legged animal you see will be a cat. If it is not a cat, you *revise the model*. This is not fallacious, it is how we must practically and pragmatically operate. It is reasonable to be certain of things while admitting the possibility that you may be incorrect, and not ignoring the facts if you do in fact turn out to be. Otherwise we would never take a step, unless we fell into the ceiling.

Nobody is saying that science doesn't give us a decent predictive model.  Pretty much anyone who's argued against Induction so far has talked more about how it isn't entirely logic-based, but instead, requires a certain leap of faith (even if it's a leap of faith which most are willing to accept, and which is probably reasonable to accept).

I... what? Is he feeling the numbers with his *penis*, and building his wanking numeracy?

Are we even speaking english?

And you'd be lying.

Real mature.

Pray tell, what answers does science not potentially hold? It is important to remember that our current body of understanding and knowledge, generated by the scientific method, is not equivalent with what science *can* answer. There is what science has answered, and what science hasn't answered yet. Please present what evidence you have that suggests there are meaningful questions outside of these two categories. Furthermore, what 'essential questions' do you refer to? Or is it that you are merely making empty accusations, rather than presenting a cogent argument?

I know that a lot of you are existentialists - how do we explain that through scientific analysis alone?  I add this to the "explain plz" list.

---

Not going to touch the symbolic logic stuff at the end unless somebody points me directly to where it's relevant, I'm on limited internet access and don't have time to read through it and examine it in relation to the rest of the thread.

I will say right now that I don't necessarily agree with everything Aurelian says.  I don't think he's justified everything he's asserted - however, as he's stated numerous amounts of times, he's happy to do so if you just PM him (for the record I've seen some of his philosophy explanation, it's literally thousands of words, so no wonder he cbf). 

I'll add something in a second but I'm about to run out of net.  Enjoy.

EDIT: Ok back on net.  Pixon, tisara and gossamer say hi.

Basically, I'd just like to agree with everyone at this point that there's no further purpose to this topic.  I've said to ninwa and a host of others before, I think these sorts of discussions really just come down to emotional responses, or perhaps even just dispositions/personalities.  Really, everything that's been said just seems to be a defense of one's way of seeing the world - 'humanities-esque' people seem to prefer possibilities and the abstract, whilst 'science-esque' people seem to be more concerned with the tangible.  For instance, I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of militant atheists are scientists, or that a lot of novelists are religious.

tl;dr and conclusion, we're not going to achieve anything for the most part because we can't really change how people are.  Cool story, let's go eat some pie. 

[Aurelian]

Sigh...

Ah... hahahahahahahaha... hahahahahaha!

I... what? Is he feeling the numbers with his *penis*, and building his wanking numeracy?

If anyone has ever, anywhere, found another valid system to live by then by all means have them raise their fucking hand. If not, please shut up and keep pretending your nostril is actually a whale.

Are we even speaking english?

And you'd be lying.

That would be because you haven't fucking pointed out any error, or even made any real argument. If you want to persuade us, *try being fucking persuasive.*

I am sorry... but when someone behaving like this, how can you expect any reasonable discussion? I'm not sure who this "very intelligent" friend of yours is, but intelligence aside, he's really just plain rude. Also he unnecessarily says fuck a lot...

Also, as EZ has pointed out, your very intelligent friend needs to learn how to cite - when you cite something, you generally cite something which isn't arguing against your point.

This argument is absolute nonsense and it annoys me to no end. If anyone has ever, anywhere, found another valid system to live by then by all means have them raise their fucking hand. If not, please shut up and keep pretending your nostril is actually a whale. We have a duty to ourselves and others to act as if our best understanding of reality is in fact congruent with reality, while constantly seeking to improve it. ... By abstracting the standard of proof backwards into unfalsifiable impossibility, you serve no one, not even yourself, and accomplish nothing.

I am not arguing about what is or is not the best system to "live by", I am arguing about which one provides the truth. I am not caring about whether one "accomplishes" anything pragmatically, I am caring about whether they see things clearly. I am not denying science, as a pragmatic provider of reliable and provisional understanding is brilliant at allowing us to make predictions, or to progress technologically - I am merely questioning how you can say it provides certainty...

There is overwhelming reason to believe that reality is as it appears to be, and none to believe that it is not.

There is overwhelming reason? What would that be...?

If you see a great deal of cats, and no other four-legged animals, and it is relevant to you to know what the next four-legged animal you see will be, it is reasonable to assume that the next four-legged animal you see will be a cat. If it is not a cat, you *revise the model*. This is not fallacious, it is how we must practically and pragmatically operate. It is reasonable to be certain of things while admitting the possibility that you may be incorrect, and not ignoring the facts if you do in fact turn out to be.

