You recently sent me the first three issues for 1996, and I can hardly believe my eyes. It is so comforting to know that there are so many other people out there who have beliefs similar to my own. Thank you!
I am 21 years old and was raised Catholic. I live in a small religious town in the middle of the bible belt. People my age go to church functions for fun, families give a percentage of each paycheck to their churches, and even go to church to vote! About five years ago, I decided the Catholic religion was a joke and set out to find the truth about God and the "right" religion for me. After reading the bible and applying some common sense, I came to the conclusion that all religions are basically the same and God does not exist. This was a great relief to me, and I have been (happily) an atheist ever since. In fact, I am kind of embarrassed that I believed in something for so long just because other people told me to.
When I told my family that I no longer believed in God, they said I was going through a phase, rebelling, etc. and assured me that I would snap out of it when I grew up. I hope they're not holding their breaths.
Thanks again for The Skeptical Review. I thought I was alone for so long and you have shown me differently. Enclosed is a check for a 2-year subscription.
(Linda Vincent, 1504 Rockwood Boulevard, Mulvane, KS 67110.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Letters like this are a delight to receive, and they confirm something that I have said many times: the Bible is its own worst enemy. If people would just read it and learn what is in it, more and more people would be doing exactly what Ms. Vincent did. At the end of my public debates, I usually say to the audiences that I hope my presence in the community has at least created an interest in reading the Bible. I then urge the people to go home and read it, because if the day ever comes when people actually read their Bibles rather than letting them be dust-collectors in their homes, there will be many more departures from the faith.
In people like Ms. Vincent, I also see hope for the future. If any substantial change is to happen in religious thinking, it will have to come through her generation. Those who are my age are usually too set in their ways to change, but the young are almost always the ones responsible for changes in society. I really can't imagine people her age and younger growing up in a highly technological society and yet continuing to believe primitive superstition and nonsense. The Internet Infidels is an organization made up primarily of people who went through high school and college during the computer age, and their work on behalf of freethought on the internet will surely bring about profound changes in religious thinking.
I can certainly understand Ms. Vincent's embarrassment when she reflects on what she used to believe. That is a perfectly normal reaction, which everyone who has been down that road experiences. How would she like to know that she spent 12 years of her life preaching religious nonsense, as I did? Now, that's really embarrassing!
I look forward to each issue and find them very informative. I especially enjoy the debates that you have with the inerrantists.
Bertrand Russell was my mentor many years ago, which is when I would say I became a confirmed atheist. I've had no reason since to change my mind. However, I have a problem. In the Autumn 1995 issue, your lead article is "The Historicity of Jesus." I agree with your main points and especially with the fact that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus's activities, which there should have been if "tens of thousands flocked to him." I find it inconceivable that there would not be a written record. Therefore, I took the position that probably Jesus never did exist. After all, the life of Jesus from the nonsensical virgin birth, walking on water, etc. is so irrational.
Here is my problem. I am a Jew, a Jewish atheist. If I believe that Jesus is a fictional character because there is no contemporary confirming evidence, then to be consistent I must say the same about Moses. There are no contemporary Egyptian records of Moses, and I find it hard to believe that there would not have been records of a person of his stature as leader of the Hebrew exodus. Aside from the hocus-pocus that Moses was supposed to have done, I considered him a historical figure. Now placing Moses in the same category as Jesus, i.e., both are fictional, I feel a sense of loss.
(Arthur Robins, 69 Millersgrove Drive, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada M2R 3S1.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Robins' sense of loss is certainly understandable. I suspect that it is akin to the feeling that Christians experience when they come to realize that they have been duped. As for the historicity of Jesus, I personally suspect that no such man ever existed, but I also recognize that there could have been a Jesus whose life was simply exaggerated and legendized beyond recognition. I think the same would be true of Moses and other biblical characters. If a man named Moses ever existed, certainly he wasn't the Moses who parted the Red Sea, talked to Yahweh on Mount Sinai, and performed the other extraordinary feats attributed to him.
Don't let the losers define the terms! Who controls the words controls how we think about the debate. Perhaps because of the way humans think, i.e., in words, clever use of loaded words manipulates the firing of synapses in our brains, driving us to involuntary or unthinking conclusions.
