To what extent should you challenge the religious?

[digital goldfish]

Am having an interesting debate on another forum about whether you should risk insulting someone religious just because you think their reality is stupid. I say yes you should, because their reality is subjective, and i for one, am merely trying to objectify it. By and large, people should be able to believe what they will, but when it starts to impact their actions, and therefore the world around them, they should be held to account, and the faults in their logic, pointed out to them..

Thoughts, feelings?...

[Bubbles]

Well, I suppose I would consider the matter this way:

I think the question is how to reconcile one's duties to truth with one's duties to be nice to other people. Of course, that raises the questions as to what one's duties to truth and one's duties to be nice actually are.

I think both of those would be considered moral/ethical issues. I would argue that morality and ethics are the application of philosophical principles to one's own conduct.

I don't know what your philosophical principles are, so I can't tell you how to apply them. I could tell you how I try to apply mine, but as those are some of the ones you are wondering about insulting. . . maybe not useful information.

As an aside, I think that here is an area where a healthy skepticism (in the classical sense) is a very good thing. If I believe that my subjective understanding of reality is in absolute conformity to objective reality I will quickly become a very unpleasant person to be around (OK, I already am, but that is more of a temperamental thing). If I am obviously right and we disagree, then you are obviously wrong and should be converted by any means nessecary (clearly, a conversion to truth from falsehood justifies the process that led to it).

If, however, I can allow that, though I think and believe, I do not know; I can see our disagreement in a different light. I can see someone else working out what is true to the best of their abilities just as I am. In that case, you and I are free to talk about matters on which we disagree; each of us will attempt to persuade the other and each of us will be willing to be persuaded. Without that, we are just two dogmatists screaming at each other (an unpleasant thing), or a screamer and a listener (a bad deal for the listener).

[digital goldfish]

A very intelligent post, and one with which i whole-heartedly agree, Bubbles. It is very very hard to maintain one's objectivity when faced with a complete lack of logic though, as many have found on these boards.

[Bubbles]

Thank you very much.

[Jessica Blue]

I dont see why a believer need feel insulted because someone may question their religion. It's not like criticising someone's race,which we cant choose. Religion is just another idea, like any other. Why should it be exempt from the same scrutiny as other ideas just because it wears a *spiritual* label? To expect your view of things never to be challenged is to demand a special privilege and is not very realistic...or healthy.

[digital goldfish]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
I dont see why a believer need feel insulted because someone may question their religion. It's not like criticising someone's race,which we cant choose. Religion is just another idea, like any other. Why should it be exempt from the same scrutiny as other ideas just because it wears a *spiritual* label? To expect your view of things never to be challenged is to demand a special privilege and is not very realistic...or healthy.

Agreed. if i asserted that the world were in fact made of cheese, then i should expect to be challenged, no matter how reasonable an idea i believed it to be. It doesn't conform to an objective reality, and therefore i should be taken to account over it. However, If i refuse to change my belief in the face of evidence provided, then it is only I who will lose out. Unless that is, i start to lobby parliament for some reason, in which case, i should be locked up!

[epepke]

Originally posted by digital goldfish
Am having an interesting debate on another forum about whether you should risk insulting someone religious just because you think their reality is stupid. I say yes you should, because their reality is subjective, and i for one, am merely trying to objectify it. By and large, people should be able to believe what they will, but when it starts to impact their actions, and therefore the world around them, they should be held to account, and the faults in their logic, pointed out to them..

Thoughts, feelings?...

It's an interesting question. This is my personal answer.

I've been exposed to a lot of ideologues at a lot of times. By defaule, I generally tend to be tolerant. The problem is when they persist.

At times, I have tried to impose graduated responses. I still do that at first. This, however, can cause a lot of problems, especially with Christians, who are well versed in trying to appear reasonable while they are lying through their teeth. Attempting to give such people the benefit of the doubt can lead to being the brunt of some really unpleasant games.

I adopt a "three strikes, you're out" principle. I let any opponent present three duplicitous or slimy tactics. I also give any opponent three opportunities to back off.

If both of these numbers go beyond three, then I let go.

[Iconoclast]

An excellent topic Goldfish, and one that I feel a lot of skeptics struggle with.

