You claim that "if you want morals, then you have to include religion." but you provide no logical backing for this grand statement. You ask "But whose ethics and morality?" Adding religion to the mix does not help you figure out "whose ethics and morality". Each religion and each denomination of religion will give differing views of morality.
You try to make a plea to authority by bringing the "founding fathers" into the discussion. Fortunately we have made great moral progress since their times. Do you realize that women have only had the right to vote for less than less 100 years in America? WOW. This is contrary to the line of morale thinking in 1 Corinthians Chapter 14, "As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." Thank goodness we have transcended religious morality in favor of a more righteous and intuitively humanistic one. These types of examples are near endless.
It's true that some things one can't help but be ambivalent about. Intellectual honesty demands that we see both sides of the abortion, euthenasia, capital punishment, and health care debates (etc...). But we don't consult ancient books full of superstition to get towards a better world. We get there through the hard-fought extrapolation of compassion and love.
Great post. I agree with your points for the most part, though I do think the "there's not enough time to teach religion" point is valid to a degree. I guess what we are arguing is where in the middle ground things actually fall. Do you teach people about Christianity strictly by discussing their traditions and the history of their actions or do you study the New and Old Testaments thoroughly? For me, the details of this discussion matter, because I can agree with your point that it is practically important to understand other cultures and beliefs, but I think it is an atrocious use of tax money and a misleading waste of time to spend more than minimal time on each of the (theoretically) infinite number of religions.
Why should we have classes on religions? Discussing ethics and morality is obviously of paramount importance, while adding dogma to this discourse is not. Should there be entire classes on Scientology and ancient religions or just the ones you personally think contain validity? The graveyard of dead deities we call mythology are gods and religions that people once took as seriously as you do in your religion. It is 2010. The majority of intelligent people are just being polite and trying to not to hurt religious peoples' feelings at this point.
Creationism is far from science. It is 2010. Must we propagate this religious insanity any further by being polite? All the sane people need to keep standing up and being heard in all forums available. Be strong and confident.
We need scientists analyzing data from space and designing lab experiments, not because they are superior human beings, but because they are well-informed and contained in their jurisdiction. Likewise, anyone making a decision that affects global economics, should be well-informed about global economics. The same goes with alternative energy and the need for scientists/engineers to be tightly knitted into the decision making process of this realm.
For the record, I do not consider myself informed enough to make almost any of the necessarily scrutable decisions we are tasked to make as a society. Utilizing our people's strengths is wise. Making uninformed people powerful, the opposite.
We need scientists analyzing data from space and designing lab experiments, not because they are superior human beings, but because they are well-informed and contained in their jurisdiction. Likewise, anyone making a decision that affects global economics, should be well-informed about global economics. The same goes with alternative energy and the need for scientists/engineers to be tightly knitted into the decision making process of this realm.
For the record, I do not consider myself informed enough to make almost any of the necessarily scrutable decisions we are tasked to make as a society. Utilizing our people's strengths is wise. Making uninformed people powerful is unwise.
I mostly agree, but local positions can vary unnacceptably. People of all sorts of dogma take over areas and try to handle their local "issues". There needs to be accounting for local variation and their needs/desires, but overarching, fair rules need to be handed down through the monolith that we call government.
How do we make sure the monolith is moral and fair to all? We need smart people making decisions. We need as much transparency as possible. The internet helps with transparency, but the plethora of info creates a burdensomely low signal to noise ratio. There are too many charlatans and agenda-driven salesmen telling us what the news is. What is the solution? Having smart, well-informed people make the important, big decisions. How do we make that happen?
Feats like the Mars Rovers show us that our space-engineering prowess is not only continuing to mature, but indeed getting quite robust. From this one mission alone, how much have we learned about vehicle design for dealing with the Martian environment?
And with yesterday's announcement of the creation of synthetic life, we are obviously on the edge of new breath-taking scientific ability. When will we be able to start creating custom bacteria to begin terra-forming mars? I know there is no way to predict the future, but the potential for change in our life-times is mind-blowing. As an anxious futurist, all I can say is "Go technology go!"
