On Thu, 28 Nov 2002 23:58:03 -0800, Steven Brust <skzb at dreamcafe.com> wrote: >Let me try it this way: we are not here to "prove" that our ideas >of the world are correct. We are here to make the world what we wish it to >be. Doing so requires that our ideas be as close to reality as we can get. Thank you. This is an example of what I mean of something that will not be provable scientifically (and thus not subject to being wrested away from the Incredible Shrinking God, although I am not accusing you of shopping there to acquire this.) It sounds a lot like the basis for a religion except there are no superhuman beings (SHB). I detect a certain bitterness (in several) toward SHB because of the evils that have been committed in their name. Or toward the belief in SHB for those who don't wish to be bitter toward those they firmly believe don't exist :<) I'd direct that more to those people who find the power resident in an idea and abuse the power. Such an idea does not require SHB. E.g. communism - successfully practiced in some form in many societies, large and small, and whose power was seriously abused by many, notably comrade Stalin. And yes, I realise I'm treading on your turf, here, no, I'm not qualified - I'm still struggling through Freedom and Necessity. But how would you distinguish a heartfelt conviction that a particular form of social order is in some way best for man from a heartfelt conviction that another set of teachings that happen to involve SHB is best for man? The fact that many of the SHB religions involve factions that are ultra traditional and require slavish adherence to ancient texts is not a valid distinction - that is a property of man; communism is young yet, but already has had its own executions for heresy ;<). Richard