Religions seem to be held separate to other (scientifically) baseless paranormal subjects is their extrordinary popularity. It seems that religions have gained a level of respectability simply because so very many people are religious, and this sort of disturbs me.

Now, if a person holds religious views I see no problem with that, I know a lot of people who have managed to get through extremely difficult periods in their lives thanks to their belief that God was helping them, so -- like a multicoloured placebo -- religion can have real benefit even if it has no substance behind it.

However, if a person feels the need to debate me about the facts of religion, or to try to convert me to whatever their pet cult may be, then the gloves come off. If this person tries to use fact based arguments to justify a belief in God then I see that as no different to the one who attempts to use science to show that dowsing really works or that a tube of pure water is really a potent medicine.

[digital goldfish]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
An excellent topic Goldfish, and one that I feel a lot of skeptics struggle with.

Religions seem to be held separate to other (scientifically) baseless paranormal subjects is their extrordinary popularity. It seems that religions have gained a level of respectability simply because so very many people are religious, and this sort of disturbs me.

Now, if a person holds religious views I see no problem with that, I know a lot of people who have managed to get through extremely difficult periods in their lives thanks to their belief that God was helping them, so -- like a multicoloured placebo -- religion can have real benefit even if it has no substance behind it.

However, if a person feels the need to debate me about the facts of religion, or to try to convert me to whatever their pet cult may be, then the gloves come off. If this person tries to use fact based arguments to justify a belief in God then I see that as no different to the one who attempts to use science to show that dowsing really works or that a tube of pure water is really a potent medicine.

I agree that religion is of benefit to a great many people, but as you say, only in the same way as alternative therapies are. Intellectually there is little difference between these two. Both work by placebo methods, and the attributes are really quite similar. Both have intense believers, unshaken by the realities of science, neither has any basis in science, both require faith. I find it interesting that if you look around this forum, there are few people (that i've seen) that would attest to believeing in one and not the other..

Sorry, side-tracking the discussion slightly, but it does lend itself to the existence of a particular mind-set.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by digital goldfish
I agree that religion is of benefit to a great many people, but as you say, only in the same way as alternative therapies are. Intellectually there is little difference between these two. Both work by placebo methods, and the attributes are really quite similar. Both have intense believers, unshaken by the realities of science, neither has any basis in science, both require faith.Religion seems to have been given some sort of legitimacy simply because of the sheer number of people who believe in it, I can see no other reason. However, and thankfully, facts are dictatorial, not democratic.

[digital goldfish]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Religion seems to have been given some sort of legitimacy simply because of the sheer number of people who believe in it, I can see no other reason. However, and thankfully, facts are dictatorial, not democratic.

and, as the old saying goes, "if 1 million people say something stupid, it doesn't mean it's any less stupid"

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by digital goldfish
Am having an interesting debate on another forum about whether you should risk insulting someone religious just because you think their reality is stupid. I say yes you should, because their reality is subjective, and i for one, am merely trying to objectify it.
You just said: 'I think insulting someone because I think his/her reality is stupid is OK because (I think) his/her reality is stupid.' The reasoning seems circular and self-serving at best.

Who started the debate, and why?

[digital goldfish]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

You just said: 'I think insulting someone because I think his/her reality is stupid is OK because (I think) his/her reality is stupid.' The reasoning seems circular and self-serving at best.

Who started the debate, and why?

I guess I did..

It's a long story, and not worth going in to..

Am interested in having the discussion more generally though, which is why i started this thread.

[The GM]

Hey DG,

Your post caught my eye and I thought I’d comment.
If your objective is communication and the open exchange of ideas, then the surest way to close someone’s mind is to insult them. In this thread you refer to people who don’t believe as you do as being somehow intellectually inferior. Certainly this can be true, as it can also be true that you are intellectually inferior to some people who have religious leanings of some variety or another. To call someone to the carpet by essentially saying, ‘you’re dumb because you believe XYZ, when ABC is clearly the case’ smacks a bit of condescension, and no one likes to be on the receiving end of that!:)
In regards to personal responsibility, we all have to accept the consequences of our actions. The JREF forums have a lot of posts that opine if the world was populated by only atheists or agnostics, it would be a better place. The reality is that some religious people are liars, cheats and frauds. Same can be said for the other side of the fence, though. I can not ascribe to the implied belief touted by some that Atheist automatically equals ‘person of good standing’ while Theist equates to ‘ignorant buffoon’. Such stereotyping is bad for all sides because it perpetuates a communication grid lock.
Also, you need to ask yourself, why do you feel the need to ‘convert’ these religious people? Do you like it when they pull that crap on you? I may be reading too much into your post, but when you start talking about holding people ‘accountable’ for their personal beliefs, it sounds a bit like you’re now putting yourself in a judgment position. What qualifies you to self appoint that way?

