> > > >Very mildly. But they're still encouraging people to believe things > > > >on faith rather than evidence, for example, and that's bad. People do > > > >far to little thinking. > > > >***************************************************************** > > > >Clarify this for me please, are you saying that those that follow a > > > >religion don't think? > > > > > > Let's not say everyone. Let us speak of someone who says, "I believe. I > > > believe purely on faith." Now, would you say that this person, on this > > > subject, is thinking? > > > > Any type of mathematics beyond the measurement of discrete objects that can > > be physically manipulated and observed at the time of 'belief'. > > I can't parse this sentence, sorry. Bah. It was poorly written in the first place. > But I'll point out that "measurement of discrete objects" isn't > mathematics in the first place. At it's most basic it certainly is. I measure this quantity (or count it if you prefer): 1 rock + 1 rock = 2 rocks. My arguement is that when you take mathematics beyond the concrete and discrete you are taking it's 'truths' as a matter of faith. Not only that but we do it despite a whole series of famous series of paradoxes and proofs that we then label as clearly nonsensical and should be ignored when applying mathematics in 'the real world'. David