I disagree strongly. I think we need a more open approach to genetic data-mining. People should be cautious with their private information, but we have a ridiculous amount of progress to be had in the world of understanding our genetics. Giving, ostensibly, a knee-jerk reaction to any sort of use of genetic understanding and widespread data collaboration is the opposite of help.
Privacy is important. Voluntary sharing is important as well.
My grandmother slowly died of Alzheimer's and it could not have been a sadder thing to witness. Bias fully admitted, I can't help but say... Alzheimer's is the 7th leading cause of death and it afflicts 19% of people aged 75-84 and over 40% of people over 84. If we care about our elders and we care about the shoes we will one day fill, we should all help raise awareness and put our spare money and time to good use.
The toll of Alzheimer's on America is estimated at about $100 billion per year. If only we could convince Congress of the simple truth, that this sort of basic research will completely pay for itself in the long run and do wonders for humanity. Unfortunately, we can't depend on someone else to pay for this knowledge and progress. We must all pitch in what we can and help keep this sort of research as well funded as possible.
www.alz.org is a great organization if you have money to donate. Or you can easily start a "Memory Walk" team to go out for a charity walk to raise money and awareness. Plus, can't we all use a good excuse to enjoy a nice day in the sun and have fun with friends and family?
To try to find connections between the Bible and modern government is ludicrous. Take this moment and read a random page out of Leviticus. Try not to laugh out of discomfort. Old Testament not your thing? The New Testament never condemns slavery and actually tells you how to keep slaves. The South was on the winning side of the theological argument for slavery.
Furthermore, to quote Sam Harris... "I've read the books. God is not a moderate. There's no place in the books where God says, 'You know, when you get to the New World and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books.'"
Why do people still believe in Christianity? It is 2010. Must we propagate this insanity any further? All the sane people need to keep standing up and being heard.
I have climbed through their jungle gym and I must say it is quite scary. You definitely feel right on the edge of safe. Yet it stands out like no other "museum" I've been to. As such, it is quite provocative and truly unique, but contains minimal content and only satiates perhaps an hour of curiosity.
I like this quote from Sam Harris... "I've read the books. God is not a moderate. There's no place in the books where God says, 'You know, when you get to the New World and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books.'"
Why do people still believe in Christianity? It is 2010. Must we propagate this insanity any further?
Just because there is a continuum does not mean that we cannot figure out a reasonable point to draw the ethical line. Your premises are (1) that engineers are involved in building stuff and (2) that stuff can hurt people. Your premises are valid. The logic you use to make your argument is not.
You might use the same style of argument to say that, when hitting babies, it is too hard to draw a line because some people are ok with it and some people are not and that there is a continuum of softly holding them to beating them to a pulp.
Still, you could in fact be right that engineers are without responsibility for how their products are used, but this is not clear from the logic you employed.
Despite it being 2010, it remains popular to attack science and medicine as though they do not have a significant mastery of reality or how the body works. Achievements like this demonstrate that the human body is not only understandable, but that it can be highly manipulated and changed with life-changing degrees of success.
For all the people who claim that our medical knowledge is seriously lacking or fraught with error, this fly's in your face. Prepare for an onslaught of biomedical advances that will change everything we know about health and longevity. While the human body may seem to work like black magic, perhaps like an infinitely complex analog circuit, advances in understanding are steadily being made. There are real achievers in these domains and they are standing on the shoulders of giants, accruing the tools to solve any physiological problem.
If only everyone would employ basic logic and skepticism, and not be scared to talk about it, dogma could become a part of our history and naturally remove itself from the mainstream.
Children could actually receive the honest answers to the difficult questions in life.
Really... why follow a religion with all of its inconsistencies and human manipulation? You shouldn't. It is 2010 and none of the popular religions can even begin to serve as a useful algorithm with regard to moral decisions we routinely face (much less can these religions aid in the world of epistemology and they blatantly fail in the world of cosmology).
As far as morality goes, it may truly be as simple as The Beatles put it: "All you need is love." Yet this is no simple task and everyone must reconcile the value of other's wellbeing and happiness within the context of their own ambition.