Now you may be steaming by this point. It’s not my intention to piss you off, but to open an honest dialogue about what your goals and aims are in regards to ‘challenging the religious’. What are you trying to accomplish at the end of the day?
:)

[digital goldfish]

Originally posted by The GM
Hey DG,

Your post caught my eye and I thought I’d comment.
If your objective is communication and the open exchange of ideas, then the surest way to close someone’s mind is to insult them. In this thread you refer to people who don’t believe as you do as being somehow intellectually inferior. Certainly this can be true, as it can also be true that you are intellectually inferior to some people who have religious leanings of some variety or another. To call someone to the carpet by essentially saying, ‘you’re dumb because you believe XYZ, when ABC is clearly the case’ smacks a bit of condescension, and no one likes to be on the receiving end of that!:)
In regards to personal responsibility, we all have to accept the consequences of our actions. The JREF forums have a lot of posts that opine if the world was populated by only atheists or agnostics, it would be a better place. The reality is that some religious people are liars, cheats and frauds. Same can be said for the other side of the fence, though. I can not ascribe to the implied belief touted by some that Atheist automatically equals ‘person of good standing’ while Theist equates to ‘ignorant buffoon’. Such stereotyping is bad for all sides because it perpetuates a communication grid lock.
Also, you need to ask yourself, why do you feel the need to ‘convert’ these religious people? Do you like it when they pull that crap on you? I may be reading too much into your post, but when you start talking about holding people ‘accountable’ for their personal beliefs, it sounds a bit like you’re now putting yourself in a judgment position. What qualifies you to self appoint that way?

Now you may be steaming by this point. It’s not my intention to piss you off, but to open an honest dialogue about what your goals and aims are in regards to ‘challenging the religious’. What are you trying to accomplish at the end of the day?
:)

Well, it's true, i am being judgemental, and i do have something of a superiority complex. I think that a belief in God is an intellectually untenable position, and anyone who holds that belief must be intellectually poor. However, i do see both sides, and i try very hard to restrain my natural inclination to pounce on religious folk.

I too am interested in open dialogue, and it's difficult to escape Dogma, without sounding as if you are sitting on a fence. I guess what i'm interested in is how people with very strongly held views escape the tendancy to be dogmatic, without sounding like they are always playing devil's advocate, which is what i myself did for far too many years i my opinion. I think that i have perhaps now swung too far the other way, and seek guidance. :-)

[digital goldfish]

Edited: Ignore this post

[frisian]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Religion seems to have been given some sort of legitimacy simply because of the sheer number of people who believe in it, I can see no other reason. However, and thankfully, facts are dictatorial, not democratic.

Absolute facts are dictatorial? Or is "fact" based on probabilities? :)

[The GM]

