251. Comment #151183 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 8:44 am

Comment #151177 by Riley

Steve, The degree of certainty of belief and how the belief was arrived at are inseparable I think.

How does that fit with the example of Francis Collins, who is presumably as certain of his Christianity as he is of the existence of DNA, but these beliefs were arrived at by very different methods.

That also doesn't answer the question of question of how we categorise someone with different degrees of certainty about different aspects of a religion.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

252. Comment #151184 by Podaar on March 28, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #151173 by Riley

I don't know how you would interpret: "I am 10% against homosexuality"?

There are many people in my community who would characterize their belief (wrongly, in my opinion)as, "I'm not interested in what consenting adults do in private, but I don't want them to have the same marital rights as me." Does that qualify as 20% against homosexuality?

Other Comments by Podaar

253. Comment #151186 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 8:46 am

There are many people in my community who would characterize their belief (wrongly, in my opinion) as, "I'm not interested in what consenting adults do in private, but I don't want them to have the same marital rights as me." Does that qualify as 20% against homosexuality?

Perhaps the scale need not be quite so ... precise :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

254. Comment #151191 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 8:52 am

Riley:

Can you seriously not see the categorical mistakes that you are making here? How do you interpret: "I am 10% against homosexuality"? It's misapplied. It's a suggestive but otherwise meaningless statement.

You were the one who suggested a sliding scale. I showed the consequences of sliding along it!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

255. Comment #151193 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 8:55 am

How does that fit with the example of Francis Collins, who is presumably as certain of his Christianity as he is of the existence of DNA, but these beliefs were arrived at by very different methods.

I don't know why you find it so difficult to understand, Some people go into science because they want answers and they are good at getting them,

Now they are confronted with questions of an emotional, first person nature that they have no answer and the methods of science don't give them any.

In Collins case he was overcome with the beauty and marvel of "creation" one day when he took a walk according to his own words. He couldn't explain or describe that intense emotion and the scientific method is of no avail, but he needs answers, being the kind of person that he is, so he gets religious, but it is crass fundamentalism because he is a sophisticated man after all, so it is a kind of methodical moderate Christianity, intense but methodic.

Now the alternative is to simply marvel at his experience and don't attach any metaphysical significance to it, "I am not afraid of living without knowing" as Feynman put it, But some people have to know, and that compulsive obsessiveness to seek answers is a quality that can make them great scientists, they just need more restraint.

Other Comments by Bonzai

256. Comment #151196 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 8:59 am

Comment #151193 by Bonzai

I don't know why you find it so difficult to understand, Some people go into science because they want answers and they are good at getting them,

Again, you are arguing against points I am not making. All I was trying to show was that people can get to "certainty" in different ways.

Generally speaking, pick the simplest possible interpretation of my posts and you can be certain of the truth of that.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

257. Comment #151198 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:03 am

I did answer your post. There is a question, he needs an answer. The scientific answer doesn't answer his question because science gives you third person answers, he wants first person ones, So he goes to religion, but in a methodical way, so he embrace moderate Christianity.

P.S. He couldn't have used the same method because the question he asks is ill posted in science. You can recast it in a form that is answerable by science, but that is no longer the answer to the same question.

Other Comments by Bonzai

258. Comment #151200 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 9:06 am

Comment #151198 by Bonzai

I did answer your post. There is a question, he needs an answer. The scientific answer doesn't answer his question because science gives you third person answers, he want first person ones, So he goes to religion, but a methodical way to believe, like the moderate I described.

Unless you are saying that religious methods of acquiring "certainties" are the same as scientific methods of acquiring "certainties", then you are making my point.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

259. Comment #151201 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 9:07 am

How does that fit with the example of Francis Collins, who is presumably as certain of his Christianity as he is of the existence of DNA, but these beliefs were arrived at by very different methods.

Of course there is more than one method that allows for uncertainty! Francis Collins (I would guess) is neither 100% certain of the beliefs he derives from a moderate Christian approach nor the beliefs he derives from a scientific approach. In both cases his methods allow for adaptation upon new evidence.

