Echo Chambers & Epistemic Bubbles

This article might help some people make better sense of what goes on around here. https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult

Unarguably, young earth creationism (YECism) was & still is an echo chamber. It’s a shock to YECists when then get out of their common circles to hear statistically higher educated Christians than they are speaking about how compatible accepting limited biological evolutionary theories with their religious faith actually is. So when they get out of their echo chamber and realize that learning and research hasn’t stopped but rather continues, even among their fellow religious, that they didn’t know existed, it can have a chilling or liberating effect.

The Intelligent Design movement with its Intelligent Design theory/ideology (IDism) was & still is an echo chamber, based, governed & funded in Seattle, USA. I’d welcome an open conversation with Stephen C. Meyer & John G. West about this. Indoctrination going one way is all they’ve focused on, while indoctrination going the other way is an elephant in the room that IDists will eventually need to come around to address.

Evolutionism, likewise, was and obviously still is an echo chamber too. One just needs to look at This View of Life and the Cultural Evolution Society to acknowledge it. Some people here, however, will not critique cultural evolutionism and simply cannot describe that echo chamber with any sense of authenticity, accuracy or even analysis, as they are quite obviously stuck within it. I would argue that evolutionism is also quite easily identifiable as an ‘epistemic bubble,’ & is far over-extended or ‘over-determined’ across a range of fields & in colloquial pop culture today.

How easy or difficult is it to flee from any of these ideological positions once one has embraced it (creationism, IDism or evolutionism, forget ‘Darwinism’)? Aren’t people indeed at some point engaged in fitting their science to their worldview; e.g. naturalism, materialism, atheism, spiritualism or theism? Mind you, the woolliest among the agnostics & atheists here won’t even wish to articulate, let alone defend what their worldview consists of, which is another example of being unable to flee from ideology.

Good science, on the other hand, is not an echo chamber. The same is true with good philosophy and good theology/worldview discourse; they are not echo chambers and should not be treated as such. Yet too often good science, philosophy & theology/worldview are not sought or taught by one side or another in online conversations, based often on a lack of trust. This can lead quickly to loggerheads and no progress, only to further animosity and opposition, unless better mediation is provided.

A key question needed for many people here, to escape from skepticism for those unfortunate to have been diverted or taken in by it, one requires ______(?)______. This seems to be among the most difficult challenges among participants at TSZ to escape their ‘skeptic’ (read: agnostic) echo chambers. They likely don’t know what more than mere skepticism is actually out there or have just grown numb to it, just like echo chambered IDists, creationists & fellow evolutionists.

Those who are neither IDist, creationist nor evolutionist have found a better way forward without those ideological excesses. Can anyone here name someone who doesn’t visit this site in that rather large ‘better-balanced’ camp?

115 thoughts on “Echo Chambers & Epistemic Bubbles

  1. FIFTY PERCENT – nails, nails, everywhere nails!

    Get yourself over to PS, Joe. Joshua will shake your hand enthusiastically for that fellow-biologist inflation! = P

  2. Gregory:
    FIFTY PERCENT – nails, nails, everywhere nails!

    Get yourself over to PS, Joe. Joshua will shake your hand enthusiastically for that fellow-biologist inflation! = P

    Fifty percent at this site. Not at PS. You asked what the percentage was “at this site”.

  3. C’mon Joe, you’re better than this!

    I wrote: “this ‘conversation’ about ‘origins’ involves science, philosophy and theology/worldview. Saying ‘human & life origins’ is mainly about biology just won’t cut it.”

    You returned to ‘this site.’ To this site made by woolly ‘Lizzie,’ the apostate agnostic now disappeared. I reject the distorted sense of priority people at this site foist on the ‘conversation’ about ‘origins.’ It’s highly restrictive & reductionistic.

    For you, it’s nails, nails, nails = biology. Yet you don’t speak for MOST PEOPLE who are not biologists. You are prioritizing biology at the cost of other fields.

    Francis Collins doesn’t agree with your biology-uber-alles priority. Many top level scientists don’t agree with your priority. And neither do I.

  4. Gregory,

    Jesus.

    Joe, IMHO, so often the best advice to give oneself is: “It’s really just not worth it. How many here will say, ‘Oh yeah. I see what you mean. Makes sense. Thanks.’?”

    [If only I could take this advice myself. Even to make a such a reply as this one is never really indicated.]