Ok, I see where you’re at a bit better. I’ll offer up some random, off the cuff thoughts.
I hold some very strong views. The cardinal one is :You will not tell me how to live my life. I do it on my terms, just like you do it on your terms. As long as we’re not harming anyone, it’s all good.
The next thing that follows, naturally, is: You are no more superior than I or vice versa. You may very well have talents, skills and abilities that trump mine, but I know I have the same on you. So, even if we are complete opposites, one person is not ‘better’ than another, just different.
My third point would be: Even if I don’t agree w/ you, if you had the courtesy to hear me out, I’m going to return that courtesy. I really just see this as good manners though.
Along with that, I would say that as soon as you start slinging insults, you are now in a position of weakness. The air just went out of your argument because you have to attack the person rather than the idea. Ideas may be dumb, but that doesn’t mean the person holding the idea is. We’ve all done some incredibly stupid $#!+ in life. Some indiscretions are worse than others. You may consider religion to be an indiscretion of enormous stupidity, but the second you start assuming that the religious person is stupid, you close yourself and them off from learning anything new or of value. So you might say, ‘Hey, GM, your belief in a higher power is dumb because of XYZ and here’s the links and articles to prove it.’ I could easily fire back a number of links and bloohey! Neither of us got any farther towards understanding how each other ticks!
I was going to make this post a lot longer, but I think I’ll wrap it up by saying that you might want to take a look at your debates with religious folks as *both* a teaching AND a learning moment.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by frisian
Absolute facts are dictatorial? Or is "fact" based on probabilities? :) Oh I see, you're one of them nit-pickers aren't you. I'd assert that facts are absolute, but science can only create approximate models of these truths, a good example is Newton's laws that were a great model of bodies in motion, then Einstein came along and refined this model with Special and then General Relativity. Now others are trying to enhance this model still further with particle physics.

[edited to add:]

Which brings up another interesting point. It seems to me that people (all of us) don't like the idea of not knowing, for example not knowing how everything began, or the meaning of life. If we want to really know ABSOLUTE truths, then science cannot help us, Richard Feynman has said that he doesn't actually know anything at all, he just has a good idea of what things are probably correct. Indeed science can't ever know anything, theories are postulated, then evidence will come along that either supports the theory or completely discredits it. After some amount of time the theory may be tossed aside as flawed, or enhanced and refined, but like trying to measure EXACTLY how long a piece of string is, we can never get a definitive answer, just better and better approximations. BUT, religion DOES give us ABSOLUTE answers to a range of questions, and this is comforting to us. With religion we can say THIS is the answer and I'm 100% percent sure it's correct. Done. Finished.

So, I guess religion gives us final answers, science doesn't.

[Tony]

Originally posted by epepke

At times, I have tried to impose graduated responses. I still do that at first. This, however, can cause a lot of problems, especially with Christians, who are well versed in trying to appear reasonable while they are lying through their teeth. Attempting to give such people the benefit of the doubt can lead to being the brunt of some really unpleasant games.


Hey epepke, can you explain what you mean by this?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Oh I see, you're one of them nit-pickers aren't you. I'd assert that facts are absolute, but science can only create approximate models of these truths, a good example is Newton's laws that were a great model of bodies in motion, then Einstein came along and refined this model with Special and then General Relativity. Now others are trying to enhance this model still further with particle physics.

Approximate models of truth? If absolute is 100%, varying theories and laws are what percentage of the "absolute"?

[Ladewig]

I think that a belief in God is an intellectually untenable position, and anyone who holds that belief must be intellectually poor.

I try to be careful with this attitude. Unless one is aware of all the experiences that believer has gone through to reach a belief in God, one cannot rightly conclude that there is a lack of intellectual wealth. As Vernon often told Elvis, "Don't criticize what you don't understand, son, you never walked in that man's shoes."

Am having an interesting debate on another forum about whether you should risk insulting someone religious just because you think their reality is stupid.

If it is a cow-orker [sic] then I'll just nod and walk away. If however, I am stuck in an elevator with someone going on about "this must be God's will" then I fear I might have a strong opinion to express.

The question, I have for you is - what is your goal? I have never seen anyone's beliefs changed by a confrontation. I have seen beliefs bent by earnest dialogue. Also, consider that observers may be open-minded about these matters, but if they see an atheist "firing both barrels" at a believer, they may be swayed against you.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Ladewig

The question, I have for you is - what is your goal? I have never seen anyone's beliefs changed by a confrontation. I have seen beliefs bent by earnest dialogue. Also, consider that observers may be open-minded about these matters, but if they see an atheist "firing both barrels" at a believer, they may be swayed against you.

I agree with this. I think it goes "both" ways.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by digital goldfish
Am having an interesting debate on another forum about whether you should risk insulting someone religious just because you think their reality is stupid.

It has to do with the agenda of the religion. Christianity has an agenda - hundreds of years ago, it was to wipe other religions off the face of the earth. Today it is to convert the world to xianity.

As an atheist, it does not bother me what a Hindu thinks. His gods are manisfestations of an Ultimate God. But his gods are timeless and unhistorical.