If your approach to belief allows adaptation to new evidence, then you cannot be 100% certain of that belief. However, that being said, a person can still live their life 100% committed to that belief (e.g. if I think that my business plan has a 90% chance of producing a 1000% ROI, I might decide to commit myself to the plan with 100% of my resources).

That also doesn't answer the question of how we categorise someone with different degrees of certainty about different aspects of a religion.

I don't see this as a problem. I'm not looking to categorize a single person as being wholly "moderate" or wholly "fundamentalist" ... I accept that people are complex. I'm simply looking at the different categorical approaches to belief that people take and giving my opinion on which approach is the most honest.

I think the fundamentalist approach to belief is the more dishonest because it is not open to change.

Other Comments by Riley

260. Comment #151202 by irate_atheist on March 28, 2008 at 9:09 am

258. Comment #151196 by Steve Zara -

Generally speaking, pick the simplest possible interpretation of my posts and you can be certain of the truth of that.

Oh no, please, not more interpretation. We had enough of that with mlearnedfriend yesterday...

Other Comments by irate_atheist

261. Comment #151203 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 9:09 am

Comment #151201 by Riley

I don't see this as a problem. I'm not looking to categorize a single person as being wholly "moderate" or wholly "fundamentlaist" ... I accept that people are complex. I'm simply looking at the different categorical approaches to belief that people take and giving my opinion on which approach is the most honest.

This raises the possibility of an individual being honest about their approach to one set of beliefs, and dishonest about the approach to another.

I would support that.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

262. Comment #151204 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 9:10 am

Comment #151202 by irate_atheist

So you picked up on that :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

263. Comment #151206 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:11 am

Unless you are saying that religious methods of acquiring "certainties" are the same as scientific methods of acquiring "certainties", then you are making my point.

But religion and science also define "certainty" differently. these are two different classes of questions and not surprisingly would have different standards for answers (to my mind religious questions are not questions but you're asking about Collins)

Other Comments by Bonzai

264. Comment #151207 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 9:12 am

I wonder if Collins believes that non-Christians are going to hell. I wonder if believes that God has strong opinions about human sexual behavior.

Or perhaps he reasons that most of the old moral rules have naturalistic explanations. Maybe he feels that God's left it up to humans themselves to decide how best to live together. Maybe he's more of a transcendentalist than a traditionalist.

I can live with the neo-Christian who rejects scripture as a source of social authority.

But I remain morally opposed to any version of Christianity that claims God's pleasure for me is one thing rather than another. To these Christians I say, "Let's get God down here to speak for Himself. Until then, STFU."

Other Comments by Dr Benway

265. Comment #151209 by irate_atheist on March 28, 2008 at 9:13 am

264. Comment #151204 by Steve Zara -

Comment #151202 by irate_atheist

So you picked up on that :)

I believe I did.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

266. Comment #151210 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 9:14 am

But religion and science also define "certainty" differently.

Then any discussion of "moderation" or "fundamentalism" by someone who wants to understand them scientifically would seem to be pointless.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

267. Comment #151211 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:15 am

Riley,

Of course there is more than one method that allows for uncertainty! Francis Collins (I would guess) is neither 100% certain of his beliefs derived the moderate Christian approach to faith nor his beliefs derived from the scientific approach. In both cases his methods allow for adaptation upon new evidence.

Good point.

The moderate believer is a Bayesian! Thomas Bayes was a minister, what a coincident.

Other Comments by Bonzai

268. Comment #151212 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 9:16 am

You were the one who suggested a sliding scale. I showed the consequences of sliding along it!

You've showed the consequence of oversimplification and a categorical misapplication of that scale, yes.

Other Comments by Riley

269. Comment #151213 by SRWB on March 28, 2008 at 9:16 am

But religion and science also define "certainty" differently. these are two different classes of questions and not surprisingly would have different standards for answers

Why would/should "certainty" be on a sliding scale, dependant upon the type of question being asked? If one allows that, then the issue is wide open and all bets are off. Anyone can then be "certain" about anything they believe. Is that useful?

