Harvey Newstrom wrote
> J. R. Molloy wrote,
> > Right! Think positively: We _can_ debunk religiosity!
> A rationalist cannot debunk religion with the scientific method any more
> than a preacher can condemn science with scriptural interpretation. Neither
> will recognize or accept the other's methods. They are mutually exclusive.
> Neither side will accept the debunking by the other, while both sides will
> go on to believe they have demonstrated the obvious truth.
No, a rationalist *can* debunk religion by exposing its
falsehoods (and a preacher *can* condemn science by appeals
Yes, neither will *immediately* recognize or accept the other's
methods, but everyone's mind is a disputed ground for memes.
You can indeed create doubt in people's minds, despite their
outward behavior. Sometimes the doubts grow like seeds over
But it's not the dyed-in-the-wool religionist that we are
trying to persuade. There are a lot of people who are
more susceptible to open inquiry.
But more important than that is simply to fearlessly state
and know the truth. It's the key to success of an open
> Neither side will accept the debunking by the other,
> while both sides will go on to believe they have
> demonstrated the obvious truth.
Why isn't your voice of reason heard taking a stand, here?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:43 MDT