I bring this up, because it seems that atheism relies on disproving biblical literalism. Isn't that like letting losers define the word god and then proving there is no God because the definition is preposterous?
(David Nixon, Box 562, Marmora, NJ 08223.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Some think that it is improper to debate the Bible at all because it dignifies an obvious collection of primitive superstition and leaves the impression that it is important enough to warrant public debate. I can't agree with this position. No matter how absurd belief in the Bible is, those who believe in it exert an influence on our society that needs to be opposed. Otherwise, we stand to lose freedoms and retard social and technological progress. I have often said that if the Mother Goose Tales were believed in our society to a degree that influenced social and legislative matters, rational people would have no choice but to oppose Mother Goose believers. On the other hand, I agree with what I think Mr. Nixon was basically trying to communicate: he who asserts must prove. Too often we allow the believers in ridiculous premises to put on us the burden of proving that their premises are not true, so we should constantly remind them that they are the ones who should prove that god exists, the Bible is inspired of god, the Bible is inerrant, etc. When they refuse to do so, however, I think it is appropriate for skeptics to state the reasons why they do not believe in ridiculous religious premises if for no other reason than to try to enlighten the few believers in religious superstition who may be willing to listen to common-sense reasoning. That is different from assuming the burden of proving that ridiculous premises are not true.
Somehow my name was placed on your snail mailing list and I have received several copies of your newsletters The Skeptical Review. After reading through these, I am quite baffled. You seem to think that refuting the claims of Biblical Inerrancy constitutes a refutation of Christianity, even God's existence. If you can't see the illogic of this idea, you have a serious blind spot in your thinking or understanding of Christianity. (And please, leave out the testimonials about having been a brainwashed inerrantist before you saw the light. Just because you didn't use your brain then is no reason for someone to think you are using it now).
The closest you come to addressing a fundamental point of Christianity is your response to Matthew Perman's highlighting of historical facts (July/ August 1996). There you reveal clearly that you do not understand what critical scholarship is nor what they have established. I could list such scholars for you by name but you obviously do not know one from another. Your "points" (made by others and reiterated by you) are irrelevant to the established history; You then have the audacity to say that the established history is "based on the assumption that the NT records are historically accurate." How embarrassing it is for someone to have assumed that you were much more studied than you obviously are. How insulting it is for you to say such stupid things when you are the one who has chosen to ignore or not learn what critical scholars have to say about the history of Jesus.
You obviously don't want to tackle fundamental issues (the existence of God, the history of the resurrection claim, etc.) in a rational way so Biblical Inerrancy is handy a straw man you have set up to bait Christians who don't realize the waste of time the issue is. But how about being real. You don't believe in God so you have no objective morals or ethics (if you think you do, please explain). You have no basis for condemning or applauding anyone other than personal preference so what is your motivation for your "mission"? You obviously think that people should not promote certain beliefs and claims and that there is a value to you opposing these; I sense that the answer to why will betray your hypocrisy.
(Jeffery McCain, 303 Navajo Springs Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765; e-mail jmccain@cris.com.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. McCain's e-mail letter has been copied to this column exactly as he sent it. I don't recall how his name came to be on TSR's mailing list. People will sometimes ask us to add the names of friends and relatives who they think will profit from receiving the paper. Obviously, whoever thought that McCain needed to receive the paper was right, but whether he will profit from it or not is another matter. Many readers who also subscribe to errancy@atheist. tamu.edu will immediately recognize his name. He came onto the list, at my invitation, apparently thinking that he was going to blow the errantists away with his invincible logic, but very quickly he saw that he was the one whose position was in serious trouble. Despite several direct challenges that he defend wild assertions like those he made in his letter above, he has yet to state a clearly recognizable position and then defend it. As I am writing this, he is known on the errancy list as an asserter of unsupported claims and an evader of arguments, who seems to think he has the right to do what Mr. Nixon criticized in the letter immediately before this one, i.e., insist that skeptics and atheists assume the burden of proving that major theistic claims are not true.
