I had to rant at Bobby Allen aka Aristocrates, as he comes three semesters late to the 499 hour Gawd Seminar (J Neil Schulman's "I Met God" thread).

If all the world took the same approach to life as say, a William Scherk or a George Smith there would be limited progress, especially in science and research. They seem to fail at examining possible alternatives to their beliefs or better said, dogmatic opinions.

Bobby Allen, you ain't done your homework. My point of intersection with Objectivish thought is at the science/rationalist front, and you will find no post here at OL that skirts science in favour of dogma, and plenty posts here that defend science against intrusions of religious or loony twilight zone crap. I also resolutely critique science studies and cultural studies and all that tosh along with murky reasoning, fallacious thinking and rabbitholes of delusion . . .

But a fan here has already chided you for your blank homework book. I thank her and address your implication that George and I have been especially unfair or snide to Neil -- or that there has been some crime against humanity here, some series of awful verbal crucifixions. I direct you to my last post here, in which I apologized to Neil and wished him the best, and gave my blessing to his concept of indwelling god where I understood it. I did my best and with full heart. I do not like to be accused of bad faith by somebody so frigging late to the lecture, chumley. Do your penance, change your avatar to Bart for an hour, and I will be avenged.

Neil gave me a reasonably cheery sendoff from this discussion after my closing post, so please do also read that response. I had a very long engagement with Neil and I would be surprised if he now assessed me as a dogmatic, bad-faith enemy of scientific progress . . .

I said what I said, I stand by it, and I shall hereby scuttle back into retirement from this topic.

Source: Is J. Neil Schulman justified (logically) in believing in God?