As I pointed out previously, the religious continually admit to their own lack of morality when they state that they, and everyone else--in their estimation, can only be moral when in fear of punishment. This is the morality of a psychopath or a very small child, not that of a mature, sane, intelligent adult.
This lack of morality is also manifest in their intellectual lives. To a psychopath, the only concern he has about his own guilt is whether or not others can prove it. When accused, he will deny his guilt or, if he feels hostile to the accuser and confident that he has nothing to fear, simply sneer “prove it”. Likewise, when nonbelievers point out that believers can’t prove their god exists, the rejoinder will be “well, you can’t prove god doesn’t exist”.
This is an intellectually dishonest, indeed intellectually psychopathic, response. Everyone, including believers, knows that when there is no evidence that something exists, the logical conclusion is that it doesn’t exist—even if one keeps an open mind about future evidence that might prove the existence of the thing. Everyone, from the most devout fundamentalist, creationist preacher to the most secular nonbeliever knows this is the correct logical approach and they all apply it in their everyday lives to every question, except when the question of a believer’s religion comes up. Then, suddenly, logic is turned on its head and the believer sneers “prove it”.
I have seen and heard of Christians who display exactly this type of psychopathic mentality. One incident I read about involved a public school teacher who behaved in a blatantly illegal way by making inappropriate religious comments in class in a public school. The teacher knew her behavior was illegal, but, like so many, thought she could get away with it. The person who experienced it said that he asked her about it later and that ”her response was that she could not get in trouble, because she said it and did not write it down.”
Obviously, this "explanation" means that she reserves the right to bear false witness to cover up her illegal activities.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Pascal's Wager--A Fool's Bet
Pascal's wager is one of those "befuddle them with bullshit" tactics that theists use where they pack so many fallacies into one statement that the listener's brain has trouble picking them all out and dealing with them. Notice also that it is an argument based on a threat, not reason.
Pascal's Wager is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that, even though the existence of god cannot be proven through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because by living life accordingly he has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
Pascal's wager is bad reasoning on several levels. First, it is wrong to say that one will have lost nothing. He will have lost virtually his entire life because his life will have been almost completely defined by a false belief when it could have been spent on something real--and more fulfilling. (This part of the refutation should hit home with any believer that is actually listening even a little bit.) He will have sacrificed even his freedom of thought. You can say something like:
"That's obviously a lie. Believers spend thousands of hours and thousands of dollars on their religion. Not to mention that they make a huge number of their decisions in life based in part or completely on their religion. Heck, they can't even think freely."
Second, if one's only reason for believing is hope of a reward, then the belief isn't genuine (just as morals based on fear of punishment aren't really morals). Does he really think that "god" (as he defines the term) can't see that his belief isn't genuine? Is god really so un-insightful and powerless? Obviously a god capable of creating a universe can see through such falsehood. Furthermore, is "god" really so petty and vain that he will be satisfied by false praise? The bible says he isn't: Jesus apparently said that only those who accept him with the blind faith of children will be saved. Matt. 18:3, Mark 10:15, and Luke 18:17. You can say:
"If my only reason for believing is to make a bet, then my belief isn't genuine. The bible says that belief has to be genuine."
Third, for a non-believer, actually adopting this reasoning will probably result in a loss of self-respect for much the same reasons as it shows disrespect for god.
Fourth, the odds are presented as if they were fifty-fifty, but on closer examination, they clearly are not.
No one would follow Pascal's reasoning unless he were largely convinced, by the lack of evidence, that there was no god. The argument is, by Pascal's own admission, a last-ditch effort to keep someone in the fold who sees that there is no reason for belief. Thus this hypothetical wagerer probably already sees the possibility of god's existence as being less than 1%. If he adopts Pascal's reasoning, then this minuscule chance has to be discounted by the possibility that he picked the wrong religion. Since there are thousands of possible, but mutually incompatible, religions, the odds drop to < 0.0001%.
Furthermore, the odds would have be lowered even further to take into account the possibility that insincere pretense of belief is not sufficient. I don't know how to quantify that one, but I think the addition of another zero could be justified. So, at best, Pascal's wager is the proposition that one sacrifice one's integrity, not to mention time and money, for a < 0.00001% chance that there will be a payoff. This is like buying a lottery ticket that is very expensive under circumstances that indicate the seller is simply a fraud. You could point that out or you could say:
"There are so many different religions that the odds that I will pick the right one are very small, yet the cost is very high. That's not what you said when we started this conversation. Sorry, I am not that foolish."