Other Comments by SRWB

270. Comment #151215 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:19 am

They are different problems but in some way the "methods" are similar, only in the religious case you
define "evidence" differently.

Riley summarized it better than I can. The moderates are Bayesians.

Other Comments by Bonzai

271. Comment #151216 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 9:20 am

Comment #151211 by Bonzai

Now you have me really confused. There are different definitions of certainty and uncertainty ? - does that mean we need different types of sliding scale for "religious" and "scientific" beliefs? Do we use "moderate" and "fundamenalist" differently for those different sets of belief?

It seems to me these are the kind of mental knots one gets tied up in when one tries to protect moderate religious belief.

Seems like a waste of time to me. Let's just say that holding any belief strongly based on personal intiution and without corroboration in ways that we would expect for most things in life is a bad idea, no matter if someone wants to call themselves "moderate" or not.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

272. Comment #151217 by Richard Morgan on March 28, 2008 at 9:21 am

MUSIC (???) UPDATE


"A Major Modern Atheist"

Words : Cartomancer;
Music : Some other guy.



http://www.myspace.com/fleabytes


(Standalone player N°1)

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

273. Comment #151220 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 9:25 am

Comment #151216 by Steve Zara

Riley summarized it better than I can. The moderates are Bayesians.

Is that the "scientific" definition of "Bayesian", or the "religious" definition of "Bayesian"?

If certainties are different, then definitions of probability must be too...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

274. Comment #151222 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:26 am

Let's just say that holding any belief strongly based on personal intiution and without corroboration in ways that we would expect for most things in life is a bad idea,

Holding a belief strongly doesn't mean you can't revise it. You have to first understand what a "belief" means to many moderates. You are using a fundamentalist mindset to understand moderates, so you are confused, no doubt.

Other Comments by Bonzai

275. Comment #151223 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 9:26 am

Let's just say that holding any belief strongly based on personal intiution and without corroboration in ways that we would expect for most things in life is a bad idea, no matter if someone wants to call themselves "moderate" or not.

Agreed. Solipsism is mean to other people.

*my definition of belief: claim about reality

Other Comments by Dr Benway

276. Comment #151226 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 9:30 am

"it's because someone knows something about it that we can't talk about physics. It's the things that nobody knows about that we can discuss. We can talk about the weather; we can talk about social problems; we can talk about psychology; we can talk about international finance... so it's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!"

- Richard Feynman

And I would add to this, it's because no one knows anything about "God", or life after death, or can claim absolute rules of morality, that so many people can and do talk about them so much and be assertive about it.

I'll humbly include myself in that characterization, with the caveat that I realize I'm uncertain about almost everything I assert on these threads, but I'll conjole and banter anyway as a way to get my head better wrapped around the issues.

Other Comments by Riley

277. Comment #151227 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:33 am

The Solipsim label would apply only to fundamentalists.

You keep asking for corroborating evidence, but this is a meaningless question unless you agree on what should be considered admissible evidence, Most evidence that the religious people consider as admissible would not be admissible in science, it can be because it is too vague or not easily interpreted in a straight forward, third person way. But it is a kind of evidence nonetheless, for the person who see meanings in it, and is relevant to questions relating to first person experience to which science has no answer,

Whatever your criticism to this approach, it is methodical, it does seek to incorporate "evidence" and it is not solipsism .

Other Comments by Bonzai

278. Comment #151228 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 9:33 am

Holding a belief strongly doesn't mean you can't revise it. You have to first understand what a "belief" means to many moderates. You are using a fundamentalist mindset to understand moderates, so you are confused, no doubt.

Am I? I have to agree with Dr Benway. A belief is just a claim about reality. Certainty and uncertainty relate to how sure one is about such claims. That's it.

