Home > General Politics, Miscellaneous, Religion > Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church

Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church

Christianity is ridiculous“Don’t pray in my school and I won’t think in your church.”

The misleading simplicity of this bumper-sticker size witticism aside, I think it contains a pretty accurate summation of my views on the intellectual laziness of the religious. Indeed it turns out that there is statistical evidence to flesh out the proposition that the more educated or intelligent one is, the less religious one is.[1]

Apparently there is also evidence that shows as few as 1 in 12 children escape the religious views of their parents in the cases of children with a secure emotional attachment to their parents.[2]

In this day and age there is no excuse for such laziness. For the greatest minds of the Christian age, Augustine, Aquinas, Erasmus and so on, there was an excuse; besides the danger of being denied access to learning or even being executed, the power of the Church permeated all aspects of life. Scientific methods of analysis didn’t exist. That is not the case today.

To believe in God is not an indefensible proposition; to believe in a specific religious doctrine is indefensible. Because Christianity is the most ubiquitous religion in Western Europe, it is the one I know most about but it is by no means the only religion open to serious charge of intellectual laziness. No less so the superstitions which currently pervade our society, despite arguments to the contrary.[3]

The casual acceptance of this laziness, or the denial that laziness exists in the first place, irritates me, as it did in some of these comments on Fruits of Our Labour.[4]

A burden of proof now lies on me to demonstrate that belief in Christianity is intellectual laziness, as that is the proposition which underlines this article. I do not view that as a difficult task. I need only mention a few things to begin with; the massive discrepancies between the Gospels, the patently made up facts surrounding Jesus’ genealogy and the strong current of censorship that accompanies all the writings of the Early Christian fathers.

Most Christians haven’t considered these things. Those that have do not have an answer, though if you wish to see truculence in the face of overwhelming evidence, I suggest looking up virtually any subject on the Catholic Encyclopaedia. These things certainly aren’t mentioned in religious class in school – even in non-faith schools. In faith schools can you imagine how much worse it is?

Even those schools which don’t directly indoctrinate children into a specific religion, the non-specific ethic that pervades things like morning Assembly is generally religious. In many schools it is an attempt to generalise so that all religions feel included – but it still harks back to religious, spiritual reasons for why certain things should be true.

In wider society we can see the effects this has. In the US, millions of Americans are hoodwinked by religious conmen who make hundreds of millions of dollars from people who don’t understand evolution and react against it out of some ‘common sense’ notions which could and should be challenged by the rest of us.

In Britain, we’re conned into respecting the fact that parents, some consciously, some out of the belief that faith schools get better results, seek to indoctrinate their children into their own way of life by ensuring that this is all the children are exposed to. In the US, this is a condition which the Supreme Court has upheld as justified under the Constitution (Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 1972).

The ultimate effect is to encourage, to propagate a matching intellectual laziness. Faith, as a rule, is one of those matters which goes largely unquestioned except by an extreme minority. Even the majority of atheists and agnostics who, according to studies on the decline of religion in the UK, make up a sizable chunk of society, let it pass unchallenged.

Faith is widely seen as something to be respected than something which should be ridiculed – as intellectual laziness and an obstinate unwillingness to scientifically engage with evidence. Plenty of ‘the faithful’ attempt to equate atheism with another religion at this point, and suggest that teaching secularism would in effect be no different to what we attack organised religion for.

I have answered this comprehensively elsewhere.[5]

Ultimately what this line of reasoning fails to acknowledge is that most secularists don’t care what opinions people hold and don’t resent difference and discussion. What secularists do care about is denying an institutional stranglehold upon learning, and upon teaching the methods of critical and independent thought – each of which challenge faith.

In conclusion, though one person who jumped into this argument might casually attempt to put rational thought on a par with emotion, I disagree.[6] Religion and emotional attachments to certain views are indefensible in the face of rational, scientific analysis. The two can be in accord, but where they are not, one must triumph.

If we choose religion and emotion, then we become the subjectivists and surrender ourselves to Nietzsche’s concept of the superman who can free himself from objective conditions. We become our darker selves.


[1] P. Bell, “Would you believe it?” Mensa Magazine, Feb 2002, p12ff. Of 43 studies since 1927 all but four have demonstrated clear correlation between level of education / IQ and negative belief in the almighty. Thank you Richard Dawkins for this.