  5. Yes, it’s a prime example of an echo chamber among evolutionary biologists. Yet do you think a single atheist or agnostic would openly & honestly admit that here?

  6. Gregory:

    For you, it’s nails, nails, nails = biology. Yet you don’t speak for MOST PEOPLE who are not biologists. You are prioritizing biology at the cost of other fields.

    One of the hazards of working directly with the nitty gritty day after day is, you tend to lose sight of all the goddy stuff. One has to step back away from the details, and regard all of nature through the eyes of faith. After all, who would you rather have build your house, an expert at driving nails or an expert at praying?

  7. Flint,

    An expert at driving nails & who prays. Best of both worlds! = )

    “One of the hazards of working directly with the nitty gritty day after day is, you tend to lose sight of all the goddy stuff.”

    That supposed ‘tendency’ is both untrue and unnecessary for many people. It doesn’t mean it’s easy to seek God, but rather takes effort. Francis Collins is just one counter-example to your suggestion.

  8. Gregory:

    Joe Felsenstein,

    “A lot of the discussion at this site is about processes of biological evolution.”

    What % would you say?

    That was the question. I gave an answer (50%) and you expressed astonishment. When I said that the estimate was for this site, you insisted that you were asking about “this conversation” which included PS. No you weren’t, however much you would have preferred to talk about the “conversation”.

  9. Joe Felsenstein,

    Yeah, so you think ‘the conversation’ about science, philosophy & theology/worldview is restricted to this site?! This is a site filled with atheists & agnostics. You are aware of that, are you not?

    Seriously, Joe, if you don’t think evolutionary biology exists in an echo chamber, then you’re a seriously deluded person who has almost no awareness or understanding of society & culture beyond the end of his own nose. Thus, you continue to hype the echo chamber. We get the biologistic myopia, ok?

  10. Joe Felsenstein: Fifty percent at this site. Not at PS. You asked what the percentage was “at this site”.

    Perhaps “this” was simply an ambiguous reference.

  11. From the OP: “Evolutionism, likewise, was and obviously still is an echo chamber too. One just needs to look at This View of Life and the Cultural Evolution Society to acknowledge it. Some people here, however, will not critique cultural evolutionism and simply cannot describe that echo chamber with any sense of authenticity, accuracy or even analysis, as they are quite obviously stuck within it. I would argue that evolutionism is also quite easily identifiable as an ‘epistemic bubble,’ & is far over-extended or ‘over-determined’ across a range of fields & in colloquial pop culture today.”

  12. Have to say that having participated in this online debate for 20 years (and having read Gould’s essays starting in 1974), I have not previously visited the Evolution Institute website, nor do I know anyone who talks about them.

    Looks like an upscale version of Buzzfeed.

  13. Gregory:
    Joe Felsenstein,

    Yeah, so you think ‘the conversation’ about science, philosophy & theology/worldview is restricted to this site?! This is a site filled with atheists & agnostics. You are aware of that, are you not?

    Seriously, Joe, if you don’t think evolutionary biology exists in an echo chamber, then you’re a seriously deluded person who has almost no awareness or understanding of society & culture beyond the end of his own nose. Thus, you continue to hype the echo chamber. We get the biologistic myopia, ok?

    Everything is a nail

    “What % would you say? You’re a biologist, so it’s possible that like a hammer you think everything is a nail. You’ve been fairly balanced in the past. Would you please put an estimate on this?

    As I’ve said for quite a few years, both here, at UD, at BioLogos & at PS (along with other places), this ‘conversation’ about ‘origins’ involves science, philosophy and theology/worldview. Saying ‘human & life origins’ is mainly about biology just won’t cut it. Biology is at the table in the conversation, but it is surely by now bloated & ‘evolutionary biology’ is highly unrepresentative of the population, evidence of the large impact of ideology in that subdiscipline of biology.”

  14. Gregory: Yeah, so you think ‘the conversation’ about science, philosophy & theology/worldview is restricted to this site?

    I warned you, Joe.

  15. Gregory:
    Flint,

    An expert at driving nails & who prays. Best of both worlds! = )

    That supposed ‘tendency’ is both untrue and unnecessary for many people. It doesn’t mean it’s easy to seek God, but rather takes effort. Francis Collins is just one counter-example to your suggestion.

    Some of us “have no need for that hypothesis.” Us benighted souls believe that ringing in any ineffable external agencies, which cannot be defined or tested or ruled out, contributes no explanatory power to anything.