"Moderate" is a relative term, used to label people we agree with.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

279. Comment #151231 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:44 am

I have to agree with Dr Benway A belief is just a claim about reality

Why am I not surprised. Ahhh,, the woman in a white coat, everything is so cut and dry and linear. You would find only fundamentalists characterize their beliefs as a "claim" in any definitive way. So there is a God, that is the extent to the claim. Everything else can be negotiable,

But the notion of God can be fluid, to some like Chris Hedges it is almost just a literary short hand,.

You understand "belief" too literally, perhaps there is no better word in English,

Other Comments by Bonzai

280. Comment #151232 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 9:44 am

Comment #151215 by Bonzai

Riley summarized it better than I can. The moderates are Bayesians.

So how do they estimate their prior probabilities?

Is Plantinga's approach to the truth of Christianity using Bayes statistics any better than that of MPhil's induction about the closedness of the universe?

Other Comments by epeeist

281. Comment #151234 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 9:45 am

Steve Zara wrote: "Moderate" is a relative term, used to label people we agree with.

Only if you yourself take a "moderate" approach to a given belief. The person that takes a "fundamentalist" approach to a given belief considers the "moderate" approach to be a corrupting approach.

Other Comments by Riley

282. Comment #151235 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:46 am

epeeist,

You shouldn't be too literal in reading my posts. I am not a fundamentalist.

Other Comments by Bonzai

283. Comment #151238 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 9:48 am

Bonzai:

You understand "belief" too literally, perhaps there is no better word in English,

Start fudging the meaning of words and you cksh us aiish ammcss.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

284. Comment #151240 by Podaar on March 28, 2008 at 9:52 am

A belief is just a claim about reality. Certainty and uncertainty relate to how sure one is about such claims. That's it.

I agree with this statement; yet, I suspect a "moderate" would call me an atheist "fundamentalist" for saying so.

Other Comments by Podaar

285. Comment #151241 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 9:52 am

Start fudging the meaning of words and you cksh us aiish ammcss.

Well for someone who has studied Buddhism you should know better. :) Words are not reality, you put yourself in a mental prison if you confuse the two.

Other Comments by Bonzai

286. Comment #151243 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 9:55 am

Well for someone who has studied Buddhism you should know better. :) Words are not reality, you put yourself in a mental prison if you confuse the two.

Ok, so I will step out of my mental prison, and realise that when a "moderate" campaigns strongly against gay rights, or stem cell research, they are actually only against "gay rights" and "stem cell research", which are part of a different reality.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

287. Comment #151245 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 10:01 am

You are trying to understand people here, people aren't machines, if they don't conform to what your linear models consider "reasonable' too bloody bad, It is not "scientific "to try to truncate reality to fit your preconceived idea of what religious people believe and what the nature of their beliefs are like.

I think Scott Atran was right on when he told Harris and Denette they had no idea what they were talking about when it came to religionand they demonstrated a complete disregard for science even when they were preaching it like some fundi evangelicals (OK, the last part are my words)

I'm out of here. Have a good weekend

Other Comments by Bonzai

288. Comment #151246 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 10:07 am

You are trying to understand people here, people aren't machines, if they don't conform to what your linear models consider "reasonable' too bloody bad, It is not "scientific "to try to truncate reality to fit your preconceived idea of what religious people believe and what the nature of their beliefs are like.

Well, as long as we are talking about beliefs and not "beliefs", or beliefs or beliefs.

The issue, I think, is when someone tries to say "don't worry about that - it isn't a 'belief', it is a belief, so that's all right then".

A "belief" might be worrying, but a belief has cultural or religious context, so has to be respected.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

289. Comment #151247 by epeeist on March 28, 2008 at 10:10 am

Comment #151235 by Bonzai

You shouldn't be too literal in reading my posts. I am not a fundamentalist.

[AOL]Me neither[/AOL] (yeah, I know it isn't quite right).

I find this attempt to put a single label on people intensely irritating. I suspect to someone like scooternyc I am a "liberal fascist", as a lapsed member of a Trotskyist organisation who has worked for a British bank I would hate to think what my former colleagues would label me as.