Of course, the religious have a reply for this. They say: "Well, just pick the one that makes the most sense to you." To which you can reply:
"They are all equally nonsensical to me because it makes no sense to believe in invisible people with magic powers and the 'evidence' you claim to have--the existence of the universe--applies equally to them all. Besides, there is still the little problem of insincerity."
Pascal's Wager is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that, even though the existence of god cannot be proven through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because by living life accordingly he has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
Pascal's wager is bad reasoning on several levels. First, it is wrong to say that one will have lost nothing. He will have lost virtually his entire life because his life will have been almost completely defined by a false belief when it could have been spent on something real--and more fulfilling. (This part of the refutation should hit home with any believer that is actually listening even a little bit.) He will have sacrificed even his freedom of thought. You can say something like:
"That's obviously a lie. Believers spend thousands of hours and thousands of dollars on their religion. Not to mention that they make a huge number of their decisions in life based in part or completely on their religion. Heck, they can't even think freely."
Second, if one's only reason for believing is hope of a reward, then the belief isn't genuine (just as morals based on fear of punishment aren't really morals). Does he really think that "god" (as he defines the term) can't see that his belief isn't genuine? Is god really so un-insightful and powerless? Obviously a god capable of creating a universe can see through such falsehood. Furthermore, is "god" really so petty and vain that he will be satisfied by false praise? The bible says he isn't: Jesus apparently said that only those who accept him with the blind faith of children will be saved. Matt. 18:3, Mark 10:15, and Luke 18:17. You can say:
"If my only reason for believing is to make a bet, then my belief isn't genuine. The bible says that belief has to be genuine."
Third, for a non-believer, actually adopting this reasoning will probably result in a loss of self-respect for much the same reasons as it shows disrespect for god.
Fourth, the odds are presented as if they were fifty-fifty, but on closer examination, they clearly are not.
No one would follow Pascal's reasoning unless he were largely convinced, by the lack of evidence, that there was no god. The argument is, by Pascal's own admission, a last-ditch effort to keep someone in the fold who sees that there is no reason for belief. Thus this hypothetical wagerer probably already sees the possibility of god's existence as being less than 1%. If he adopts Pascal's reasoning, then this minuscule chance has to be discounted by the possibility that he picked the wrong religion. Since there are thousands of possible, but mutually incompatible, religions, the odds drop to < 0.0001%.
Furthermore, the odds would have be lowered even further to take into account the possibility that insincere pretense of belief is not sufficient. I don't know how to quantify that one, but I think the addition of another zero could be justified. So, at best, Pascal's wager is the proposition that one sacrifice one's integrity, not to mention time and money, for a < 0.00001% chance that there will be a payoff. This is like buying a lottery ticket that is very expensive under circumstances that indicate the seller is simply a fraud. You could point that out or you could say:
"There are so many different religions that the odds that I will pick the right one are very small, yet the cost is very high. That's not what you said when we started this conversation. Sorry, I am not that foolish."
Of course, the religious have a reply for this. They say: "Well, just pick the one that makes the most sense to you." To which you can reply:
"They are all equally nonsensical to me because it makes no sense to believe in invisible people with magic powers and the 'evidence' you claim to have--the existence of the universe--applies equally to them all. Besides, there is still the little problem of insincerity."
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Fear of Death
The most obvious purpose of religion from the viewpoint of the adherent is to help assuage the fear of death. Man is unfortunately able to comprehend the inevitability of his own death starting at a very early age. If a person is facing imminent death (or even death in the near future), then it is understandable that the person should think about the subject very often and perhaps even see his life and the world differently than before.
For most people, during most of the years of their lives, such a fixation is not rational or healthy. There is really no point in worrying about something that will not, in all likelihood, occur for years or decades and which cannot be changed in any event.
Harboring a strong fear of death constantly even when one is relatively young and healthy is a clear example of what psychologists call emotional dysfunction, which is the term applied to someone whose emotions are too strong and perhaps even out of control. This is a sign of mental illness. Such a person cannot function properly because he or she is simply not able to rationally control his or her feelings. Consequently, he or she will be unable to rationally control his or her actions as well.