[2] I have yet to find any scientific study disputing the correlation of parental religiosity and the religion of their offspring throughout their life. For those examining this, see Kirkpatrick and Shaver (1990) and Kirkpatrick (2005) among plenty of others.

[6] “And believe it or not, the brain controls both emotions and rational thought.”

  1. Koeler
    January 29, 2008 at 1:59 pm

    Largely in agreement. I think part of the reason so many people treat faith as something to be respected is that it has a strong resemblance to things like trust – both involve deliberately and purposefully suspending doubts and uncertainties for the sake of a relationship. It’s important to emphasise how different the two are – in that one suspends doubts to improve a relationship, while the other suspends doubts to invent a relationship worth improving.

    Saying that choosing religion makes us Nietzscheans, though is not something that can really be made as a throwaway comment, given that Nietzsche and pretty much every religion would deny the link. Wtf, mate?

  2. January 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    I didn’t say that choosing religion makes us all Nietzschean; I said that choosing religion makes us subjectivists. We retreat from objective, empirical analysis into things which are made true simply because someone declares that they observed it.

    Religion and religious pluralism thrives on this subjectivism; one cannot advance an absolute schematic for cosmology or evolution therefore, so the line of thought runs, we must permit all rival views equal credence without recourse to what can be considered objective, empirical.

    In many respects, Nietzsche’s predictions of perspectivism were proved right – but his declarations of the death of god proved wrong. I see the shape of the ‘creators of new values’ (the ubermench which Nietzsche foresaw as replacing the universal values of religion) in the rising tide of religious interpreters who impose their own values upon others without regard for empirical or objective analysis.

  3. Barney Stannard
    November 13, 2009 at 10:58 pm

    I’m really sorry. I know I’ve been away for some time and that this is a very, very old post: I saw a link to it on a friend’s page, and as I still look at this blog relatively regularly, thought I’d take a look.

    I often (always?) disagree with you David, but usually I think you have well-reasoned points and I enjoy the ensuing debate. This article, however, I find offensive (not that that really matters) ill-informed and slapdash.

    Your arguments to show that Christianity is intellectually lazy are poor. Of course some religious people think in the way you portray, but then most people are intellectually lazy – I doubt most atheists have any coherent arguments for their position (and to be honest, why should they? Would it make their life any more fulfilling?).

    But there are many refined, reflective and nuanced defences of Christianity. Baarth, Plantinga, Geach – the Post-Wittgensteinians etc etc. These authors provide a variety of highly intellectually rigorous approaches. If you are familiar with these you will know this. If you aren’t then you really shouldn’t comment.

    And whilst I’m there:

    “choosing religion makes us subjectivists. We retreat from objective, empirical analysis into things which are made true simply because someone declares that they observed it.”

    Do you still stand by that? Quite seriously? What does it even mean?

    As an aside: your reading of Nietzsche is cursory at best. Obviously what you have written is highly condensed but a couple of points stand-out.
    1) That Nietzsche’s prediction of the death of God has been proved wrong. Where to start… well we could kick off with the fact that Nietzsche is talking about the death of God as an intellectually credible idea. So by your analysis he’s been proved right. Next we could point out that Nietzsche saw the result of this as still “further away than the light from the furthest star”. I’d give it some time.
    2) The idea that the ‘new religious interpreters’ (who exactly did you mean by this) exemplify the ubermensch is ludicrous. Lets think… “religious”. Unlikely to be ubermensch.

    Sorry this goes back so far and to be so confrontational. But as a man who doesn’t shy from an acerbic style when irritated, I hope you understand.

  4. November 13, 2009 at 11:01 pm

    Of course. There’s a reason I haven’t written in such a style about religion for quite some time, and you are quite right that I have come to reject my previous assertions and style. But the reality is that in every series of thoughts by individuals where someone goes from the un-learned and un-nuanced to the opposite.

  5. Barney Stannard
    November 17, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    Fair play. I fully agree with you about the slow process that we all make towards (some kind) of understanding. Good luck with the onward journey on this subject.

    As a probably irrelevant aside, I am making the same journey away from an unabashed defence of free market capitalism – I often look back at some of my earlier thinking on that and shudder.