It's the silly insistence on an historical tribal god that bothers me.

[frisian]

Originally posted by triadboy


It has to do with the agenda of the religion. Christianity has an agenda - hundreds of years ago, it was to wipe other religions off the face of the earth. Today it is to convert the world to xianity.

As an atheist, it does not bother me what a Hindu thinks. His gods are manisfestations of an Ultimate God. But his gods are timeless and unhistorical.

It's the silly insistence on an historical tribal god that bothers me.

And "atheism" has no agenda?

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by frisian
And "atheism" has no agenda? I don't think it does, atheism isn't really an ism at all. There's no unifying principles that all athiests hold, they just have no reason to believe a deity exists, apart from that they have nothing in common.

[Bubbles]

A quote from Chesterton's biography of Thomas Aquinas:

It is no good to tell an atheist that he is an atheist; or to charge
a denier of immortality with the infamy of denying it; or to imagine
that one can force an opponent to admit he is wrong, by proving
that he is wrong on somebody else's principles, but not on his own.

After the great example of St. Thomas, the principle stands, or ought always to have stood established; that we must either not argue with a man at all, or we must argue on his grounds and not ours. We may do other things instead of arguing, according to our views of what actions are morally permissible; but if we argue we must argue "On the reasons and statements of the philosophers themselves."

This is the common sense in a saying attributed to a friend
of St. Thomas, the great St. Louis, King of France, which shallow
people quote as a sample of fanaticism; the sense of which is, that I must either argue with an infidel as a real philosopher can argue, or else "thrust a sword through his body as far as it will go."

A real philosopher (even of the opposite school) will be the first
to agree that St. Louis was entirely philosophical.
__________________________________

I mention this quote, not because I am encouraging a new inquisition, but because I think it does cut at some of the problem here (albeit in a rather extremem way). We can only argue rationally insofar as we accept common claims of truth.

If person A says, "I believe what science and logic can prove, and nothing else. Anything you say to me that cannot be proven by those means I will not believe (a little extreme, but certainly a way of looking at things)" while person B says, "I believe what I read in the Bible. If science and logic don't support that, then to Hell with science and logic", then they really have nothing to talk about.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Bubbles
If person A says, "I believe what science and logic can prove, and nothing else. Anything you say to me that cannot be proven by those means I will not believe (a little extreme, but certainly a way of looking at things)" while person B says, "I believe what I read in the Bible. If science and logic don't support that, then to Hell with science and logic", then they really have nothing to talk about. Well I agree, and religion and science can and does happily coexist within the minds of many. The problems start when we get into areas like "Christian Science" where christians attempt to scientifically prove that (say) man and dinosaurs lived alongside each other, or that a man with his family really could build a wooden boat the size of an oil tanker and fill it with all the species of animal on the planet... including the dinosaurs.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
I don't think it does, atheism isn't really an ism at all. There's no unifying principles that all athiests hold, they just have no reason to believe a deity exists, apart from that they have nothing in common.

Hmmm, I think you are correct. Heck, even cats and trees are atheists, no?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Well I agree, and religion and science can and does happily coexist within the minds of many. The problems start when we get into areas like "Christian Science" where christians attempt to scientifically prove that (say) man and dinosaurs lived alongside each other, or that a man with his family really could build a wooden boat the size of an oil tanker and fill it with all the species of animal on the planet... including the dinosaurs.

Indeed, as a Christian, I find the concept of Christian Science as absurd as Christian mathematics.

;)

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Regarding the original question:

I suppose it depends on how much respect for the truth you possess. If you don't care whether much of society is based on a lie, don't bother.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Regarding the original question:

I suppose it depends on how much respect for the truth you possess. If you don't care whether much of society is based on a lie, don't bother.

Which lie/lies?

You aren't asserting that religions postulate the only lies?

Respect for which truth? THE TRUTH? Please do pontificate on your relative interpretation of THE TRUTH.

[BoulderHead`]

To what extent should you challenge the religious?
Hopefully, no further than the point at which violence might ensue, the rest is left for the individual to decide.

[frisian]

Originally posted by BoulderHead`

Hopefully, no further than the point at which violence might ensue, the rest is left for the individual to decide.