Losing one's composure in the face of imminent death is understandable. For most people, however, there are decades in which to prepare oneself mentally and emotionally for this inevitable experience. There is certainly no reason to let it rule one's life or thoughts in the meantime and certainly no reason to let it alter one's ability to see objective reality.
I fully expect my consciousness to cease to exist upon death. As someone once said (it may have been Mark Twain): I was dead for billions of years before my birth, I will be dead for billions of years afterward. I see no reason to expect the two experiences to differ.
I think that I will at some point simply lose consciousness and never regain it. I may have a dreamlike experience at that moment, which is what I think near death experience probably are, but after that I expect oblivion. (Interestingly this is what the classic Buddhists consider to be Nirvana--the cessation of existence--and therefore suffering--brought on by the cessation of wants and desires (in their view).)
If fear of death is offered as an argument for belief in god, first point out that it is another of the "I know it's a delusion, but" arguments, then mention the points I have made here.
First, you can say:
"You realize that you are simply explaining why you have your delusion about an invisible friend who helps you overcome death? You are not telling me why it's true, you're just telling me why you need to believe."
You can follow up with:
"It doesn't make sense to let fear of something in the distant future that you can't change rule your life and your mind."
For most people, during most of the years of their lives, such a fixation is not rational or healthy. There is really no point in worrying about something that will not, in all likelihood, occur for years or decades and which cannot be changed in any event.
Harboring a strong fear of death constantly even when one is relatively young and healthy is a clear example of what psychologists call emotional dysfunction, which is the term applied to someone whose emotions are too strong and perhaps even out of control. This is a sign of mental illness. Such a person cannot function properly because he or she is simply not able to rationally control his or her feelings. Consequently, he or she will be unable to rationally control his or her actions as well.
Losing one's composure in the face of imminent death is understandable. For most people, however, there are decades in which to prepare oneself mentally and emotionally for this inevitable experience. There is certainly no reason to let it rule one's life or thoughts in the meantime and certainly no reason to let it alter one's ability to see objective reality.
I fully expect my consciousness to cease to exist upon death. As someone once said (it may have been Mark Twain): I was dead for billions of years before my birth, I will be dead for billions of years afterward. I see no reason to expect the two experiences to differ.
I think that I will at some point simply lose consciousness and never regain it. I may have a dreamlike experience at that moment, which is what I think near death experience probably are, but after that I expect oblivion. (Interestingly this is what the classic Buddhists consider to be Nirvana--the cessation of existence--and therefore suffering--brought on by the cessation of wants and desires (in their view).)
If fear of death is offered as an argument for belief in god, first point out that it is another of the "I know it's a delusion, but" arguments, then mention the points I have made here.
First, you can say:
"You realize that you are simply explaining why you have your delusion about an invisible friend who helps you overcome death? You are not telling me why it's true, you're just telling me why you need to believe."
You can follow up with:
"It doesn't make sense to let fear of something in the distant future that you can't change rule your life and your mind."
Monday, October 11, 2010
The Purpose of Religion
Religion does in fact serve multiple purposes in human psychology, thus its continued existence cannot be ascribed to any one cause. The purposes it serves, however, could all be served more ably and at lower cost to humanity by other means. The purposes it serves are purely psychological. In other words, it generally is something needed to assuage the believer's feelings.
How one "feels" about a proposition is not relevant to its truth; but is relevant to discerning one's bias. Thus it is this very psychological need that reveals the bias of the believer and thus the falsehood of the proposition.
Do people really have a need for religion?
No. At least not in the sense of a "magic man in the sky" religion. There have been many cultures in which the population thrived without believing in a god. Buddhism is an example of this phenomenon. Classic Buddhists do not believe in a god (though some of the various sects believe in things very like a god). Taoists, followers of Confucius and many primitive animist societies do not believe in a god as the term is usually understood.
The one clear universal human need related to this question is the need for a worldview--the human brain requires context. There is no evidence for the proposition, however, that humans by their nature need a worldview that claims certainty where it is clear none exists--such as the origins of the universe. In fact, I would suggest that anyone with such a need is suffering from a pathological condition: A need to pretend to know more than he or she actually does.