    Then again, perhaps explanation and deeper understanding of how the universe works isn’t the right goal, or isn’t sufficient in and of itself. We must also spend the effort to seek, or grok, or intuit the absolutely essential supernatural essence pervading the universe which no two people can quite agree on, but most people somehow know it’s there AND that their version is the only right one.

    To schmucks like me, this says a good deal about human nature, but nothing really useful about anything else.

  16. Gregory:
    Joe Felsenstein,

    Yeah, so you think ‘the conversation’ about science, philosophy & theology/worldview is restricted to this site?! This is a site filled with atheists & agnostics. You are aware of that, are you not?

    Seriously, Joe, if you don’t think evolutionary biology exists in an echo chamber, then you’re a seriously deluded person who has almost no awareness or understanding of society & culture beyond the end of his own nose. Thus, you continue to hype the echo chamber. We get the biologistic myopia, ok?

    I think that “at this site” has a subtle meaning. It means “at this site”. Apparently I’m “seriously deluded”.

    As an evolutionary biologist who specializes both in statistical inference of phylogenies and in mathematical modeling of change of genotype frequencies in populations, I am well-suited to comment when people argue that there is no common ancestry or when they argue that evolutionary change within populations can’t happen. Often defenders of evolutionary biology, here and on other blogs, are intimidated by mathematical arguments — so it helps if I explain how to reason with mathematics about evolution.

    That does not mean I buy in to every attempt to extend population-genetic or phylogenetic arguments to change of human culture. However I cannot issue some universal declaration that such attempts are always invalid. I suspect that using phylogeny methods to infer the history of human languages is not invalid. I know people on both sides of that issue. If linguists feel that these studies do not answer the really interesting questions in linguistics, fine, but do they answer the questions that they do ask?

    With respect to “memes”, are they totally useless? I think not totally, but they do need the whole situation to be better defined, and for it to be better understood when it is worth making such models. For whether you switch the hands holding the fork and the knife before you eat a newly-cut piece of meat, maybe. For whether your society is monotheistic, most likely not.

    I think that there is a lot of discussion of evolutionary biology issues here. Thousands of comments on a couple of common-descent threads, mostly because the creationists (not “ID theorists” in that case) absolutely refuse to see the evidence for common descent. Similarly on arguments that natural selection does not exist, or cannot work.

    Can Gregory see why there should be some place like this or PT or Sandwalk for those issues to be discussed. Can he see that this is not all some crazed attempt to destroy all religion?

  17. I think Gregory persists in trying to kindle a flame with damp tender.

    This site, and Sandwalk, basically defend biological evolution. Side issues lihe free will keep sneaking in. Possibly because theists find that issues unrelated to common descent cluster.

  18. petrushka:
    I think Gregory persists in trying to kindle a flame with damp tender.

    This site, and Sandwalk, basically defend biological evolution. Side issues lihe free will keep sneaking in. Possibly because theists find that issues unrelated to common descent cluster.

    I postulate there are two reasons for the side issues sneaking in. First, because discussions of biology often require knowing something about biology and most of us are not professional biologists. And second, because the sort of theists we get here seem to see theology wherever they look, regardless of the topic. I’ve found them preaching the same material on sites devoted to geology, astronomy, contagious disease, and home cooking!

  19. Joe Felsenstein,

    I’ll stick with the full sentence and don’t take it lightly, aware of your emeritus career record from a distance: “if you don’t think evolutionary biology exists in an echo chamber, then you’re a seriously deluded person.” For goodness sake, your doctoral advisor was Richard Lewontin of “Biology as Ideology” notoriety! = )

    This is said with respect to your achievements and accomplishments, leadership, teaching, etc. in biology at university. Some people simply don’t look at the social, cultural, economic, linguistic & religious/worldview aspects of their own field, while others do. Maybe you just don’t often go outside of biology in your communications as I am asking you to do here? Maybe you just don’t acknowledge a science, philosophy & theology/worldview conversation that you also (could) participate in?

    The advantage for me in this conversation with Joe is that he hasn’t done ‘sociology of biology’ studies (not that it’s my forte, though I’ve kept it on my radar), while I value & spread what it properly done tells us. He certainly isn’t going to do a ‘biology of sociology,’ so that’s a conversation that won’t be had. Yet the sociology of biology & of biologists can yield fascinating results, oftentimes different than what is being represented publicly by biologists themselves.

