...to this "us" against "them" position. Equally convincing arguments
have been made on both sides, and it is up to each individual to choose what
they feel best suits their personal philosophies. There is no "correct"
interpretation, because interpretation is as much a matter of personal opinion
as it is of individual belief. It is not absolute. As someone who
happens to agree with Reverend, I find I do not care for the notion of a
consolidation of right-thinking humanists with a stated intent to continue to
fight this battle in other loosely related discussions in the future. If
we're going to start taking sides like that, I may as well quit the RR
discussions right now, because stratification of that sort is one of the
greatest killers of open-minded thought. I was under the impression that
the Reading Room is not a platform for the argument of formalized debates to be
won or lost. It is a place for the sharing of personal opinions and
ideas. And that becomes inhibited when people start taking sides and
operating from the position of "political" platforms. "Conversations" do
not have "them" and "us" positions.
I am open to hearing other people's thoughts and ideas, and to changing my own
(they can and they do, quite frequently). But I am not open to setting up
different camps in opposition to one another, with plans to continue the fight
until it is won, nor do I enjoy trying to have a conversation with someone
whose mind is already closed on a subject.
Forgive me if I took this in the wrong way, but that was my personal
interpretation of your above remark. And I for one want no truck with
such a
situation.
