The trigger was a park, but the resentment against successful people calling the shots may spill over into a worldwide effort at rule by new forms of dictatorship with concomitant destruction by violence rather than negotiation.
The world is poised?
Hello RT,I found your letter/blog - the one which which stimulated my thoughts to a level causing me to wish to respond. It was in my email trash although clearly not the one I had planned to dispose of. This time, after accessing the New Zealand website for which you provided a link, I wrote down the words which had caught my eye and fortunately so because on my next try I found all of my "trashed" email had been permanently deleted.The particular statements to which I subscribe include the following: "Only religious fundamentalists have certitude. Their knowledge is a belief system that's immune to realworld experience and facts. Science is the method of critically testing competing theories. Successful theories are only ever tentative.""History deeply demonstrates that religions mixed with power and money readily survive long past their "use-by dates" (per Rodney Hyde).I tend also to subscribe to the statement by Steven King (the mystery writer) to the effect that he saw religion as an "elaborate afterlife insurance scam". (At the extreme, this has even gone as far as successful (in actual $sales) advertizing for a Place in Heaven. At the same time I hardly blame those who have devoted their lives and made livings from using religion for its best purposes - personally I and multi-millions have benefitted from such efforts. Unfortunately, traditional religion in just about any form has proven far too susceptible to more devious uses.At one time, after stepping up to agnosticism, I was unable to grasp how anyone could possibly claim with certainty the viewpoint of atheism (a view held and shared with me by Diane's sister Carol, whose position intially truly shocked me). However, I eventually came to recognise that, while there can be no certainty with respect to such matters (if not all matters of so-called fact), broadly accepted levels/terms of rational/logical argument require only the highest levels of certainty (not perfect certainty) to accept application of the word "certainty". To argue otherwise is simply to refute the whole point of iintelligent communication.The suggestion that the efforts of scientists now concerned with global warming are a form of religion because of the lack of certainty seems to be geared toward discounting these concerns as a basis for action. Personally, I see this as about as meaningful and helpful as discounting early efforts against the tobacco companies because their zeal could be compared to the historic zeal found within many religions (with even less scientific evidence than now available relative to global warming).