    My raising that the sub-field of ‘evolutionary biology’ (actually, I started by focusing on ideological ‘evolutionism,’ but the same holds true with evolutionary biology & that is the sub-field of biology where evolutionism is based & has it’s ‘theoretical’ core) is an ‘echo chamber,’ isn’t something he thinks about often, though he should have received training to do. That is exactly why it was worth a shot posting the above article at this venue.

    From Greg Graffin’s “Monism, Atheism & The Naturalist World View: Perspectives From Evolutionary Biology.” Follow link here: https://gerdapeacheysviews.wordpress.com/phd-study-finds-evolution-is-incompatible-with-god/

    “the world’s leading evolutionary biologists find no conflict between evolution and religion on one condition, and that condition is simply that what they call religion is a severely debased form of traditional theology that is fundamentally atheistic in tone.” – Greg Graffin

    Does the above & this article & presentation by Graffin himself regarding his survey of evolutionary biologists in 22 countries, offer anything of ‘substance’ for Joe to reconsider what kind of echo chamber evolutionary biology might currently consist of, which most evolutionary biologists are stuck in, with some exceptions granted outside of the centre or by those openly or subtly outlawed by the field (e.g. Lynn Margulis & Lewontin himself) in some way?

    Joe & I share a common repulsion or at least rejection of much of the work of David Sloan Wilson, who swash buckles in squawk like this: “Lest you think that I’m trying to nuke the entire establishment of evolutionary thinkers”. You’re gonna love this one involving the on-going non-debate, non-echo chamber regarding ‘group selection,’ Joe, in which Wilson offers, “my fantasy version of a conversation with Weinstein”! At least he answers one of your questions directly, in the process supporting my challenge & concern: “Unfortunately, the majority of social evolutionists contributing to the peer-review literature aren’t very active on the internet.” What are the social evolutionists hiding from? = P
    https://evolution-institute.org/what-brett-weinstein-gets-wrong-about-group-selection/

    This answers to those who are just picking up the ‘cultural evolution’ links name-dropped in the OP.

    “EvoS, a unique campus-wide evolutionary studies program that recently received NSF funding to expand into a nationwide consortium.”

    Ideological ‘evolutionism,’ a vicious self-distorting & defeating, soul-denying echo chamber when taken to its ‘logical’ conclusions, in this case overlaps significantly with ‘evolutionary studies’.

    “First, because discussions of biology often require knowing something about biology and most of us are not professional biologists.” – Flint

    Yes, agreed.

    “And second, because the sort of theists we get here seem to see theology wherever they look, regardless of the topic.” – Flint

    Yes, however the ‘side issues’ are sometimes the main course or even better the dessert, which somehow in your palate you have mistaken for something that it actually isn’t. Something less tasteful or palatable when looked at carefully and thoroughly on the theology/worldview stage.

    “With respect to “memes”, are they totally useless?”

    Please focus with accuracy. The useless entity is ‘memetics’, invented by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. It was attempted as a ‘field of study’ or ‘theory’ for scientifically measuring cultural replicators, or cultural change based on analogy with Darwinian evolution. That field of study or theory is now dead, along with the flagship Journal in 2005. No one is bringing it back to life because it failed in its core meaning & intention.

    Memetics is based upon cultural materialism. Do you acknowledge that or not?

    The same-named notion of a ‘viral media’ identifying a digital video or music clip, often edited photo with text or image alteration, as a ‘meme’ has only the name connection with ‘memetics’ – they shared the same source. Dawkins’ himself, apparently in defeat, but never fully conceding, concluded that ‘memes’ had been ‘highjacked’ by others to signify something different (yet similar) to what he had intended.

    “Can Gregory see why there should be some place like this or PT or Sandwalk for those issues to be discussed. Can he see that this is not all some crazed attempt to destroy all religion?”

    Yes, he can see that. It need not be added, of course, there are indeed anti-theists and anti-religious voices here at TSZ, as Joe himself well knows if he has ears still hearing.

    Human creativity & agency reduced to Dennett platitudinous banalities about memetics & a so-called ‘evolution of freedom’ along with Blackmore ‘memeplexes’ & other absurdities is too much. Who here is defending either of them of this charge? It’s not worse than E.O. Wilson’s sociobiology, but it’s just as bad. This is what Joe seems to not wish to talk about, so for our collective learning opportunity, why not let’s see what he is comfortable enough in sharing to speak about his former field of expertise?

  20. Gregory: And let’s be honest

    What if…you are alone with no support for your beliefs?

    Gregory: the sub-field of evolutionary biology doesn’t exactly have much higher of a reputation than even the field of sociology right now! = P

    I was just reading about the mind boggling fine-tuning in photosynthesis between the temperature of the many life systems and the transport efficiency of exciton at “the quantum level of evolutionary engineering”…

    The authors of the paper couldn’t write that quantum photosynthesis fine-tuning is screaming intelligent design… So, as they had no other choice but to bring in the omnipotence of natural selection into the picture to explain the quantum level of evolutionary engineering…that fine-tuned this remarkable level of perfection for the last 3.5 billion years…
    This is nothing new as we have seen it many times at TSZ when the omnipotence of natural selection comes to the rescue of evolutionary theory in mathematics of population genetics and many others…

  21. J-Mac: that fine-tuned this remarkable level of perfection for the last 3.5 billion years…

    Odd how perfection can be improved on by 40%

    https://agfax.com/2019/01/11/crop-growth-boosted-40-by-making-photosynthesis-more-efficient/
    https://ripe.illinois.edu/

    Your comment is basically what is known as an argument from incredulity.

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

    The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

    You don’t personally understand it, therefore it’s ID.

  22. J-Mac: This is nothing new as we have seen it many times at TSZ when the omnipotence of natural selection comes to the rescue of evolutionary theory in mathematics of population genetics and many others…

    Shame you have not published a formal paper with these critiques then. I guess you are not that bothered about Intelligent Design winning.

  23. Gregory,

    Gregory, if you don’t mind me asking, what’s your argument against atheism, agnosticism, apatheism, etc, please? Your criticism of the IDM seems well articulated and clear, but I don’t think I’ve ever come across with anything of substance from you when it comes to addressing atheism, just vitriolic attacks. Why should someone like me stop being a “soul-denier” and believe in the Abrahamic God?

  24. dazz: Why should someone like me stop being a “soul-denier” and believe in the Abrahamic God?

    If you don’t you’ll burn? er..

  25. dazz,

    “Your criticism of the IDM seems well articulated and clear.”

    Thank you. It’s been a long road & I’m one of very few sociologists ‘covering’ this story. The DI is nevertheless filled with good people who with the exception of their IDism ideology (& some other less-core political issues at the DI) I respect.

    “Why should someone like me stop being a “soul-denier” and believe in the Abrahamic God?”

    dazz, you appear to be one of the anti-religious folks here, if my memory serves correctly. Though I wish it were not true, I honestly doubt you are open to stop being a ‘soul-denier.’ Please indicate if there is a ‘searching’ or ‘seeking’ bone in your body & if so, provide an example of your ‘good faith’ in this conversation to make me more interested to take your question seriously.

    In short – & Joshua is largely right about this, as are many others – since you don’t have my trust, there can be little valuable conversation between us.

    Sorry, no more time after the long weekend.

  26. Gregory: I honestly doubt you are open to stop being a ‘soul-denier.’ Please indicate if there is a ‘searching’ or ‘seeking’ bone in your body & if so, provide an example of your ‘good faith’ in this conversation to make me more interested to take your question seriously.

    I like to think I’m always open to truth. If you think I’m living a lie, you must surely have good reasons why we should all believe in God. I’m asking what those reasons are. Plain and simple. Will you simply keep on telling us we’re wrong, but not why?

  27. dazz,

    Being passively ‘open to truth’ & actively seeking it are two different things. What are you doing to ‘seek truth’ about/regarding/within religion &/or theology?

    Otherwise, if yours is a closed mind & heart around anti-religious atheism, then there’s little motivation or reason to ‘do apologetics’ with you here, as it would just be a waste of time.

    I’m not easily duped by the anti-religious & non-seekers into trusting them, as aren’t most people in society, which is why atheists (leaving out some or most Buddhists) are & have always been the least trusted group in most countries (I lived many years among former Soviets, don’t forget!).

    Sorry, you’ll need to do better than stating that you are generically ‘open to truth,’ which is not easily trusted based on what you’ve written previously.

  28. Gregory: Sorry, you’ll need to do better than stating that you are generically ‘open to truth,’ which is not easily trusted based on what you’ve written previously.

    What is it I have written that suggests I’m not open to truth?

  29. Gregory: Being passively ‘open to truth’ & actively seeking it are two different things. What are you doing to ‘seek truth’ about/regarding/within religion &/or theology?

    Do you think ID is about actively seeking truth? And if you don’t, why do you give them a different treatment than us?

  30. dazz,

    Passively open vs. actively seeking.

    Your question makes no sense. ‘ID’ is not a person. Persons seek truth or turn & run from it.

    Do I think some (at least a few) IDists are actively seeking truth? Yes, I do. Do they mix IDist ideology in their active search for truth. Yes, to a man or woman, all of the IDists I have met are ideologues & yet fantastically all of them (be welcome to ask EricMH or VJTorley, though the latter has left IDism & now posts at PS instead of here – good for him!) deny they even have/use/accept *any* ideologies. I have not yet found an exception to this absurd situation in the IDM.

  31. Belief is not really consistent with truth seeking.

    I’ve never heard a true believer who was a provisional believer.

    Prov.3 Verse 5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

  32. dazz,

    I wouldn’t say & haven’t said that.

    Yes, most IDists are religious theists (or ‘believers’ as you call them). Indeed, I argue that IDism is inherently anti-atheism (contra EricMH, who once wrote here: “ID is consistent with atheism!”); atheists can’t be (real or authentic) IDists. That’s a large part of why IDT/IDism can’t be taught as ‘strictly scientific’ in public schools.

  33. Gregory:
    A rare re-post…

    So your argument essentially amounts to “shut up and believe for no reason”
    What would you say to those who profess other faiths other than the three abrahamic ones?

  34. dazz: So truth seeking involves believing in God, and one needs to take it on faith?

    This is not what I said nor meant. Seeking truth may, however, mean finding God or moving closer to God. One cannot find God using ‘reason alone,’ which would just be a superficial, hyper-rationalistic ‘faith’.

    “So your argument essentially amounts to ‘shut up and believe for no reason’.”

    If that’s what you interpret from reading that text or my words anywhere on this site, then it appears at least part of your anti-religious worldview may simply be due to either intentionally (more likely) or unintentionally misinterpreting religious scripture and Abrahamic theists (count another for Baha’is).

    I’m done here due to cursing & bad faith. This place has become ‘miserable’ again (as others in the past called it, which was accurate).

  35. Gregory: (more likely) or unintentionally misinterpreting religious scripture and Abrahamic theists (count another for Baha’is).

    It seems there is no single way to interpret religious scripture. Everybody has their own opinion. To some the bible approves of slavery, to others it does not. Some number of people saw Jesus resurrected, then a different number sees him.

    If the thing cannot be interpreted then unintentionally misinterpreting religious scripture is what everybody is doing! As there is no actual interpretation that can be agreed on.

  36. Gregory: I’m done here due to cursing & bad faith. This place has become ‘miserable’ again (as others in the past called it, which was accurate).

    Miserable fucking atheists. 🙁

    All you’re trying to do is help sort them out, and this is the thanks you get. Curse words! A delicate soul like you, who, in good Anthony Perkins tradition, wouldn’t hurt a fly!

  37. OMagain: It seems there is no single way to interpret religious scripture.

    It probably made sense to the people of that time — the people for whom it was originally written (or spoken).

    So here we are, culturally far removed. And some people want to insist that scripture is inerrant. So they have no choice but to invent wild interpretations.

    … then unintentionally misinterpreting religious scripture is what everybody is doing!

    Or maybe it isn’t so unintentional.

  38. Religion has always been about following a charismatic person. Unless you are speaking directly to god yourself.

    Even then (and perhaps, particularly then) one should do a reality check.

    Even GPS maps occasionally need to be questioned.

    Lest you drive off a cliff or into a mire.

    But the people who say, trust in the lord, and don’t listen to the voice of reason behind that curtain, are really saying, do what I tell you to do.

  39. petrushka:
    Religion has always been about following a charismatic person. Unless you are speaking directly to god yourself.

    Even then (and perhaps, particularly then) one should do a reality check.

    Even GPS maps occasionally need to be questioned.

    Lest you drive off a cliff or into a mire.

    But the people who say, trust in the lord, and don’t listen to the voice of reason behind that curtain, are really saying, do what I tell you to do.

    Truer words were never spoken

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.