People are (mostly) incredibly complex and multi-dimensional. Reducing them to a single label looses an enormous amount of information about them and, as I think Dr. Benway as said, says more about you than about them.

Other Comments by epeeist

290. Comment #151249 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 10:12 am

Ok, so I will step out of my mental prison, and realise that when a "moderate" campaigns strongly against gay rights, or stem cell research, they are actually only against "gay rights" and "stem cell research", which are part of a different reality.

Can't resist one more parting shot.

Which moderate strongly camgaign against gay rights and the reasons, rightly or wrongly, cannot be translated into secular terms? I am thinking of Margret Somerville who argued against Same sex marriage, I disagree with her but her arguments are secular ones, Stem cell research would be controversial even to many secular people who see it as going down a slippery slope, it has the same flavour as debate over euthanasia, I think their arguments against both stem cells and euthanasia are invalid but these arguments can be and has been made without resort to religion.

Religion may articulate some of the anxieties when societies undergo changes. It may not be the source of it,

Do you think atheist China would allow same sex marriage?

You are pushing hot buttons here and I don't think it is honest,

Other Comments by Bonzai

291. Comment #151252 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 10:19 am

Which moderate strongly camgaign against gay rights and the reasons, rightly or wrongly, cannot be translated into secular terms?

We have unelected group leaders of self-labelled (and labelled by others) "moderate" religions trying to influence millions of people and politicians on issues because of eternal transcendent moral values, and they are allowed access to people and politicians because they believe in eternal transcendent moral values.

Just because religion isn't the only problem, doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

I push buttons because people who try to get away with nasty things are being protected by the banner of "moderation".

The problem is not just that the "moderates" give cover for the "fundamentalists", it is that so many give cover for the "moderates", by assuming that "moderates" tend to have safe, nice views, because... well, they are "moderates".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

292. Comment #151255 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 10:36 am

The problem is not just that the "moderates" give cover for the "fundamentalists", it is that so many give cover for the "moderates", by assuming that "moderates" tend to have safe, nice views, because... well, they are "moderates

If you cannot show why opposition to ssm, abortion, euthanasia, stem cell etc cannot be raised in a secular context,--indeed they have,-- then you are just shooting blank.You are just highlighting one aspect of the opposition, namely religion and ignoring everything else to argue your pre reached conclusion. I ask you again, do you think atheist China would allow same sex marriage?

These issues should be controversial in any society because they are challenging in some fundamental ways. A society that allows cloning and stem cell without any proper debate would probably not mind harvesting organs from executed prisoners or aborting gay fetuses either (if they can screen them)

So it is natural for a reflective society to have these debates. As long as the moderates can contribute meaningfully in a secular discourse I don't mind that at all, and many are actually doing that. Just because you disagree with their position it doesn't mean it is illegitimate to raise their concerns, as long as they can frame it in secular terms.,

It is only the fundamentalists who "argue" by quoting the Bible. That is not legitimate.

Shit, must go.

Other Comments by Bonzai

293. Comment #151261 by SteveN on March 28, 2008 at 10:45 am

I am SOOO not getting involved again in this discussion about moderates, but I have to point something out to Steve Zara:

Steve said in post #273:

It seems to me these are the kind of mental knots one gets tied up in when one tries to protect moderate religious belief.

Seems like a waste of time to me.

Aargh!! Steve's caught the McGrath meme!

Other Comments by SteveN

294. Comment #151265 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 10:53 am

If you cannot show why opposition to ssm, abortion, euthanasia, stem cell etc cannot be raised in a secular context,--indeed they have,-- then you are just shooting blank.You are just highlighting one aspect of the opposition, namely religion and ignoring everything else to argue your pre reached conclusion. I ask you again, do you think atheist China would allow same sex marriage?

Dogma is bad. Religious dogma is bad because it is backed by beliefs that aren't allowed to be challenged, or at least are somewhat protected, because the dogma is religious.