"For one human being to love another; that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation."
"Militant atheist Sam Harris, according to "The End of Faith" apparently wants to see humanity exterminated, religious and atheist alike, rather than allow religion to continue to exist, which comes over as "nutjob" to me."
This is a lie! Please cite. I have read the book twice and nowhere in it does this lunacy appear. Nothing close. Sam Harris poured succinct insight into American religious discourse with that book. Please actually read it.
"It is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions."
"Where we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith; where we have no reasons, we have lost both our connection to the world and to one another."
"We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it."
"It is imperative that we begin speaking plainly about the absurdity of most of our religious beliefs."
"We have Christians against Muslims against Jews. They're making incompatible claims on real estate in the Middle East as though God were some kind of omniscient real estate broker parsing out parcels of land to his chosen flock. People are literally dying over ancient literature."
"Mormonism, it seems to me, is--objectively--just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas."
"I've read the books. God is not a moderate. There's no place in the books where God says, 'You know, when you get to the New World and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books.'"
"Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan."
"If Jesus does come down out of the clouds like a superhero, Christianity will stand revealed as a science. That will be the science of Christianity."
DIGITIG, YOU HAVE DELIBERATELY LIED TO THE READERS.
You have made no explanation of why agnosticism is a more rational position.
Any intelligent atheist acknowledges that they are technically an agnostic with respect to a sky-god creator, but they are also technically agnostic about fairies, magic teapots, flying spaghetti monsters, etc... This is a confusing and unhelpful use of the word agnostic. Why is agnosticism a more rational position? Saying that you have studied a fair bit of philosophy of religion is insufficient.
I did not blame Islam for terrorism. I pointed out that Islam has been way more shielded from modernization than Christianity. I think this will quickly change, but they have not been watered-down nearly as much as Christianity. Look up the reaction to the Danish cartoons. This is in stark contrast to the open dialogue (jokes included) people have about Christianity.
Are you born agnostic about fairies, magic teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters? Strictly speaking, yes. Any intelligent atheist is an agnostic, but it is a deceptive use of words to call yourself an agnostic, because the same applies to any other claim even absurdly ridiculous ones. Try to disprove the flying-spaghetti monster. You cannot do this, yet society does not ask you to call yourself an agnostic about this point.
When the congregations give even the religious 'experts' credit for stating how little they know or understand, what possibly could disprove religion to its devotees?
The confluence of pride, familial and friendship ties, and the inertia of the concorde fallacy are more than strong enough to immunize the religious from reason and sound argumentation.
Christianity has been beaten down by modernization and we see this happening in only one direction. Science overturns religious dogma. Never the other way around. Can you think of scientific understanding that was overturned by religious understanding? You can easily point to the germ theory of disease, a round earth in a helio-centric solar system, etc... There is nothing in the Bible that could not have been uttered by a 1st-century person. Nothing.
Of more importance, Islam has only begun to collide with modernity. They have been shielded from discussion and have resorted to violence in most cases of question. Recall the Danish cartoons that caused an outrage through the inter-national Muslim world. Christians must feel the ridicule they deserve for their superstition, but they are not a threat in the way Muslims are. Violence should NEVER be an answer. We should make sure free-speech is protected and that this discourse is at the forefront of our conversations and concerns. If we don't speak up about issues we disagree with, we are tacitly approving of Muslim violence. Do not be afraid to have these difficult discussions.
Religious leaders are masters of tautology and rhetoric (items of no use in scientific discourse). Somehow religion can dish out nothing but obfuscation and actually get credit for it. Not only do the commentary of religious leaders lack insight, but the champions of their doctrine are lionized for saying how mysterious things are. These charlatans are worthy of both the utmost skepticism and our amazed ridicule.
Slashdot Mirror
You claim that "if you want morals, then you have to include religion." but you provide no logical backing for this grand statement. You ask "But whose ethics and morality?" Adding religion to the mix does not help you figure out "whose ethics and morality". Each religion and each denomination of religion will give differing views of morality.