He seems to have read just enough philosophy to bandy philosophical terms around, as if he thinks that sounding informed will make readers believe that he is. From the best I have been able to determine from his postings on the inerrancy list, McCain believes in the presuppositionalist premise that nature is amoral and so it would be impossible for morality to exist unless a deity "outside of time," who is transcendent to the amoral universe, infused into humans the ability to think and to behave as moral entities. If this is a misrepresentation of his belief, then he is to blame for refusing to clarify his position to the many Errancy subscribers who have asked him to.
If he wants to think that I am stupid, he is of course free to do so. He won't be the first one to so think. If, however, he should ever decide to take a clear stand on any issue related to biblical inerrancy, I would be more than glad to direct all of my stupidity toward responding to any evidence that he thinks he can present in support of the biblical inerrancy doctrine.
[Here are] a few interesting nuggets to add to your "Family Values" piece: (1) Ishmael was 14 years old when Abraham sent him away (Gen. 16:16; 21:5). Are we to believe that Hagar carried him piggyback (21:14)? Obviously, the author didn't grasp the chronology here and erroneously thought Ishmael was a small child. (2) Sarah was at least 65 when Abraham first trafficked in her honor. (Genesis 17:17 establishes that she was 10 years younger than her husband, and 12:4 that he was 75 when he left Haran before going into Egypt.) And she was still a "looker"? And this was even before facelifts! (3) Both versions of the story have the innocent dupes incurring God's wrath, not the duplicitous Abraham, who was God's pet, even though 20:5-6 admits that Abimelech was really blameless. (4) The author of Genesis had three versions of the same legend, and rather than determine which one was the real one, he simply ran all three. In Genesis 26, Isaac's the culprit, Abimelech is still king, and he sees Ike and Becky copulating in public (26:8)! (I got your "Family Values" right here!) The reference to the Philistines is an anachronism, since the Philistines were not to settle in Palestine for another seven centuries. They were, however, there when the actual author (not Moses) wrote Genesis, which explains his mistake and disproves Mosaic authorship.
Hello! Incest, people! That's a Yahwistic no-no! And these were the holy, chosen ones of God???
(Stephen Van Eck, RR 1, Box 62, Rushville, PA 19939.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Van Eck's letter arrived after the front-page article had already been written. It's a good supplement to the series on "Family Values" that will continue through at least the next issue.
Thank you for your excellent rebuttal to Hogan's defense of the Tyre prophecy. In that context, Hogan makes an error that is worth mentioning in some detail as it is used so often by Bible-believers.
When Hogan brings in Alexander the Great, as an explanation for a shift in pronouns, he is invoking an explanation that is not in the Bible. Such an explanation is seized upon, of course, because it makes sense in the light of what we know today, namely that Alexander the Great did indeed destroy Tyre. However, isn't this just another way of assuming that the prophecy must be right? The prophecy must be right, the believer reasons, so we are justified in attaching whatever historical event we know of that will make the prophecy work. If a prophecy has not been fulfilled, then it will be fulfilled in the future because it must be right. This whole line of thinking is based on the premise that biblical prophecy cannot err! If one is going to make that kind of assumption up front, one should not even pretend to be engaged in a rational, impartial discussion of the matter.
The error above is better understood if we look at the other side of the coin. Suppose Till assumed (without any evidence) that the Tyre prophecy was false and supplied a historical event (to explain the shift in pronouns) that made that prophecy false. What would Bible-believers think of those apples? No question about it, they would scream "foul." Yet, Till would be doing no worse than Hogan did in his defense of the Tyre prophecy. Hogan showed that there is a possible solution, however far- fetched. In our hypothetical example, Till shows that there is a possible error, however far-fetched. Reject one side of the coin, and you reject both sides of the coin. How then can we proceed?
An impartial analysis requires that we do not add new information to the text unless we can rule out all competing information. If a scenario is advocated, then all competing scenarios must be eliminated beyond a reasonable doubt -- using only the context of the passage. That is to say, we seek the best explanation. Thus, Hogan may not bring in Alexander the Great to explain the shift in pronouns unless he can eliminate, beyond a reasonable doubt, all other scenarios. After all, the author of that passage may have had something else in mind! Horrors! He might even have been wrong! Obviously, Hogan cannot do this without first assuming that the prophecy is correct.