  6. March 14, 2010 at 7:54 pm

    I agree with the post 100%. I think Barney’s statement that he doubts “most atheists have any coherent arguments for their position” is absurd. You do not need any coherent argument to disbelieve something. You only need it TO believe something. An argument I did not hear from Barney.

    Barney asks what the following even means: “choosing religion makes us subjectivists. We retreat from objective, empirical analysis into things which are made true simply because someone declares that they observed it.”

    Isn’t it obvious? There is no proof of the events of the bible besides the bible itself. Which was written by man (which man? Well that is lost in history as well). To take that as intellectual objectivity is completely dishonest. Religion IS subjective, is it not?

    I loved reading this entry Mr. Semple, but I was a bit baffled at your standoffishness in your defense towards Barney. I highly doubt that you have gone from a free thinker to a sheeple in less than 2 years. Or maybe you just didn’t want to “offend” Mr. Stannard by speaking truth? In which case, I will gladly take that responsibility.

  7. March 14, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Thank you for the supportive sentiments David.

    On my own views, I am still a free thinking atheist, who views the use of religious scripture as part of a rational, practical argument as essentially indefensible. But that’s not to say I agree with everything I’ve written above.

    First, my portrayal of the division between emotionality and rationality is simplistic.

    Second, I think my concept of “intellectual laziness” displayed above is elitist, and Barney makes a good point as regards the value of intellectual rigour in terms of the happiness of the individual, which is essentially negligible. The problem, therefore, is not laziness.

    If rationality itself stems from the ability of the human brain to reconcile practical events and a consistent explanation, then our problem is that our society limits the useful implications of rationality and limits the groups which readily access those useful implications.

    That paragraph is a package that can do with unpacking, but I’ll not bother unless quizzed on it directly.

    Third, at the time Barney was correct – I hadn’t read Plantinga or Geach. I did not wish to get into a fight about a subject on which I was relatively uninformed. Since then I’ve studied both – though still not Baarth. I find that neither are as rigorous as Barney would like to make out, especially with the easy dismissal of the evolutionary history of ‘reason’ itself and the scientific work on the subject.

    The article does not address in sufficient depth these philosophers or their epistemological assumptions, nor the scientific evidence which blows them apart. On that basis, I am being cursorily dismissive and I am wrong to act like that.

    Fourth, a lot of what I’ve said above is unnuanced, such as about how millions of Americans are hoodwinked by evangelical nutjobs. There is much more to be said about this in terms of rigorous academic concepts like declining ‘social capital’ and the effect this has had on our societies. Certainly there’s more to draw out of it than simply asserting that the tendency to lean towards religion is a result of ‘education’ – or rather mis-education.

    That is embarrassingly simplistic on a blog which prides itself on its ability to address the high and low ends of thinking, theory and practice.

    As for Barney’s views, feel free to argue with him. If he doesn’t reply himself in a day or so, I’ll email him and let him know about this thread.

  8. Barney Stannard
    March 14, 2010 at 10:11 pm

    Thanks Dave. I actually agree with you about Geach and Plantinga to a degree – they are by my lights not fully coherent. But they aren’t lazy either, not by a very long way.

    David: to take the points one at a time.

    1)”You do not need any coherent argument to disbelieve something. You only need it TO believe something. An argument I did not hear from Barney.”

    a) (i) I don’t believe in clouds. (ii) Not believing in clouds is a disbelief not a belief. (iii) Disbeliefs do not require coherent justifications to avoid being idiotic; (Conc.) Therefore, my disbelief in clouds does not make me an idiot.

    b) Atheism is the statement that God does not exist. i.e. a statement about the way the world is. It is a statement of belief.

    2) Perhaps I was putting it to strongly to accuse that statement of being meaningless. I think my point really was that ‘subjectivist’ is a term with sufficiently wide variety of interpretations as to render the sentence meaningless. Perhaps that is too strong.

    There is proof of many Biblical events outside of the Bible. It is a noted historical source due to its coherence with many contemporaneous accounts. Moreover one can develop detailed logical arguments to back up a belief in God. I am personally of the opinion that they probably fail. But believing in an ultimately flawed philosophical argument hardly renders one a believer in things which are true only because someone says observed it. Insofar as I understand what is meant by subjectivism here such a position does not fall within it.

    3) “Or maybe you just didn’t want to “offend” Mr. Stannard by speaking truth?” I would point out that “speaking truth” is usually heard out of the mouths of evangelical nuts. Not icily rational atheists.