You try to make a plea to authority by bringing the "founding fathers" into the discussion. Fortunately we have made great moral progress since their times. Do you realize that women have only had the right to vote for less than less 100 years in America? WOW. This is contrary to the line of morale thinking in 1 Corinthians Chapter 14, "As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." Thank goodness we have transcended religious morality in favor of a more righteous and intuitively humanistic one. These types of examples are near endless.
It's true that some things one can't help but be ambivalent about. Intellectual honesty demands that we see both sides of the abortion, euthenasia, capital punishment, and health care debates (etc...). But we don't consult ancient books full of superstition to get towards a better world. We get there through the hard-fought extrapolation of compassion and love.
Great post. I agree with your points for the most part, though I do think the "there's not enough time to teach religion" point is valid to a degree. I guess what we are arguing is where in the middle ground things actually fall. Do you teach people about Christianity strictly by discussing their traditions and the history of their actions or do you study the New and Old Testaments thoroughly? For me, the details of this discussion matter, because I can agree with your point that it is practically important to understand other cultures and beliefs, but I think it is an atrocious use of tax money and a misleading waste of time to spend more than minimal time on each of the (theoretically) infinite number of religions.
Why should we have classes on religions? Discussing ethics and morality is obviously of paramount importance, while adding dogma to this discourse is not. Should there be entire classes on Scientology and ancient religions or just the ones you personally think contain validity? The graveyard of dead deities we call mythology are gods and religions that people once took as seriously as you do in your religion. It is 2010. The majority of intelligent people are just being polite and trying to not to hurt religious peoples' feelings at this point.
Creationism is far from science. It is 2010. Must we propagate this religious insanity any further by being polite? All the sane people need to keep standing up and being heard in all forums available. Be strong and confident.
We need scientists analyzing data from space and designing lab experiments, not because they are superior human beings, but because they are well-informed and contained in their jurisdiction. Likewise, anyone making a decision that affects global economics, should be well-informed about global economics. The same goes with alternative energy and the need for scientists/engineers to be tightly knitted into the decision making process of this realm.
For the record, I do not consider myself informed enough to make almost any of the necessarily scrutable decisions we are tasked to make as a society. Utilizing our people's strengths is wise. Making uninformed people powerful, the opposite.
It is far from aristocracy.
We need scientists analyzing data from space and designing lab experiments, not because they are superior human beings, but because they are well-informed and contained in their jurisdiction. Likewise, anyone making a decision that affects global economics, should be well-informed about global economics. The same goes with alternative energy and the need for scientists/engineers to be tightly knitted into the decision making process of this realm.
For the record, I do not consider myself informed enough to make almost any of the necessarily scrutable decisions we are tasked to make as a society. Utilizing our people's strengths is wise. Making uninformed people powerful is unwise.
I mostly agree, but local positions can vary unnacceptably. People of all sorts of dogma take over areas and try to handle their local "issues". There needs to be accounting for local variation and their needs/desires, but overarching, fair rules need to be handed down through the monolith that we call government.
How do we make sure the monolith is moral and fair to all? We need smart people making decisions. We need as much transparency as possible. The internet helps with transparency, but the plethora of info creates a burdensomely low signal to noise ratio. There are too many charlatans and agenda-driven salesmen telling us what the news is. What is the solution? Having smart, well-informed people make the important, big decisions. How do we make that happen?
Feats like the Mars Rovers show us that our space-engineering prowess is not only continuing to mature, but indeed getting quite robust. From this one mission alone, how much have we learned about vehicle design for dealing with the Martian environment?
And with yesterday's announcement of the creation of synthetic life, we are obviously on the edge of new breath-taking scientific ability. When will we be able to start creating custom bacteria to begin terra-forming mars? I know there is no way to predict the future, but the potential for change in our life-times is mind-blowing. As an anxious futurist, all I can say is "Go technology go!"
I disagree strongly. I think we need a more open approach to genetic data-mining. People should be cautious with their private information, but we have a ridiculous amount of progress to be had in the world of understanding our genetics. Giving, ostensibly, a knee-jerk reaction to any sort of use of genetic understanding and widespread data collaboration is the opposite of help.