To the things in bold - why? Why is it reasonable?

Pray tell, what answers does science not potentially hold?

If you can give me a full and adequate account of the first person element of consciousness (i.e. qualia) using neuroscience, or whatever other science you would like, I will be amazed and revere you as a god.

Also, basically, he doesn't quite understand mathematics, or its sub-discipline of logic.
A => B (A, therefore B) is not the same as B => A (B, therefore A)
He confuses this with A <=> B (A is equivalent to B)
He needs to read up on the difference between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions.

It would also be nice if your very intelligent friend had actually bothered to read what I said properly... This is precisely what I was not doing.

This is not how one confirms a hypothesis. A better way to formulate a hypothesis is as a proposition P, which, assuming certain conditions are met, has as a logical consequence the statement
    if A then B.
Preferably, it has other consequences, such as
    A if and only if C,
    if D then E.
To confirm the hypothesis, you test these consequences. If the consequences above statements hold in every observation satisfying the conditions of P, and no contradictory results have been observed, then the hypothesis is considered, at least provisionally, as true.

When evidence which contradicts P is observed, then P is either discarded, or reformulated as a similar yet distinct hypothesis P*.

If there is a second hypothesis, Q, which has equal evidence as P but contradicts P, then neither P nor Q are considered to be true until more evidence can be collected.

Thank you for restating my own argument, only in a more convoluted fashion, and not addressing the problems with it which I outlined...

I really hope I'm not so weak as to post again. I was meant to not post any more after my last post, but I succumbed. I have had a rule for 3 years now that I would never debate any religious matter on an internet forum. Suffice to say I now remember why. This thread is pointless, it was always going to be pointless, and there is little point in continuing it. If anyone honestly wants to continue this discussion, in a polite and reasonable fashion - that is, without insulting me every five seconds - then please message me.

ninwa, this thread was ready to die - you didn't need to revive it by bringing the opinions of your asshole friend into the mix. Your "very intelligent" asshole friend.

[Jdog]

yeah, ninwa's "very intelligent" friend didn't come across as such with his/her post. But i guess, he's following enwiabe's inability to argue in any reasonable and mature way.

[kamil9876]

Ramanujan was a great mathematician of the 20th century. He often came up with theorems which amazed his atheist colleagues, when they asked him how he came up with it he said that one of his Hindu God's told him in his dreams, much to their frustration. His best friend and mentor who brought him to England, G.H Hardy, was a proud atheist and he even once made the following his new year resolutions: "get a century in cricket, provide a convincing argument that God doesn't exist". He claims that Ramanujan was his greatest contribution to Mathematics. I'm pretty sure he would prefer a brilliant, theist Ramanujan, rather than an atheistic dull one. That's why I like to respect other people. I'm pretty sure atheist Milan fans don't mind this.

[JellyDonut]

j to the d-o-g

[Mech]

I read the posts. I am understanding both Aurelian's and Nina's position (not so much in the words of her friend). Aurealian is stating that the tentative theses of science, although pragmatically valuable, do not rely on absolute logical certainty. This is true; science can make correlations, and philosophers like Hume would argue that we cannot be certain about anything (the problem of induction, for anyone mildly accustomed to philosophical jargon). However, I think Nina's (and others) qualms stem from the content of premises as I have stated earlier. Many conceptions of god seemly blatantly incongruent with our phenomenal reality; a benevolent god does not seem to fit into the pain and suffering many experience. But, as you, Aurelian, have said, just as Descartes' "Meditations", our senses are questionable. I think we can all admit this, that our minds are open to suggestion and inference and by no means reliable in every instance. This is why we have closed systems of explanation, such as logic, to check the consistency of our thoughts. There is no absolute certainty, just a very likely thesis. Aurelian is quite obviously not defending bigotry or other inanities of the Church or any other institution, but stating that we have senses that are fallible and are not the provider of "truth" - whatever such a term means to Aurelian, I am not certain (interested to hear). Aurelian is not a pragmatist by his posts, and is interested in "truth" and not practical models of solutions (which he concedes are problem-solver systems that have pragmatic worth)! My gripe before was that I think religion halts this problem-solving in some instances and nothing more. Religious people use reason, just with not the most likely premises in some instances (in terms of scientific findings). Additionally, we need not confound religiosity and spirituality; many antitheists, as I stated earlier, do believe spirituality is a necessary thing.

So, yes, maybe I should have not typed this - and I am sorry if it turns into more lambasting between members of the board -, but I thought it necessary to perhaps reiterate.