  9. March 15, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Barney, you do not need proof to be an atheist. You are wrong that atheism “is the statement that God does not exist”. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God. Obviously I know no better than you do if there is a God or not. I just don’t believe that there certainly is one, so why must there be proof needed to be an atheist? It is simply a matter of not believing that there is a conscious being that created us. That is all. I do not believe that there is. That doesn’t mean I certainly believe that there isn’t. Does that make sense to you? Could there be a God? Sure. But there could also be a family of aliens living in my computer that I don’t know about. That doesn’t mean I need to disprove that in order to not believe that, right? But you’d certainly have to prove that in order TO believe it, and still sound like a non-crazy person.

    Furthermore, how do you define faith? Faith in God is believing in God despite the lack of proof. If there is a God, then I’m sure even he would admit that there is no proof of his existence. He wants you to believe despite that lack of evidence, for that is what faith is, is it not? So why try to argue with the fact that you have no proof? I’m not sure that your God would appreciate that if he did indeed exist…

    David: I get what you’re saying in your last post. I spoke up because it seemed Barney thought that when you said “you are quite right that I have come to reject my previous assertions and style,” that you actually meant that you are rejecting your lack of belief in God. And I suppose I thought you meant that as well, which is why I said I was “a bit baffled”.

  10. Barney Stannard
    March 15, 2010 at 10:14 am

    I am not wrong about atheism. You are talking about agnosticism.

    I didn’t talk about proof I talked about rational argument.

    I actually said one didn’t need rational argument – I questioned whether there was any reason why possessing such reasons would make one any happier. However, it is still intellectually lazy to hold any position without some kind of rational argument to back it up. I’ll stick by that, again with reference to clouds.

    I’m not sure I ever talked about faith. But I may have been sloppy and done so. I can’t define faith; I have never spent that much time studying it. I appreciate the strength of your point, but I was never really talking about proving God. I was talking about coherent arguments in favour of a belief in God. There is a difference in that the latter can be invoked in a probabilistic argument.

    e.g. one could hold that the cosmological argument proved that God existed, and that the leap of faith is that an imminent (etc) God existed. Or some such.

    In the alternative one could argue that there are proofs of God. One could argue that the Biblical references to faith in God in fact refer to faith with respect to God’s goodness, his plan for life etc. So a proof as to the existence of God wouldn’t be inconsistent with faith.

    I’m sorry it seemed I thought that of Dave. I didn’t. By understanding I simply meant a deeper appreciation of the issues.

  11. March 15, 2010 at 6:59 pm

    The definition of atheism depends on where you look, but most atheists will agree that it is ridiculous to say one knows for sure whether there is a God or not. One common definition is “lack of belief in a deity.” That is all. Agnosticism is most often a belief in God, but the unwillingness to ascribe characteristics to him/her/it. So I am not talking about agnosticism. I am talking about not believing in God. Atheism.

    My apologies for putting words in your mouth regarding proof. I suppose I heard what I wanted to hear based on past arguments of this nature. But my argument still stands that one does not need proof to not believe in something. But I should add that one doesn’t need proof to disbelieve something unless there is also proof that it does indeed exist (like clouds), in which case you would need proof to disbelieve it. When it comes to something with no proof of existence (God), then no proof is needed to disbelieve. I should have made that more clear the first time.

    Now to all this talk of the bible as “a noted historical source.” Maybe it is noted in the religious field, but one could not cite it as a viable source in any scientific field. Nothing is known of its writers, its date of publish, or its sources. Therefore, I don’t quite see what you’re getting at when you talk of using it as “proofs of God”.

    As far as the cosmological argument goes, yes it can be argued that ‘something’ caused all of this to happen. But that is where it stops. It is not evidence of any intelligent being, a conscious being, a judging being, or that any religion on this Earth is correct (yet it hasn’t stopped people from arguing so). In fact, one could be an atheist, and still defend the cosmological argument to an extent. Arguing anything further beyond ‘something’ having to have created all this, is indeed “intellectual laziness”.

  12. Barney Stannard
    March 15, 2010 at 10:57 pm

    I am loathe to get into a terminological debate. But you are just wrong. As Dawkins says he is in reality atheist, he denies the existence of God, but is technically agnostic – he can’t utterly rule out the possibility of God. The fact that people self-identify as atheists doesn’t make them so. But I’m not going to say any more because this is sterile and irrelvant.