Privacy is important. Voluntary sharing is important as well.
My grandmother slowly died of Alzheimer's and it could not have been a sadder thing to witness. Bias fully admitted, I can't help but say... Alzheimer's is the 7th leading cause of death and it afflicts 19% of people aged 75-84 and over 40% of people over 84. If we care about our elders and we care about the shoes we will one day fill, we should all help raise awareness and put our spare money and time to good use.
The toll of Alzheimer's on America is estimated at about $100 billion per year. If only we could convince Congress of the simple truth, that this sort of basic research will completely pay for itself in the long run and do wonders for humanity. Unfortunately, we can't depend on someone else to pay for this knowledge and progress. We must all pitch in what we can and help keep this sort of research as well funded as possible.
www.alz.org is a great organization if you have money to donate. Or you can easily start a "Memory Walk" team to go out for a charity walk to raise money and awareness. Plus, can't we all use a good excuse to enjoy a nice day in the sun and have fun with friends and family?
To try to find connections between the Bible and modern government is ludicrous. Take this moment and read a random page out of Leviticus. Try not to laugh out of discomfort. Old Testament not your thing? The New Testament never condemns slavery and actually tells you how to keep slaves. The South was on the winning side of the theological argument for slavery.
Furthermore, to quote Sam Harris... "I've read the books. God is not a moderate. There's no place in the books where God says, 'You know, when you get to the New World and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books.'"
Why do people still believe in Christianity? It is 2010. Must we propagate this insanity any further? All the sane people need to keep standing up and being heard.
I have climbed through their jungle gym and I must say it is quite scary. You definitely feel right on the edge of safe. Yet it stands out like no other "museum" I've been to. As such, it is quite provocative and truly unique, but contains minimal content and only satiates perhaps an hour of curiosity.
I like this quote from Sam Harris... "I've read the books. God is not a moderate. There's no place in the books where God says, 'You know, when you get to the New World and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books.'"
Why do people still believe in Christianity? It is 2010. Must we propagate this insanity any further?
Just because there is a continuum does not mean that we cannot figure out a reasonable point to draw the ethical line. Your premises are (1) that engineers are involved in building stuff and (2) that stuff can hurt people. Your premises are valid. The logic you use to make your argument is not.
You might use the same style of argument to say that, when hitting babies, it is too hard to draw a line because some people are ok with it and some people are not and that there is a continuum of softly holding them to beating them to a pulp.
Still, you could in fact be right that engineers are without responsibility for how their products are used, but this is not clear from the logic you employed.
Despite it being 2010, it remains popular to attack science and medicine as though they do not have a significant mastery of reality or how the body works. Achievements like this demonstrate that the human body is not only understandable, but that it can be highly manipulated and changed with life-changing degrees of success.
For all the people who claim that our medical knowledge is seriously lacking or fraught with error, this fly's in your face. Prepare for an onslaught of biomedical advances that will change everything we know about health and longevity. While the human body may seem to work like black magic, perhaps like an infinitely complex analog circuit, advances in understanding are steadily being made. There are real achievers in these domains and they are standing on the shoulders of giants, accruing the tools to solve any physiological problem.
If only everyone would employ basic logic and skepticism, and not be scared to talk about it, dogma could become a part of our history and naturally remove itself from the mainstream. Children could actually receive the honest answers to the difficult questions in life. Really... why follow a religion with all of its inconsistencies and human manipulation? You shouldn't. It is 2010 and none of the popular religions can even begin to serve as a useful algorithm with regard to moral decisions we routinely face (much less can these religions aid in the world of epistemology and they blatantly fail in the world of cosmology). As far as morality goes, it may truly be as simple as The Beatles put it: "All you need is love." Yet this is no simple task and everyone must reconcile the value of other's wellbeing and happiness within the context of their own ambition. "For one human being to love another; that is perhaps the most difficult of all our tasks, the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all other work is but preparation."
What ideas did you have? This will help us make suggestions.
"Militant atheist Sam Harris, according to "The End of Faith" apparently wants to see humanity exterminated, religious and atheist alike, rather than allow religion to continue to exist, which comes over as "nutjob" to me."