As long as the moderates can contribute meaningfully in a secular discourse I don't mind that at all, and many are actually doing that.

I find it a strange view that it is meaningful to contribute to a secular discourse because of a privileged position based on religious belief.

Just because you disagree with their position it doesn't mean it is illegitimate to raise them, as long as they can frame it in secular terms.

I would love to see how it would be possible to frame:

"Due to my religious convictions I believe that a few hundred cells is a person"

in secular terms.

The problem here is the attempt to label religious beliefs as just like any others, when religious beliefs are privileged in our society because... they are religious.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

295. Comment #151267 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 10:54 am

This discussion about "moderates" vs. "fundamentalists" began (I thought) with Steve's assertion that "fundamentalists" were more honest than "moderates" with respect to (I believe) their approach and defense of their beliefs. Approach to belief, not what you do with that belief (e.g. vote against "gay rights"), was the context that the terms "moderate" and "fundamentalist" were being used.

How can you discuss which is the more honest approach to defend a belief without first defining what the "moderate" approach is relative to the "fundamentalist" approach?


Is it unreasonable to characterize the "fundamentalist" approach to belief as an approach not open to change? (e.g. The Bible doesn't change, and so beliefs do not change.)

Is it unreasonable to characterize the "moderate" approach to belief as an approach that is open to change with new evidence?

Do these characterizations not adequately enough (for general conversation) differentiate between the approach that a person like Ted Haggard uses to defend a religious belief and the approach that a person like Alister McGrath uses to defend a religious belief?


.

Other Comments by Riley

296. Comment #151268 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 10:56 am

Comment #151261 by SteveN

Quote miner :)

Other Comments by Steve Zara

297. Comment #151273 by al-rawandi on March 28, 2008 at 11:08 am

epeeist,




"You are nothing but a drink soaked former trostkyist poppinjay"


At least that is what Hitchens is...

Other Comments by al-rawandi

298. Comment #151275 by Riley on March 28, 2008 at 11:26 am

I would love to see how it would be possible to frame: "Due to my religious convictions I believe that a few hundred cells is a person" ... in secular terms.

A secular approach used to defend the "life begins at conception" political position is to assert that: a complete set of human DNA within a distinct body of cells is all that's needed to define a person as a person.

Other Comments by Riley

299. Comment #151286 by Steve Zara on March 28, 2008 at 11:52 am

A secular approach used to defend the "life begins at conception" political position is to assert that: a complete set of human DNA within a distinct body of cells is all that's needed to define a person as a person.

It isn't that simple. Fertilization is complex:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/112587.html

Also, this is missing the point. The justification for the belief is

"Due to my religious convictions"

A theological discussion of the nature of DNA would have to be involved, which would be interesting to say the least.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

300. Comment #151295 by Dr Benway on March 28, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Bonzai: You keep asking for corroborating evidence, but this is a meaningless question unless you agree on what should be considered admissible evidence, Most evidence that the religious people consider as admissible would not be admissible in science, it can be because it is too vague or not easily interpreted in a straight forward, third person way. But it is a kind of evidence nonetheless, for the person who see meanings in it, and is relevant to questions relating to first person experience to which science has no answer,

Bonzai, I dont' think we disagree. Here's what I wrote in #151175:

Claims about one's subjective experience are still evidential claims. They're just claims that are often impossible to corroborate. Consequently they deserve less confidence than claims that can be corroborated.

Bonzai:

Whatever your criticism to this approach, it is methodical, it does seek to incorporate "evidence" and it is not solipsism .

If I let off a long fart into a crowded elevator without even trying to hold it in, what's that called? And if the Lord Jesus commands me to take the last piece of pizza on the table between us, even though you haven't had any and you're really hungry, what's that called? And if the Holy Spirit moves me to vote for social policies in accord with His righteousness, what's that called?

When I elevate my first person data to the status of third person data, your first person data don't count. Seems a rotten way to treat you.

Other Comments by Dr Benway