Ah, but what if the deterministic natural world has decided for you that you should resort to violence, and you don't have a choice?

:(

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
... or that a man with his family really could build a wooden boat the size of an oil tanker and fill it with all the species of animal on the planet... including the dinosaurs.

Not even that long! If I remember right - the Ark was 450 feet long. That's the length of a nuclear submarine!

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by frisian
Ah, but what if the deterministic natural world has decided for you that you should resort to violence, and you don't have a choice? You don't get it. You're part of the deterministic natural world. That was your choice.

[BoulderHead`]

Originally posted by frisian
Ah, but what if the deterministic natural world has decided for you that you should resort to violence, and you don't have a choice?:(
If an act of criminal violence takes place (irregardless of the type of world we may be living in), I fear the “authorities” may not have little choice, either.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
You don't get it. You're part of the deterministic natural world. That was your choice.

Well skip the 'a priori', because you have yet to prove that it is "I" that chose anything.

[frisian]

Originally posted by BoulderHead`

If an act of criminal violence takes place (irregardless of the type of world we may be living in), I fear the “authorities” may not have little choice, either.

Oh, in the circle of determinism?

[BoulderHead`]

Originally posted by frisian


Oh, in the circle of determinism?
Irrelevant , as best as I can 'determine'. ;)

[frisian]

Originally posted by BoulderHead`

Irrelevant , as best as I can 'determine'. ;)

Assuming "it" doesn't determine, rather than you.

;)

[BoulderHead`]

Originally posted by frisian


Assuming "it" doesn't determine, rather than you.

;)
No assumption along the course you're navigating really necessary to generate a prediction on what might happen to the perpetrator.

What you seem fond of alluding to I see as something fit for an entirely separate thread. Perhaps you’ve already begun such a topic and could provide me with a link where we could debate, or where I could sit back, read, and enjoy myself ?

[Lithrael]

Originally posted by frisian


Indeed, as a Christian, I find the concept of Christian Science as absurd as Christian mathematics.

;)

This is what really blindsided me and brought me to reading this forum, by the way. An old friend IM'd me first explaining how the Quran was scientifically inaccurate and wrong and went on to list how the Bible was correct on many of the same points. I asked if this was going where I suspected - Biblical literalism - and she said yes, every word in the Bible is correct and supported by science. I very halfheartedly debated this and basically said I couldn't talk about that sort of thing without taking a lot of time to research and thankfully she hasn't really tried to bring it up again. Because I have no idea how to respond to it. There's nothing I could look up that she couldn't, and she's smart, so she must have already decided to dismiss such arguments. I still have absolutely no idea what to do except to continue to avoid the subject. It totally sucks. It makes me feel like I'm talking to an alien.

[SunTsu]

Originally posted by digital goldfish
Am having an interesting debate on another forum about whether you should risk insulting someone religious just because you think their reality is stupid. I say yes you should, because their reality is subjective, and i for one, am merely trying to objectify it. By and large, people should be able to believe what they will, but when it starts to impact their actions, and therefore the world around them, they should be held to account, and the faults in their logic, pointed out to them..

Thoughts, feelings?...

Hi DG

I guess I'm a but of a chicken. I just let them go, ignoring most of the things that don't make sense. I figure my views are my own, forged through years of thought, questions, observations and sometimes uncomfortable reasoning, which is something many of these religious pushers really lack in the final analysis.

Their ideas simply are too little for me, and my ideas too unacceptable to them, so for the sake of peaceful co-existence I simply let them know I agree to disagree. I would like to say I can respect their views, but truthfully I can only tolerate them, so again I keep it to myself. Mind you sometimes I have to leave the room because of the impulse to laugh loudly (or cry!).

I have a friend of mine who attempted the same idea as your friend, wanting to tell me all about his scholarly comparison between the Bible and the Koran. I simply changed the subject asking the score of one of the football teams playing. He got the message and we concentrated on watching the game instead.

Whilst I agree with what you say that their reality may well be subjective and stupid, nothing you can say will change their views and they'll only be less tolerant of you for trying. Reminded me of a quote by Issac Azimov, which I can't fully recall, but goes along the lines of "christian soldiers marching along...impervious to the feeble lance of mere reason.."(My paraphrasing of the great writer).:D