Freethinker Sunday Sermonette:"ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies in the United States"

Pointless post.

You start with a broad-brush statement covering millions of people, and then you "support" it with news stories about two whacko families?

Yeah, that's logical and convincing for sure ...

Scott: Not pointless at all. The point, if I may make it again, is that this kind of whacko stuff regularly gets reported in mainstream news media without any critical comment and as if it is news. More undifferentiated factoid-like fecal nuggets on the same footing as housefires, homicides, heartwarming stories about dogs, etc. I don't know what PZ meant exactly when he said "I'm surrounded," but this is what I mean. And you don't think there are millions out there who eat this shit up on a forked stick? Apparently the news media and their advertisers don't agee with your point.

For the record, I wasn't actually offended at all by PZ's particular post on that map -- I know what he means. What I was offended by was the reactions that poor Rob Knop got when he got pissed off at the constant characterisations of all people who believe in God as being wicked, deluded, or idiots. It was a "straw that broke the camel's back" situation following on from one of PZ's much earlier posts on how no-one who believed in God could possibly be a good scientist, I think, which was a fray I was simply too busy to jump into.

There's no denying the fact that there are a lot of delusional people wandering around out there, and that the standards for evidence and logic in the US at the moment are pretty bloody low. There's no denying the fact that atheists have a real need to speak up, either, and that scientists need to do more to promote reasoning skills. What I personally debate, however, is the fact that there are people out there who tar everyone who is not actually a strong atheist as being ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or an oppressed victim. Sod that, says I, the real world is just a bit more complex than that, and I object to that characterisation for Rob Knop, too.

Your example that there are sincerely loony people on that side of the God question does not mean that everyone on that side of the God question is loony, any more than pointing out that there are radical feminists who hate men and have no sense of humor means that ALL radical feminists hate men and have no sense of humor. It is a dishonest debate tactic.

I also wouldn't characterize these people as "wicked" except for the fact that the video looks photo shopped--of course, who would photoshop a chimpanzee head into the sky? (Sorry, I don't know what an angel looks like but if you ask me, that's a chimpanzee).

This is just begging for a string of hoaxes, where somebody photoshops angels into horizon shots, where all of the angels look like, and are shaped like, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. An angel toting a shotgun while hunting drunk would be wonderful.

PZ's much earlier posts on how no-one who believed in God could possibly be a good scientist

I guess I just have to get used to the gross mischaracterizations that go on on the web, but since I do not think that and have never said that, I will make this probably pointless attempt to say that that is wrong.It reminds me of running across one of the raving ID nutcases who positively asserted that I would vote to deny tenure to any christian at my university...when I'd just made a point saying the opposite, that religion isn't a factor at all in our assessment of our colleagues, and even where I knew some who went to church regularly, it didn't affect my opinion of their work.

Your example that there are sincerely loony people on that side of the God question does not mean that everyone on that side of the God question is loony, any more than pointing out that there are radical feminists who hate men and have no sense of humor means that ALL radical feminists hate men and have no sense of humor. It is a dishonest debate tactic.

It was neither a debate tactic nor dishonest, at least in my view. Let me reiterate. It's not just that there are people with loony views. That's a given. What I am pointing out is that such supremely loony views are treated in US society (and the media are symptoms of how the society is treating things) as if they are normal and not loony. And we are surrounded by this attitude, even on Presidential candidate debates (perhaps a better example of dishonest debate tactics that the same media doesn't criticize).

I didn't address the question of whether there are sincerely religious people who are not loony. I have them in my family. So that's a given, too. They would also prefer that the loony variety not be given the acceptance they are given. But they are given that acceptance because, in actual fact, we are surrounded by them and they are in our faces all the time. So I'll get in their face a bit. Not that it maters what I think.

PZ, was that not you? Back around December or January, I ran across someone's post on SB about how someone who accepted the irrationality of believing in a deity could not possibly be a good scientist, and I had remembered it as being you who wrote that. If it wasn't, then I deeply apologise for the mischaracterisation and my poor memory.

Reading over what you wrote again, revere, I suspect that I misread you as tarring the population with too broad a brush. I really, honestly do get what you're saying. I enjoy mocking very obviously stupid and deluded people too, although I try not to indulge in it too often. It doesn't make me a better human being.

I just see a big difference between saying "religion encompasses too many loonies, and the more sane and moderate people need to be speaking up against it", and saying "if you are religious you are a loony, and it doesn't matter if you are moderate, you are not fully sane." I know that wasn't in PZ's post about the map, and I am certainly not attributing it to him in this particular discussion; however, there have been a number of vocal commenters on his blog, Rob Knop's blog, this blog, and Island of Doubt who took that explicit position and defended it with insults against good people, and that kind of pisses me off. That is what I personally have been arguing against, and I suspect that I am getting pissed off enough to be oversensitive.

It shows the concentration of ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies in the United States

I take great exception to that. He should have replaced or with and/or.

What I was offended by was the reactions that poor Rob Knop got when he got pissed off at the constant characterisations of all people who believe in God as being wicked, deluded, or idiots.

Mr. Knop has his opportunity a few months ago to establish that his particular definition of "religion" does not coincide with delusion. He failed miserably. He deserves al lthe abuse he can get for it.

Scott Belyea trolls ScienceBlogs looking for reasons to get offended at remarks from unapologetic atheists (Do, re, mi, fa; multiple octaves can likely be found at Pharyngula). A loyal fan of the No True Scotsman falacy and the red-herring gambit alike, Scott lacks the willlingness or the capacity to see more than about 20% of an issue, with that 20% subject to marked myopia). He's a classic drive-by Harpy, so I wouldn't waste time forming measured responses to him.

I have far more evidence that Rob Knop is a productive, reasonable, intelligent and decent member of society than I have for you, Tegumai. You've had plenty of chances to provide this, and all you've ever provided is flames. Does that mean I get to abuse you? Cool.

What I am pointing out is that such supremely loony views are treated in US society (and the media are symptoms of how the society is treating things) as if they are normal and not loony. And we are surrounded by this attitude...

Indeed, one of my favorite examples is post event interviews with victorious athletes who give the gods credit for their acomplishments. Just once I'd like to see an interviewer ask:

"Really Joey, and you think the supreme creator of the universe is sitting there yelling 'Go Cowboys!'? You think it was part of his divine plan that you score a touchdown?"

Or how about the endless clips of parents thanking the gods for saving their families from the hurricane/tornado,tsunami while standing RIGHT NEXT to people who's families weren't so blessed. What I'd pay to see a reporter ask "So, are you saying God likes your family better than Pedro's who all perished? And why did he send the tornado in the first place?"

"There's no denying the fact that there are a lot of delusional people wandering around out there, and that the standards for evidence and logic in the US at the moment are pretty bloody low."

Good, you've acknowledged something important. Now take thenext logical step quit bitching that PZ and many others are tired of it and are rightfully speaking out about it in whatever manner they please. I'd rather have a nation of tactless idealists than one overrun with deluded and benighted diplomats.

"Your example that there are sincerely loony people on that side of the God question does not mean that everyone on that side of the God question is loony."

You and others have said this in a million ways and probably have a million more in store. But no one here has said that all religious believers are loony or poor scientists (PZ has, more than one, praised theists and ministers who have spoken out against starker forms of unreason than their own). What we have said is that the beliefs themselves are loony, just as every ardent idea both free of evidence and contrary to the established ebb and flow of nature is loony. People do not come back to life. H20 doesn't turn into wine. Humans aren't descended from ribs or dirt or Adam and Eve. If you want to believe these things, or cannot help believing them, then prepare to be called an idiot by those on the rational side who do not care to invest in superfluous diplomacy. These stupid ideas are presently causing a lot of difficulty in America. You admitted this yourself, so for Christ's sweet sake find a new cause celebre to cry about.

As for "poor" Rob, he has his reasons for thinking and acting as he has, but he picked a fight and got just what he asked for and would quickly acknowledge as much.

I may be repeating what dozens have already posted, but obviously your type needs to hear certain things a thousand and one times before they stand a prayer of sinking in.

kemibe, I'm somewhat baffled by what you think "my type" might be, as it would seem to come at least as much from what is inside your own head as from anything I've said. Would you like to learn anything about me before you start making assumptions, or are the assumptions more fun?

For PZ -- ah, this is what I was thinking of, when I attributed the statements about "can't believe in God and be a good scientist" to you. Was I wrong in my interpretation, then?

Science Avenger: No bloody kidding!

Are you familiar with Mark Twain's War Prayer?