That only leaves Nebuchadnezzar as the named conqueror. Given Ezekiel's propensity to shift pronouns, as aptly shown by Till, given the fact that the shift occurs in the middle of a sequence that would otherwise envision a sweeping destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar, and given that the "they" could easily apply to the men, horses and chariots of Nebuchadnezzar's army, we can see that Hogan's defense is not much of an argument. I suspect that the main prophecy was made while Nebuchadnezzar seemed invincible, and that Ezekiel's admission of his failure was later added so that scripture would acknowledge a "done deed." One cannot easily erase scripture already in circulation, but one can add to it in order to save face. The above reasoning also applies to prophecy that was obviously intended to be fulfilled during those days but was not. The claim that such prophecy might yet be fulfilled in some distant future draws its sole justification from the assumption that biblical prophecy cannot err. We might just as easily, and with much more justification, claim that such prophecy was intended for biblical times and failed. Such prophecy must be judged in a context where it is meaningful, and many of these "punishment" prophecies become an absurd joke when deferred to the indefinite future.
(Dave Matson, P. O. Box 61274, Pasadena, CA 91116; e-mail 103514.3640@compuserve.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Dave Matson is a frequent contributor of both articles and letters to TSR. I always appreciate his comments. I will remind readers again that Dave Matson publishes and distributes through The Oak Hill Free Press some useful materials on evolution, creationism, and other subjects of interest to freethinkers. His own book that answers the creationist arguments of Kent Hovind would be useful in combating the widespread attempts to require the teaching of creationism in public school. Inquiries should be directed to his address above.
I find it interesting that The Skeptical Review, July/August 1996, should begin with the following quote by W. K. Clifford, "It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." This quote reveals two absolute presuppositions in which the author has placed his faith: 1) that there is such a thing as "sufficient" evidence, and 2) that finite individuals are ontologically and epistemologically capable of perceiving and processing "sufficient" evidence. Moreover, consider the morally absolute nature of such a statement, "It is wrong, always, everywhere and for everyone..." and that from a detached skeptic!
He demonstrates that all knowledge is creedal in its nature and foundation. We all believe certain presuppositions, through which we then interpret and know "objective" data. This is the fatal flaw in the defense of the fundamentalist; he has agreed to work with a system given to us by Descartes; one in which we divide objective and subjective knowledge, supposing thus to reveal indubitable certainty.
The Cartesian pursuit of certainty has ironically produced a culture in which nothing is certain or beyond the tenacious grasp of doubt. The fundamentalist believes, along with the skeptic, that the two above presuppositions are true, thus guarenteeing [sic] a lost battle. Your magazine proves the ineffectiveness of his defenses. The unstated truth, however, is that the skeptic begins with precisely the same creed (i.e. he begins with the two above presuppositions, or beliefs) that the fundamentalist uses. The fundamentalist is wrong; the skeptic is unaware. Both of them in faith accept the Cartesian model as truth; was he right? Is there sufficient evidence for an answer? Such evidence can only be had on faith, and the circle is now complete.
(John Boonzaaijer; e-mail jboonz@tums.org)
EDITOR'S NOTE: And so we hear from another presuppositionalist theist, who seems to have read just enough philosophy to throw out a few names and impressive-sounding expressions that will fool the uninformed into thinking that he knows his subject, but when we strip all of this jargon away, what do we have? In Mr. Boonzaaijer's case, not much. The fact is that these pseudophilosophers seem to have a great deal of difficulty stating their positions in clear, concise language. Readers spend half their time backing up to read again and wonder what it is these guys are trying to say.
At any rate, I sent Mr. Boonzaaijer (this may not be his real name) a response in which I pointed out that W. K. Clifford was not making any claims about absolute knowledge; he was simply commenting about irrational belief. Mr. B may think that it is never possible to have sufficient evidence to know anything, but Clifford was not talking about "knowing" things; he was talking about "believing" things. Does Mr. B think that it is impossible to have sufficient evidence to form reasonable beliefs? I have never been to Tokyo, Japan, but I believe that there is a Tokyo, Japan, and I think I have sufficient evidence to justify that belief.
Mr. B's letter came by e-mail. I sent him a response in which I pointed out that Clifford was not talking about knowing but believing, and I never received a reply. I sent him a message asking for his mailing address, but he didn't answer.