    I assume by proof you mean evidence.

    I just want to state my intuition: “it cannot be epistemically justified to hold a belief without grounds, irrespective of whether the belief is on the face of it a positive belief or a disbelief. Because that isn’t rational or scientific – it is just a statement of brute belief.”

    An argument for this is that if there needn’t be any justification for not believing in God then a person with that disbelief could legitimately answer the question of why they don’t believe by simply saying “I just don’t”.

    That can’t be right. Surely this uncritical attitude cannot be rational? Surely they need to say something like “because I don’t see any evidence of him.” At which point one can ask (a) what about the ontological argument?; (b) why does one need evidence? etc Now there are obviously good answers to both of these. But these are reasons for not believing in God.

    If someone persists in simply saying ‘I just don’t believe in God’ can they possibly be called epistemically rational? Where is the inquiry that typifies the rational scientific method? Isn’t this just as dogmatic as the Christian who says ‘I just do believe in God’?

    A secondary line of argument is that you have justified the distinction between clouds and God as that the latter contradicts strong evidence and the former doesn’t. This is itself the extrusion of a whole line of reasoning which links together notions of justification and evidence. If someone doesn’t possess these reasons then they are presumably unaware of the difference between not believing in God and in clouds.

    On the Bible: except we do know many of the names of the authors. And we do know many of the sources. And we do know many dates of publication. And we know these at least as well as contemporaneous sources of the age which are accepted historical sources. Many non-theists study the Bible as an interesting cultural, mythological and historical source. But none of that actually matters, as I actually didn’t talk about using it in a proof of God. I admit the paragraph is slightly unclear as to what I meant by ‘proofs of God’ but there is nothing in it to suggest I was talking about these being contained in the Bible – I was talking about the references to faith in God, which I presumed was your basis for arguing that faith in God and proof of God was incompatible.

    I like the last paragraph. It has the benefit of being coherent and pithy. My argument was expressed laconically I will admit. I should have used a lower case ‘g’ on the first God. My point was that the cosmological argument gets you to something ‘other’ and then faith can do the rest (or maybe some other arguments, teleological or whatever). But I admit I didn’t express that very clearly (if at all).

  13. March 15, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    You make an eloquent argument and it seems your tuition money has done you well in that department. But the fact remains that ‘not believing in God’ is not the same as ‘believing firmly there is no God’. And no matter how much you hoot and holler, one does not need evidence to not believe in God. Do you believe that when you close your eyes inanimate objects come alive? Do you need to any other evidence besides common sense to not believe this? No, but you would be expected to have more than that in order TO believe this. But I suppose I’ve already said this exact same thing.

    There is a million evidence based arguments regarding all sorts of scientific findings on our existence that have nothing to do with God. There is precisely zero regarding an intelligent deity that would stand up to the most basic of scientific methods.

    But hey, as soon as you can present this evidence of a deity that you speak so fondly of, then I will take a firm belief in God as more than intellectual laziness.

  14. Barney Stannard
    March 16, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    I’m not sure I’ve spoken fondly of God at all. But I guess you can stereotype if you wish.

    I actually don’t believe there are any fully coherent arguments for the existence of God in the classical sense. But I’m nor arrogant enough to suppose that means that those who think that there are such arguments are automatically unreasonable and intellectually lazy.

    But just to placate you:

    (1) God is, by definition, a necessarily perfect being
    (2) Part of necessecary perfection is necessary existence.
    Conc: Therefore, God necessarily exists.

    On to the topic which we started off on:

    Common sense is an interesting point. I’m not entirely sure what common sense has to say about the existence of God; that topic seems a bit beyond common sense to me.

    Second, it’s probably common sense that the sun goes round the earth and that heavier things will fall faster in a vacuum. The flip side of that point is that my common sense tells me not to hammer in nails to hang up pictures directly above plug sockets.

    Common sense is fashioned by our scientific/historical/experiential understanding of the way the world works. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

    The second point to make is that there are differing standards of what one needs in order to believe in something. There are practical standards, and there are the standards of epistemology. Practical standards are far less rigorous – after all, why should anyone take seriously the idea that chairs come alive? It just isn’t worth thinking about. Epistemology places higher standards: to be epistemically rational a belief has to be supported by evidence and arguments, to put it more generally, it has has to be justified.