The title refers to "partitioning your mind", and that's exactly what it takes to be a good scientist and religious. You can't do it at the same time. You have to wall off parts of your belief to function properly in the lab, and wall off a different part in church on Sunday.

There have been great scientists who were also religious. They also knew where religious beliefs could be expressed.

Wow Revere, you really got a discussion going with this one. I have by the way a piece of bark that clearly has the face of a gnome on it. I keep it on my dresser to a) get good luck b) remind me of the true gods c) remind me how people can find whatever they are looking for.

We were once visited by a woman who was not a Christian or other identifiable religion. She was into something and was doing workshops on Deep Ecology (it was too deep for my chicken mucking boots). Came to see our coop and saw a large rat snake - she said (in awed tones) that it was an omen. I never asked of what. I knew what it was an omen of - that the time of the year had come to watch for rat snakes as they prefer eggs to rats (the rats run faster).

Its in our genes - even today I found myself saying something and then saying "knock on wood" and feeling sometimes like verbalizing stuff like "I hope it rains today" will jinx it for sure not to rain. I think it is too prevalent and cross cultural not to be in our genes - but what exact program plays out in magical beliefs (that became religions as humans got "civilized") I am not sure. Dennet makes a good try at teasing it out (Breaking the Spell) but since I can't really remember if he even came to any solid conclusions, I doubt that he has it nailed down. (that could be me and not him tho :) )

I know and have known many fine, intelligent, educated, caring Christians. But after making my journey out of the delusion I find it incredible that I ever believed what they still believe. Worse yet, even the best intentioned Christians (and I am sure it is true of other religions) at the very least give cover for the worst intentioned ones. And all to often perpetuate evils without realizing it. As I have said on this site before, an example is the glorification of mothers - without thinking that their might be an abused child sitting there listening to the mother's day sermon and concluding that the fault is in them. The holding of human life as the peak of God's creation has also been a big problem. Even those who work for ecological causes usually won't talk about the population problem - they are sure somehow if we all share and get more technology we can make a good life for 6.5 billion and then they will restrict their family size and all will be well. China has been doing that for their citizens and still the population grows. God apparently can't change the rules of math that govern that little problem and our planet is finite - 6.5 billion is too many and more is impossible. We are NOT the peak of creation, just one species among many and on the way to extinct ourselves and no god will save us, but belief in god has in part helped to damn us. IMHO of course

Come on now Red Stater's, you know that we are just un-enlightened idiots to do the bidding of the blue states, right? Listen, I personally dont find the attacks denigrating. You want denigrating,? You couldnt handle what I could drop on you. I am ex-military and they melt us all down to a hot mass and then create steel and they do that by simply beating them down. They create the one belief and that is that there is no one but the guy next to you that you can depend on.

For the better part these guys are scientists and since God hasnt jumped up and burned them and their asses to a crispy crunch, they can stand and say what they want under the Constitution. I will support only their rights to do so. It doesnt make them right or wrong, or me either. The science of GOD isnt there folks. I am sorry, but using the Bible as an instruction manual for life is nothing more than acquiesence to a grouping of stories, writtend and re-written by men who are pushing an agenda.

But, I do ascribe to a goodly part of the agenda even though that science isnt there and I do it because I have faith. Faith that indeed there is a higher power, not necessarily as some would believe guiding our movements and actions. I always say as with climate change, prove it. It may or may not be right but history always proves one or the other right or wrong eventually.

PZ is right about the partitioning of the mind, it cant be rationally proved or done. Revere doesnt believe and I respect that. Shit, how could you believe if you look around the world and see whats happening except that you do believe that there is some sort of salvation at the end of it? Its tough to remain faithful of things that MIGHT happen. PZ, Revere, others have no data to go on as scientists so what other conclusion could they draw.

Me, I like having the other side of the argument always presented. I am far from being a scientist but I know the processes and how they work. Be GLAD that they are there throwing their ideas around because I come from a background in "Christianity" that was and is as fundamentalist as any Muslim's. A background in a Church that was founded in violence and to argue against it would have seen us happily as some vassal in Europe or England being beheaded for speaking out against God and country.

Religious persecution doesnt necessarily mean its persecution for believing, it can also be for not believing. I have seen things that were some of the most awesome random of chance occurences, or they were of God.