My granddaughter just gave me the January/February 1996 copy of The Skeptical Review. I was especially interested in the Horner-Till Debate. I started at that school [Seattle Pacific University] in 1945 when it was still Seattle Pacific College.
I enjoyed the time I spent there and, in fact, made a lot of friends. They are good and sincere people. Reading about the debate reminded me of an experience I had in physics class. One day, they were knocking around the theory of evolution. The instructor was an intelligent and educated man and well qualified in his field. He explained that evolution couldn't be possible because if you saw a row boat next to an ocean liner, you would not assume that one evolved from the other. I don't need to list the reasons that it was a poor analogy. It was only one of the experiences at SPC that hastened me on the way to becoming a skeptic.
If I am not too late, I would like to receive the tape and the transcript of the debate. I am enclosing $12. If these materials are not available, please add the money to the subscription of my granddaughter. [Granddaughter's name and address deleted.]
(Claire Elliott, 3099 Erskine, Apt. 515, Kodiak, AK 99615-6392.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The video tape of the debate at Seattle Pacific University contained gaps, so we are not distributing it. From both the audio and the video tapes, a complete, accurate transcript was made that has been approved by both Michael Horner and me. It is available for $3, postage paid. The issue was the resurrection of Jesus.
I have received a copy of Skeptical Review with pleasure and appreciation. I wish more people have [the] chance to read these marvelous works. I considered myself a lucky man for knowing the truth provided by you.
I have picked up [the] Bible and tried to read it many times, but when they say that the stories in [the] Bible must be accepted as true stories, I cannot make my brain accept it, so I put them down. How can a man read a fairy tale childish story and accept them as truth? Not me, I have a feeling as Albert Einstein had when he said, "There are two things that are indefinite to me; the first is the universe, the second is the stupidity of mankind, and I am not sure about the first one."
So when I get your booklet, I feel very happy and released. I realized that among [a] heavily stupid society, there still be a wise, brave, selfless hero who is loveful and sincere enough to lit the light in this dark world so that the men with good eyes can see what is right, what is wrong, what is harmful.
Those people who say love, love, [a] hundred times, thousand times, even million times, but they take away the wisdom, the reason, and [the] ability to think, to discover the truth freely. How can I say that they love mankind? To me, they are destroyers who bring the darkness to this world, not the light as they say.
So please keep doing what you are doing now. The wise men appreciate and honor you. Enclosed is a check [for] $20; it is too small compared to the value of your work. Thank you very much.
(Anek Imphita, 11603 East Virginia Drive, Aurora, CO 80012.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I appreciate Mr. Imphitak's compliments and support. Obviously, his native language is not English, and as one who once had to struggle with writing in another language when I was a foreign missionary, I appreciate how well he has learned English. I published the letter essentially as he wrote it with only occasional brackets to supply words he had omitted. I am happy to have him as a new subscriber.
As a very satisfied subscriber, I love your product! As an associate of Westar Institute, a "layman" backer of the Jesus Seminar, I like what's being done.
The Skeptical Review, July/August issue, had two statements attributed to the Jesus Seminar: (A) the resurrection of Jesus happened in the minds and hearts of early Christians, and (B) if Jesus was crucified. his body was likely thrown into a garbage dump and later eaten by dogs. The votes taken by the fellows of the Jesus Seminar on the passion story don't quite match these statements. Attached are the votes of the fellows. Items 57, 58, and 59 come closes to the disposition of the body of Jesus. I hope you will select a couple of the items voted on and comment on them in an issue of The Skeptical Review, especially where you disagree with the vote.
When the prime mover of the Jesus Seminar speaks about the overall results of the J. S. vote, it's his view of the proceedings. The fellows aren't all in lockstep with Dr. Robert Funk. Bob knows what will grab an audience and the press. I like what he has to say.
John Dominic Crossan certainly has his own ideas, and they are not all accepted by his peers in the seminar. I've been told Dominic had a session with Bill Buckley where Buckley won! I'm really sorry the program didn't make it here to the west coast.
