>Sure. Usually, reason is used to support beliefs...
>
>A noticable and important property of such arguments is that they do
>*not* advance lines of arguement supporting the negation...
>
>Most often, these argument styles are used in conjunction; the author
>both supports her theory *and* shows how competing theories are
>unsupported...
>
>Eric
That was very clear. Now, tell me this...when you dissolve <God> what will replace it? What do you offer which is as resilient as faith? I understand Richard Dawkins quite well, and I see how for him, scientific development could fill the bill. For others, I'm sure, art will hold them fast. But for some people, especially people who don't have access to much education and are in the dire straights of life, nothing beats a little good old fashioned religion. It's a K.I.S.S. from God to those who aren't fortunate enough to be our position. It's the first word and the last word. You and I are just filling in the details in the mean time.
Can you understand this? You are force-feeding people powerful antibiotics...do you wonder why they are so ill? You do it to them. We live in symbiosis with these little inconsistencies. And with every new assault on our gut you just make us all more susceptible to more virulent and destructive strains. Just let it alone, smile and nod. Some of these little bugs are harmless, and they can digest the shit which we cannot stomach.
We can pasturize the milk of human kindness over the flames of reason. But we cannot pasturize ourselves. No one survives those ovens.
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------