A certain sergeant in the Army I saw walk calmly across an open fire zone with full blown automatic fire going on, picked up a child caught in the crossfire and carried her back to the safety of the side of a building and there wasnt a scratch on him or her. The firing never let up and all he did was drop his weapon, pull off his shirt down to his T and his helmet. I was firing too but I had my mouth hanging open the whole time he did it. Call it what you want. He had the faith that he wouldnt be hit. There wasnt a hint of running across, he just did it.

I asked him what he was thinking and he said that something told him to go and do it. I hope I never hear that voice because it scares me to think about it. He said it was something he had to do. Everyone was yelling at him to get back and we thought he was nuts. No kidding.

So is this a mythology, are we ignorant, dellusional as believers? I dont know and I dont care. All I know is like PZ and Revere is that I believe what I can see and I have seen enough to make me sure there is a God. Until the second coming all believers should feel free to beat them up with the lack of science we have at our backs and respect their rights to say it. Just remember they are Americans and they have the right to Blue or Red state it as much as they want. I will certainly listen every time.

… of ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies …

I think people tend to misunderstand listing statements like this. If it ends with "or," that means every comma is replacing an "or," and should be understood as thus.

… of ignorant or deluded or wicked or foolish or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies …

PZ is not saying that all Christians are all of the above. He is saying they are at least one of the above. To say Christians are oppressed by obsolete mythologies is about as kind as an honest look at the bible or church doctrine can get.

"kemibe, I'm somewhat baffled by what you think "my type" might be"

The type of person that needs to hear something many, many times before it sinks in. The type of person that needs to hear something many, many times before it sinks in. The type of person that needs to hear something many, many times before it sinks in. The type of person that needs to hear something many, many times before it sinks in. The type of person that needs to hear something many, many times before it sinks in. The type of person that needs to hear something many, many times before it sinks in. The type of person that needs to hear something many, many times before it sinks in. The type of person that needs to hear something many, many times before it sinks in. The type of person that needs to hear something many, many times before it sinks in. The type of person that needs to hear something many, many times before it sinks in...

My, that was constructive, kemibe. Did it amuse you? I hope so; it would be a shame to waste that many electrons, even if they are recycled.

Who are you, now? Surely you do not represent Bushwell's, for which I actually have some liking and respect?

Luna wrote:

"My, that was constructive, kemibe."

That's an interesting assessment coming from someone who responded the entire substance of my first comment here with the irrelevant complaint that I was making unwarranted asssumptions about your "type," and who continues to do nothing but whine, whine, and whine some more. You're at least consistent, but you're also engaging in a tactic you may have heard about before: ducking and dodging the issue.

At this point I believe that you have been drinking a lot this evening, are a troll, or are using a Web browser that strips away certain words and phrases in English. Other explainations fail to account for your ability to serially ignore things like this:

No one here has said that all religious believers are loony or poor scientists (PZ has, more than one, praised theists and ministers who have spoken out against starker forms of unreason than their own). What we have said is that the beliefs themselves are loony, just as every ardent idea both free of evidence and contrary to the established ebb and flow of nature is loony. People do not come back to life. H20 doesn't turn into wine. Humans aren't descended from ribs or dirt or Adam and Eve. If you want to believe these things, or cannot help believing them, then prepare to be called an idiot by those on the rational side who do not care to invest in superfluous diplomacy. These stupid ideas are presently causing a lot of difficulty in America. You admitted this yourself, so for Christ's sweet sake find a new cause celebre to cry about.

That is the prologue, introduction, main text, epilogue, and references of the god-free side's collective point here as far as I am concerned; others, while using their own unique words, are trying to tell you precisely the same thing I am. Somehow you are unwilling or able to internalize the message so read it again if you have to. Somehow you are unwilling or able to internalize the message so read it again if you have to. Somehow you are unwilling or able to internalize the message so read it again if you have to...hey, does this look familiar?

No one here has said that all religious believers are loony or poor scientists (PZ has, more than one, praised theists and ministers who have spoken out against starker forms of unreason than their own). What we have said is that the beliefs themselves are loony, just as every ardent idea both free of evidence and contrary to the established ebb and flow of nature is loony. People do not come back to life. H20 doesn't turn into wine. Humans aren't descended from ribs or dirt or Adam and Eve. If you want to believe these things, or cannot help believing them, then prepare to be called an idiot by those on the rational side who do not care to invest in superfluous diplomacy. These stupid ideas are presently causing a lot of difficulty in America. You admitted this yourself, so for Christ's sweet sake find a new cause celebre to cry about.