I like your statement, "If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then I don't have much hope at all, so Ill live my life accordingly." Didn't Lin Yutang have the same approach? In a book he published in 1938, he stated a belief in living life to the full. I agree! Yesterday, I found a 1959 book by Dr. Lin, From Pagan to Christian, which is the personal account of a distinguished philosopher's spiritual pilgrimage back to Christianity. In a sentence, Dr. Lin now believes there are limits of the knowable for the mere rationalist, and those who accept God have a more mature intelligence. I don't know of his notion of God -- yet.
At a Thursday evening session with Dr. Funk, I quoted a sentence from an article: "We come from the void, and we return to the void." Bob didn't agree. His goal is to find what Jesus saw in the parables. I've told Dr. Funk that I'm a mole for Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger! Now I'm a mole for Farrell Till. (Bob laughed at me on Ratzinger.)
If the passion votes grab you, I have back issues of the house magazine and can provide the voting results on past events. Holler if you want them.
(Tom Healy, 1345 Felder Road, Sonoma, CA 95476-7806.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Healy's letter is a composite of a letter and a postcard. The postcard was sent merely to correct some information in his letter about the Chinese author Lin Yutang.
The Jesus Seminar materials that Mr. Healy enclosed with his letter contain 85 different beliefs associated with just the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. These are too numerous for me to comment on. It was interesting to notice that none of the points listed included a direct consideration of whether Jesus actually rose from the dead. Anyone interested in a copy of them should contact Mr. Healy or else the Westar Institute, P. O. Box 6144, Santa Rosa, CA 95406; telephone (707) 523- 1323; fax (707) 523-1350.
The quotation in TSR was derived from a newspaper article that quoted several seminar members after the resurrection meeting was over. I believe that John Dominic Crossan was the one who said, according to the article, that if Jesus was really crucified, his body was probably thrown into a garbage dump and eaten by dogs. I believe that Dr. Robert Funk was the one who said that Jesus was resurrected only in the minds and hearts of early Christians. At any rate, the gospel resurrection accounts are obviously viewed with much skepticism by members of the seminar. That the trial account recorded in Mark 14:53-65 was authentic received only a weighted average of .05% from the seminar.
Anatole France has given us the wittiest and best definition of theology that I've ever read: "Theology is that science which treats of the unknowable with infinitesimal exactitude."
From my Roman Catholic youth, I remember that "Holy Mother Church" was obsessed with details and numbers: so many joyous mysteries, so many sorrowful mysteries, so many deadly sins, so many commandments, so many holy days and saints, all neatly polished and packaged. It gave a sense of comfort, like primly stacked fruit in a supermarket. One had to accept the entire consignment, but pull one apple from the bottom layer, and the entire edifice came tumbling down. So it is with theology. The grand design seems impressive enough, but examine the details of any Christian theology and conflicting vexations abound, vexations that led the church doctor Tertullian to the absurd conclusion, "I believe because it is absurd." How would that stand up in a court of law or a science lab?
Christian theology maintains that we mortals are, in fact, immortal. If the faithful truly believed this, there would be no tears at Christian funerals. Fundamentalists insist that the bible is clear and unequivocal, that it says what it means. Yet when the scripture spins myth as in the Genesis creation stories, "what it means" becomes remarkably elastic.
Some liberal apologists claim that "day" in this biblical context means eons! Fundamentalists, conversely, are left shamefacedly defending an earth no older than about six thousand years. Accepting the fundamentalist dogma that man and dinosaur lived at the same time, can you imagine the carnage as Noah welcomed Tyrannosaurus Rex and Triceratops aboard his ark, not to mention the monumental task of dinosaur dung removal? Despite the bible's "clarity," fundamentalism has spawned innumerable sects, all squabbling over the "true meaning" of holy writ.
When religious zealotry rears its head, we reap intolerance, alienation and brutality. Witness, for example, the madness in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, and the Middle East, which certainly can't be trace to secular humanism.
So let us be about the business of understanding and improving this world and its creatures. And the one medium of our disposal for achieving this purpose is science with conscience. We can affirm this earth, warts and all, with joy and compassion, honesty and love, but without theology and without illusion. After all, theology is much like Noah's ark -- full of holes.
(Fred Ehrstein, 9 Westwood Drive, Belleville, IL 62226.)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Well, what can I really say about Mr. Ehrstein's
letter
except, "Why can't the religiously superstitious see this too?"