How one "feels" about a proposition is not relevant to its truth; but is relevant to discerning one's bias. Thus it is this very psychological need that reveals the bias of the believer and thus the falsehood of the proposition.
Do people really have a need for religion?
No. At least not in the sense of a "magic man in the sky" religion. There have been many cultures in which the population thrived without believing in a god. Buddhism is an example of this phenomenon. Classic Buddhists do not believe in a god (though some of the various sects believe in things very like a god). Taoists, followers of Confucius and many primitive animist societies do not believe in a god as the term is usually understood.
The one clear universal human need related to this question is the need for a worldview--the human brain requires context. There is no evidence for the proposition, however, that humans by their nature need a worldview that claims certainty where it is clear none exists--such as the origins of the universe. In fact, I would suggest that anyone with such a need is suffering from a pathological condition: A need to pretend to know more than he or she actually does.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Meaning of Life
One of the most common "I know it's a delusion, but I need it" arguments is the one in which the believer states that he just can't live with the thought that his life has no meaning and that we are just floating in space.
I think this one is also an admission of the fact that religion is really a statement about the ego of the believer rather than anything else. Why else would someone need to feel like his life has cosmic importance? In other ways, however, this one perplexes me because our lives are full of meaning without any need for a supernatural friend with a plan.
This is simply and obviously because we have each other. We could all spend every spare second trying just to take care of each other and still not be able to do the job as well as we should. Just spending that time on our friends and family would leave us no time to contemplate imaginary friends.
The fact that we don't do that and that so many of us feel such a disconnect from those around us says a great deal about us--and what it says isn't really good. But, that is the subject for another post.
The weakness of this "argument", aside from the fact that it is just a plea to leave them alone with the delusion they so desperately need, is that it is such an inadequate delusion.
Life has just as much meaning whether a person believes in god or not. What does change is how the person spends his life. Rather than spending his or her time and resources on things that are undeniably real and could therefore have an undeniably real effect on the person or those he cares about, he or she is spending time and resources on things that don't appear to have any basis in reality.
Furthermore, the delusion seems quite inadequate to the stated need. If there is a god, then we are merely his hobby. He doesn't need us, after all, he's a god who can create whole universes. To me, the thought that I might be the hobby of some invisible magical being gives my life less meaning, not more.
It is much more disheartening to believe such a thing than it would be to accept that we don't know if there is any cosmic purpose to our existence. I think it is far more grand and glorious to accept that we are just what we seem to be: one of the many forms in which matter and energy manifest themselves in the universe. The stars are simply conglomerations of matter brought together by gravity. Are they any less wonderful because of the simple mechanics of their formation?
You can choose to reply to the "I need to believe to give my life meaning" argument with the following:
"You realize that you are simply admitting that religion is a delusion you need for emotional purposes--to make you feel good about yourself?"
or
"I don't see how believing that I am the hobby of some invisible magic being gives my life any more meaning."
To that one you can add an explanation:
"A god who can create the universe can do anything he wants. He doesn't need us. We are a hobby. We are what he has because he can't get cable TV."
or
"My life has plenty of purpose without needing to believe I am cosmically important. I would rather spend my time, thought, and energy on things that I know are real. I know they are real because I don't need faith to believe in them."
I think this one is also an admission of the fact that religion is really a statement about the ego of the believer rather than anything else. Why else would someone need to feel like his life has cosmic importance? In other ways, however, this one perplexes me because our lives are full of meaning without any need for a supernatural friend with a plan.
This is simply and obviously because we have each other. We could all spend every spare second trying just to take care of each other and still not be able to do the job as well as we should. Just spending that time on our friends and family would leave us no time to contemplate imaginary friends.
The fact that we don't do that and that so many of us feel such a disconnect from those around us says a great deal about us--and what it says isn't really good. But, that is the subject for another post.
The weakness of this "argument", aside from the fact that it is just a plea to leave them alone with the delusion they so desperately need, is that it is such an inadequate delusion.
Life has just as much meaning whether a person believes in god or not. What does change is how the person spends his life. Rather than spending his or her time and resources on things that are undeniably real and could therefore have an undeniably real effect on the person or those he cares about, he or she is spending time and resources on things that don't appear to have any basis in reality.