One more time, in an even more minimimalist form:

Religious people can be smart or stupid or fall anywhere in between. Religious beliefs themselves are without question indefensibly stupid. Religious people who make claims about the divine despite being aware and comprehending of evidence to the contrary are both wrong and ignorant, every last one of them, no matter their IQ scores or scholarship in other areas. You don't have to like this, but you might want to quit fighting an unwinnable battle and making an ass of yourself.

I predict you will respond to this comment only by noting that I called you an ass, at which point the odds tip away from "drunk" or "using a uniquely corrupted browser" to "trolling." Understand that your arrogance in demanding that people's belief in an invisible psychotic overlord be treated "respectfully" by scientists under attack from thew godsick masses far, far exceeds PZ's or anyone's alleged bad manners in rightfully exploding both the mythical beliefs of the godsick and their rationales for bellyaching.

"Who are you, now? Surely you do not represent Bushwell's, for which I actually have some liking and respect?"

If you have harbored respect for that unapologetically atheist-slime blog up to this point, nothing written in this thread could possibly change your mind about it. The place holds nothing but rants and pictures of plants that look like giant sagging phalluses and pudenda just to round out the filth quotient. Those assholes should be kicked out of the Web, much less out of "Science" blogs dot com.

Is it safe to retire this now, Luna?

"Your example that there are sincerely loony people on that side of the God question does not mean that everyone on that side of the God question is loony."

I hope so. I bet this comment is long enough to make the scroll bar over there invisible, and I kind of hope that's true because it may make further commenting more difficult and I'm somewhat afraid of what you might write now.

The only thing I can see that atheist's believe is that they've showed ample proof there is no God.
Sorry, not everything in this world can be explained or proven.

Lea; So you just pick and choose what you want to believe in, right? How Relativist! You should be living in Manhattan!

Er, yeah, kemibe. Whatever. o_0

Dont we all pick and choose what to believe in? I dont have to live in Manhattan to do that. We have plenty of Michael Moores here.... Last one ran for President... whats his name? Um-er, drives the big SUV and has two G-IV biz jets, and uh his daddy was a board member of Occidental Petroleum. No one has seen him in the state since 1980 something, screams we are all gonna die from global warming..... Goober, no thats not it, Gomer? No thats close... Oh yeah...Gore!!!!1

Gee whiz revere, I thought for once you'd say something nice to me twice in one day!

M.Randolph Kruger wrote:

Dont we all pick and choose what to believe in?

No. Not those of us who are sane.

Lea: I will, I will. Just give me the opportunity.

M.Randolph Kruger wrote:

Come on now Red Stater's, you know that we are just un-enlightened idiots to do the bidding of the blue states, right?

If you had a blog you might win the Tristan J. Shuddery prize for your efforts.

revere: oh never mind.

revere: "The point, if I may make it again, is that this kind of whacko stuff regularly gets reported in mainstream news media without any critical comment and as if it is news."

Three words: man bites dog.

Oh, look! A couple who sees faces in clouds and takes them seriously, as opposed to, well, most people. Yes, it's very tabloidly, but as a bellwether for pathological religiosity, it's not that good an example, especially when the news highlights the "face" in the clouds rather unconvincingly.

As for PZ's words, let's face it, most people who read "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish" all in a row are going to take it as longhand for "stupid rube." Yes, you could argue that there is an effective "or" between all of those words, and that if you water down the meanings of "ignorant," "deluded," and "foolish," and ignore their connotations of stupidity, PZ's words could be stretched in such a fashion as to be technically correct. However, like the words in most advertisements, which are even more carefully arranged to be technically correct, their cumulative effect conveys a misleading impression.

Only to people who intend to misread them.

Back around December or January, I ran across someone's post on SB about how someone who accepted the irrationality of believing in a deity could not possibly be a good scientist, and I had remembered it as being you who wrote that.

Oh, irony of ironies! That was probably me.

And alas, it's the simple truth. As PZ pointed out, having religious faith and using the scientific method at the same time requires compartmentalization of the mind, walling off a portion of your understanding of the universe and keeping it safe from the merciless analysis of science. But the universe is one thing - its basic nature is incompatible with the sort of contradiction that compartmentalization requires.