This is a lie! Please cite. I have read the book twice and nowhere in it does this lunacy appear. Nothing close. Sam Harris poured succinct insight into American religious discourse with that book. Please actually read it.
Some actual quotes (concepts he espouses) from Sam Harris are found here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sam_Harris
"It is difficult to imagine a set of beliefs more suggestive of mental illness than those that lie at the heart of many of our religious traditions."
"Where we have reasons for what we believe, we have no need of faith; where we have no reasons, we have lost both our connection to the world and to one another."
"We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it."
"It is imperative that we begin speaking plainly about the absurdity of most of our religious beliefs."
"We have Christians against Muslims against Jews. They're making incompatible claims on real estate in the Middle East as though God were some kind of omniscient real estate broker parsing out parcels of land to his chosen flock. People are literally dying over ancient literature."
"Mormonism, it seems to me, is--objectively--just a little more idiotic than Christianity is. It has to be: because it is Christianity plus some very stupid ideas."
"I've read the books. God is not a moderate. There's no place in the books where God says, 'You know, when you get to the New World and you develop your three branches of government and you have a civil society, you can just jettison all the barbarism I recommended in the first books.'"
"Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan."
"If Jesus does come down out of the clouds like a superhero, Christianity will stand revealed as a science. That will be the science of Christianity."
DIGITIG, YOU HAVE DELIBERATELY LIED TO THE READERS.
You have made no explanation of why agnosticism is a more rational position.
Any intelligent atheist acknowledges that they are technically an agnostic with respect to a sky-god creator, but they are also technically agnostic about fairies, magic teapots, flying spaghetti monsters, etc... This is a confusing and unhelpful use of the word agnostic. Why is agnosticism a more rational position? Saying that you have studied a fair bit of philosophy of religion is insufficient.
I did not blame Islam for terrorism. I pointed out that Islam has been way more shielded from modernization than Christianity. I think this will quickly change, but they have not been watered-down nearly as much as Christianity. Look up the reaction to the Danish cartoons. This is in stark contrast to the open dialogue (jokes included) people have about Christianity.
Are you born agnostic about fairies, magic teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters? Strictly speaking, yes. Any intelligent atheist is an agnostic, but it is a deceptive use of words to call yourself an agnostic, because the same applies to any other claim even absurdly ridiculous ones. Try to disprove the flying-spaghetti monster. You cannot do this, yet society does not ask you to call yourself an agnostic about this point.
When the congregations give even the religious 'experts' credit for stating how little they know or understand, what possibly could disprove religion to its devotees?
The confluence of pride, familial and friendship ties, and the inertia of the concorde fallacy are more than strong enough to immunize the religious from reason and sound argumentation.
Everyone is born an atheist.
You get indoctrinated into your family's religion as you grow up. If you were born in India, you would almost certainly be Hindu when you grew up.
Christianity has been beaten down by modernization and we see this happening in only one direction. Science overturns religious dogma. Never the other way around. Can you think of scientific understanding that was overturned by religious understanding? You can easily point to the germ theory of disease, a round earth in a helio-centric solar system, etc... There is nothing in the Bible that could not have been uttered by a 1st-century person. Nothing. Of more importance, Islam has only begun to collide with modernity. They have been shielded from discussion and have resorted to violence in most cases of question. Recall the Danish cartoons that caused an outrage through the inter-national Muslim world. Christians must feel the ridicule they deserve for their superstition, but they are not a threat in the way Muslims are. Violence should NEVER be an answer. We should make sure free-speech is protected and that this discourse is at the forefront of our conversations and concerns. If we don't speak up about issues we disagree with, we are tacitly approving of Muslim violence. Do not be afraid to have these difficult discussions.
Religious leaders are masters of tautology and rhetoric (items of no use in scientific discourse). Somehow religion can dish out nothing but obfuscation and actually get credit for it. Not only do the commentary of religious leaders lack insight, but the champions of their doctrine are lionized for saying how mysterious things are. These charlatans are worthy of both the utmost skepticism and our amazed ridicule.