[net.religion] Attribution of contorted machination

eich@uiuccsb.UUCP (11/29/83)

#R:ihuxr:-77800:uiuccsb:11900013:000:925
uiuccsb!eich    Nov 29 03:12:00 1983

Well, when it comes to the fringes (and I agree the contortions would
make a fakir shudder), perhaps you just have to drop the presumption in
favor of rationality.  There are irrational people who hold to and
doggedly defend all sorts of beliefs, from super-literal Creationism
through religious UFOlogy through dogmatic scientism.  We don't have to
debate them, and if we busy ourselves with the impossible task of refuting
their every word, we'll only aggravate the situation.  I am not saying
that the fringes should be dismissed out of hand, or reflexively ridiculed,
but I think rational people should be setting the agenda more often.

What I find dismaying is the polarization, decried by Walker Percy in
`Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Guide', of the religion-science
debate.  Religious (i.e. theistic) scientists and responsible
secularists can't get a word in edgewise.

	Brendan Eich
	uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eich