Once you've let wishful thinking restrict the completeness of your thinking, it tends to spread. At the very least, it cripples your ability to perform science on the matter you've compartmentalized, and generally it impairs the ability to perform science on topics that touch on or are connected to that matter.

Science is a systematic form of honesty. You can't practice honesty and dishonesty together, and practicing dishonesty at all corrupts the capacity for honest thought. Science and faith just aren't compatible; you cannot possess a rational and logical worldview and accept a theistic doctrine.

Norman-Seems you are making plugs for your own blog. Run on back now like a nice lad....

Ramsey, I am simply drowning in all the concern you seem to have for how PZ may or may not be interpreted.

There are many things that escape explanation, yet you know them to be true. Why does God's existence need proof? And if so, why does the proof need to conform to your understanding?

It's called Faith for a reason.

Science is a systematic form of honesty.

Well said, Caledonian. Were you quoting or paraphrasing? In any case, nice.

All of us are capable of self delusion. It is essential in our daily social interactions and in how we perceive ourselves. One thing I find interesting is how easy it is for us to usually not notice how often we actually are fooling ourselves.

By trial and error, the Scientific Method has been evolved to the point where self deception can be minimised. Not that as practised, there aren't a few flaws. See: http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2007/07/post_5.php

Patch, it's also called Wishful Thinking for a reason.

As long as your faith makes no claims about the natural world, it is not testable by, nor in conflict with science. Just don't cross that line and then claim immunity.

Miracles, belief in an afterlife and an invisible father figure can all be very comforting. That alone makes them highly suspect. Also as extraordinary claims, they require extraordinary evidence.

In the absence of evidence, faith allows access to comfort, but not to the truth.

PZ Myers: "Only to people who intend to misread them."

Nonsense. You can't use loaded language and then expect people to parse it as lawyers do. Indeed, that you had to explain after the fact that you don't think theists are stupid is telling. Obviously, a lot of people "misread" you, and you responded in kind. Were they all doing it on purpose? You write like someone who has two contradictory beliefs in his head: a deeply held stereotype in the back of your mind of theists as generally stupid and deluded, and a shallow belief that theists aren't stupid, which you haven't really internalized.

It's a slight change of words from a quote by Greg Egan.

As long as your faith makes no claims about the natural world, it is not testable by, nor in conflict with science.

Because it doesn't say *anything*. The natural world encompasses the entirety of our existence. Not talking about it means not talking about anything in existence - the faith would have to be equivalent to the null statement.

Johnnie,

Faith, in the sense I meant it, is far from wishful thinking.

I understand what you are saying. I find it difficult to believe the land on earth was created by a giant crayfish, who brought mud up from the oceans to form land, as believed by some Native Americans.

But I don't find it difficult to believe that the complexity of the universe wasn't created purely by chance.

I seek to learn all that I can, all the while, realizing there may be much, much more that I will never understand in this lifetime. I wish I could explain where to find absolute proof of God on earth, but I'm sorry I can't. I can point to the stars, the birth of my son and any number of wonders of this world and say, "Look, there He is!" But with closed eyes, you will never see Him.

I know you will suggest that it is I who has the blinders on. And perhaps it is so. But even in darkness, I can find my way. Because my faith gives me a path to follow.

Respectfully,
Patch

Science and faith just aren't compatible; you cannot possess a rational and logical worldview and accept a theistic doctrine. --- Caledonian ---

Not true according to Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. -
Director - National Human Genome Research Institute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins#Religious_views
Collins has described his parents as "only nominally Christian" and by graduate school he considered himself an atheist. However, dealing with dying patients led him to question his religious views, and he investigated various faiths. He became a believer after observing the faith of his critically ill patients and reading Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.
.......

Maybe not true according to Collins, but not true according to me. Or don't you have faith in me?

A little more mild today aye revere, just a hint of sarcasm. And where would faith in you lead me?

Lea: I hope, to science. Since that's where I spend my life.

Lea -

And where would faith in you lead me?

To revere, revere?

And where would faith in you lead me?

You know what revere(s), that was rude of me and quite frankly that's not the way I choose to express myself.

Science, yes, teach me science, thank you.

As far as God goes, well we have our differences don't we? And I can understand your decision, more than I am at liberty to divulge here.