Furthermore, the delusion seems quite inadequate to the stated need. If there is a god, then we are merely his hobby. He doesn't need us, after all, he's a god who can create whole universes. To me, the thought that I might be the hobby of some invisible magical being gives my life less meaning, not more.
It is much more disheartening to believe such a thing than it would be to accept that we don't know if there is any cosmic purpose to our existence. I think it is far more grand and glorious to accept that we are just what we seem to be: one of the many forms in which matter and energy manifest themselves in the universe. The stars are simply conglomerations of matter brought together by gravity. Are they any less wonderful because of the simple mechanics of their formation?
You can choose to reply to the "I need to believe to give my life meaning" argument with the following:
"You realize that you are simply admitting that religion is a delusion you need for emotional purposes--to make you feel good about yourself?"
or
"I don't see how believing that I am the hobby of some invisible magic being gives my life any more meaning."
To that one you can add an explanation:
"A god who can create the universe can do anything he wants. He doesn't need us. We are a hobby. We are what he has because he can't get cable TV."
or
"My life has plenty of purpose without needing to believe I am cosmically important. I would rather spend my time, thought, and energy on things that I know are real. I know they are real because I don't need faith to believe in them."
Saturday, October 9, 2010
"Angry at God?"--Another Lie
One of the lies that believers like to tell themselves about atheists is that we are just "angry at god".
The most common response nonbelievers give is to laugh and ask:
"How can I be angry at something that doesn't exist?"
That response works better with some believers than others. Usually, however, the believer isn't even listening at that point--if he or she ever was.
This "argument" that atheists are angry at god is just another "ad hominem" argument, really. It's flaw is that it is based on the premise that both parties "know" that god exists and that the nonbeliever is just being perverse and childish. So, in order to point out the logical flaw and expose the inaccuracy of the emotional portion of the argument, I suggest you return the favor and turn it on them:
"Sorry, I don't choose my facts based on how I feel about them; that is what religious people do."
If you would like, you can add:
"If there were an angry god out there denying me my wishes, I would have a huge incentive to believe and try to figure out what I needed to do to get him to treat me differently."
Frankly, nonbelievers bring this one on themselves by relating stories of realizing that god didn't exist when their prayers went unanswered. Those who cite their own disappointment at unanswered prayers as a reason for their disbelief are not giving their full reasoning in many cases. They know that making a decision like that based on one case study, even if they are aware of others, isn't a logical way to proceed. Unanswered prayers become evidence only if a correct scientific study is done, double blind, control groups, etc.
Such studies have been done and found absolutely no evidence that prayer has a positive effect on the outcomes of peoples' problems. At least one study found, however, that if the person knew he was being prayed for, the outcome was statistically likely to be worse--presumably because the object of the prayers felt he or she didn't have to take action in the real world to effect the outcome.
What these stories illustrate and many atheists understand without making explicit is that such incidents are often needed to give people the emotional impetus necessary to get past childhood brainwashing and peer pressure. The god hypothesis is so ridiculous that only those two things keep people in the believer camp in many cases. For most people, as soon as their emotional needs allow them to see the god hypothesis clearly, they see it for the nonsense that it is.
This is also why believers say that nonbelievers are simply degenerates who want to avoid god's laws. In many cases, people who don't fit the mold set out by the religious as what is required to be "normal" and "good" are awakened out of their brainwashed, peer-pressured dream state by the perceived rejection.
Once again, don't be suckered into their playground completely. Point out that the existence of god is independent of how any of us feel about him or her. Then, feel free to point out how a person living in the emotional and economic cocoon of being a member of a dominant and domineering majority might just feel quite lucky and decide that it was his group's deity that was responsible.
The most common response nonbelievers give is to laugh and ask:
"How can I be angry at something that doesn't exist?"
That response works better with some believers than others. Usually, however, the believer isn't even listening at that point--if he or she ever was.
This "argument" that atheists are angry at god is just another "ad hominem" argument, really. It's flaw is that it is based on the premise that both parties "know" that god exists and that the nonbeliever is just being perverse and childish. So, in order to point out the logical flaw and expose the inaccuracy of the emotional portion of the argument, I suggest you return the favor and turn it on them:
"Sorry, I don't choose my facts based on how I feel about them; that is what religious people do."