    Epistemic rationality is the standard (or class of standards) of human inquiry. If one were a scientist one couldn’t reject a hypothesis and simply ‘I just don’t believe it’ – one would need to give some reasons, even if they are ‘Because the stars AREN’T God’s daisy chain.’

    From this I’d make two points. Firstly, by the standards of science you want to impress on the debate a mere unjustified common sense belief that God doesn’t exist doesn’t stand up. Second, there is a question as to which is the most appropriate standard for the question of God’s existence: I’m of the opinion that the answer has potentially rather serious ramificationa. After all, what if there were a proof that an all powerful and vengeful God existed who insisted we drank only Carlsberg lager or face the consequences? I for one would be drinking Carlsberg.

  15. March 16, 2010 at 6:53 pm

    I meant the “evidence” of God that you’ve spoken fondly of, not God itself.

    And thank you for trying, but regarding your (1)(2)-conclusion: It gave me a chuckle. I’ve heard this before, but life is just not that simple. You can’t create a god with a two line equation of words. Did you realize you based this proof on a predetermined definition of God? Where did you get this definition? You can’t start a proof based on an assumption. Maybe your professor didn’t tell you, but that philosophical ‘slight of hand’ isn’t going to stand up in the real world.

    You have twisted my words and beliefs. You said “by the standards of science you want to impress on the debate a mere unjustified common sense belief that God doesn’t exist doesn’t stand up”.
    I have only argued that science does not specifically support a justified belief in God, not that it specifically supports a belief against God. But I did make a comment that science supports many aspects of our life and why we are here that have nothing to do with God. That may be what you are referring to.

    You keep insisting that one needs evidence to reject a belief in God (notice how I say “reject a belief in God”, not “believe there is for sure no God). No, you do not. Believing in a conscious judging deity is no more based on evidence than believing in inanimate objects coming alive when one closes their eyes. You have only been socialized to think there is a difference. I suggest you take a course or two of sociology to balance out all that philosophy floating around in your head.

    I think this discussion has not been too fruitful because it is not framed very well. I think we agree that it is evident that this universe is miraculous. I also think that one can fairly argue that there might be some sort of ‘creative force’ that is beyond what we can fathom. But that is where it stops.

    One cannot argue that there is evidence of a conscious being ‘floating’ around that ‘watches’ us at all times, ‘listening’ to our every mumble, ‘judging’ us and deciding what will happen to us after we die. That is absolute hogwash, and anyone pretending that there is real evidence of such is lying. That is all I have been saying from the beginning. Yet you seem to disagree, saying that there is evidence of that, which quite rightfully leaves me a little baffled.

    I think I have said everything I can possibly say on this matter. I will add that I don’t think you are exhibiting intellectual laziness. You are certainly trying very hard. But no matter the effort, a sound defense of the existence of a deity will fall short every time.

  16. Barney Stannard
    March 16, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    I give up: you genuinely think it is rational to hold an opinion without any justification for it. If that is your intuition then, fine, but, well…

    As for making you chuckle. I’m glad. I set up the argument as a test. I don’t believe it holds water at all. The interesting question is why not. It is prima facie logically valid and quite arguably sound. I’m interested by your counter-arguments; the real-world point isn’t particularly relevant (I’m not going to convince my clients that God exists) and the point that I assumed a definition… well, I guess it’s very original. Even great Kant himself didn’t hit on that when trying to debunk the argument. He seemed to think that you can just define things how you like because definitions are just stipulative. Silly him. The thing is there are actually some very simple critiques – you just obviously haven’t read them.

    I’ll think I’ll pass on the sociology. But I am aware of the crushing insight you revealed, amazingly philosophers do read beyond their own subject.

    I think you have said all you can say. I think you actually said it within your first post. You have barely said anything new since, apart from just say ‘I must be right, it’s obvious’. What is obvious is that you haven’t actually understood my points – you certainly haven’t engaged with them.

  17. March 17, 2010 at 2:13 am

    Yes, I find it hard to engage with hollow philosophical posturing. There is a reason it is a dying discipline. But I suppose you already knew that. Cheers!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 145 other followers

%d bloggers like this: