But this might be a good point for me to turn to the topic of moderation, so I’ll post a new entry about that in several hours (after partying with an economist, in keeping with my role).

And Tuesday night, if all goes as planned, it just so happens I am scheduled to post a review of the novel _The Sparrow_ (which I haven’t finished yet, so don’t give anything away!), my fourth February Book Selection, which does indeed concern (very intelligent and likable) Jesuits encountering extraterrestrials.

And you also have to deal with all the evidence that suggests the universe appears to be trying to discourage rational beings from believing in a god - like the absurdity of the major religions being based on self-contradictory, unverifiable, and demonstrably false sacred texts all providing competing advice on what to “believe” in order to establish the magical connection to the “what came before”. Take rational Martian (once we make Contact) raised without religion and comfortable with the universe as it’s own “first mover” but open to the idea that something may have created all of this - plop him down on earth, introduce him to various religious leaders, have him read all the scared texts - very doubtful he’s going to become a convert to anything.

At the same time, I agree with “Xine’s” comment that calling religious types “pathetic, intellectually irresponsible, immoral, mistaken, and stupid” isn’t constructive, or very insightful. Clearly, something in the way our brains evolved made us capable and often inclined to create mental models of the world based on instincts and drives other than reason (lust, intution, imperfect pattern recognition, etc.). Calling anyone who doesn’t lean more on their reason than these other obviously compelling emotional or intuitive mental faculties when dealing with the Big Questions comes across as more than a tad arrogant. Sticking to arguments about why such a belief is mistaken, irresponsible, and (possibly) immoral in the face of absence of evidence for and mountains of evidence against seems the most one can respectfully do and still keep dialogue civil. History doesn’t provide many instances of religious people responding to open hostility with introspection. And I’d say “pathetic” and “stupid” are value judgments that I don’t think you have the right to make as sweeping generalizations unless you can look into any believer’s “soul” (or mind) and see that their reason circuitry is indeed faulty or belief is inspired by mental cowardice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_impact_hypothesis

(They’ll know a little bit more if they read my _Reason_ cover story this month [”March”] about nanotech, though.)