If you would like, you can add:
"If there were an angry god out there denying me my wishes, I would have a huge incentive to believe and try to figure out what I needed to do to get him to treat me differently."
Frankly, nonbelievers bring this one on themselves by relating stories of realizing that god didn't exist when their prayers went unanswered. Those who cite their own disappointment at unanswered prayers as a reason for their disbelief are not giving their full reasoning in many cases. They know that making a decision like that based on one case study, even if they are aware of others, isn't a logical way to proceed. Unanswered prayers become evidence only if a correct scientific study is done, double blind, control groups, etc.
Such studies have been done and found absolutely no evidence that prayer has a positive effect on the outcomes of peoples' problems. At least one study found, however, that if the person knew he was being prayed for, the outcome was statistically likely to be worse--presumably because the object of the prayers felt he or she didn't have to take action in the real world to effect the outcome.
What these stories illustrate and many atheists understand without making explicit is that such incidents are often needed to give people the emotional impetus necessary to get past childhood brainwashing and peer pressure. The god hypothesis is so ridiculous that only those two things keep people in the believer camp in many cases. For most people, as soon as their emotional needs allow them to see the god hypothesis clearly, they see it for the nonsense that it is.
This is also why believers say that nonbelievers are simply degenerates who want to avoid god's laws. In many cases, people who don't fit the mold set out by the religious as what is required to be "normal" and "good" are awakened out of their brainwashed, peer-pressured dream state by the perceived rejection.
Once again, don't be suckered into their playground completely. Point out that the existence of god is independent of how any of us feel about him or her. Then, feel free to point out how a person living in the emotional and economic cocoon of being a member of a dominant and domineering majority might just feel quite lucky and decide that it was his group's deity that was responsible.
Friday, October 8, 2010
When They Try to Befuddle You With Bullshit
Theistic arguments are almost always so chock full of illogic and factual inaccuracies that one is left trying vainly to pick one's jaw up off the floor, astonished that so much bad reasoning can be packed into so few words. I don't know how often they do this deliberately--because I really don't think they see what they are doing--but they certainly enjoy and misinterpret the result. As you stand there, dumbfounded and wondering where to begin, they interpret your silence as "proof" that their argument struck home.
Classic examples of this are the argument from existence and the argument from authority. But, even their simpler arguments contain an array of errors if one thinks about them a bit. Unfortunately, one doesn't have time for that. As I pointed out before, if you don't reply with a snappy, hard hitting comeback right away, then they think they have won the point. You have but a second or so to start your comeback and you have only a total of about seven seconds to get the whole thing out.
When you are presented with one of these boneheaded boatloads full of blunders, it is best to focus on the core of the argument if you can identify it. If you are not sure what that is right away, a good first thing to say is:
"There are so many things wrong with that statement that I hardly know where to begin."
Follow that up immediately with a list of the most obvious problems. This should give you time to think about it and come up with the core point the theist "thinks" he was trying to make and your response. If you are still not sure, then take him through your list of problems and make him face each one.
Make your point about each one in as hard-hitting a manner as you can, then move on to the next one. Don't let them get started down the primrose path of their rationalization of any one of them. Those are all just dead ends and letting them go there will just reinforce their canalized thinking.
Classic examples of this are the argument from existence and the argument from authority. But, even their simpler arguments contain an array of errors if one thinks about them a bit. Unfortunately, one doesn't have time for that. As I pointed out before, if you don't reply with a snappy, hard hitting comeback right away, then they think they have won the point. You have but a second or so to start your comeback and you have only a total of about seven seconds to get the whole thing out.
When you are presented with one of these boneheaded boatloads full of blunders, it is best to focus on the core of the argument if you can identify it. If you are not sure what that is right away, a good first thing to say is:
"There are so many things wrong with that statement that I hardly know where to begin."
Follow that up immediately with a list of the most obvious problems. This should give you time to think about it and come up with the core point the theist "thinks" he was trying to make and your response. If you are still not sure, then take him through your list of problems and make him face each one.
Make your point about each one in as hard-hitting a manner as you can, then move on to the next one. Don't let them get started down the primrose path of their rationalization of any one of them. Those are all just dead ends and letting them go there will just reinforce their canalized thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)