From Sean Samis
The entirety of Dunbar’s article assumes that religious concepts are useful but fundamentally inaccurate beliefs – there is no other way to make sense of his line of reasoning. But where in your fine pages is an exploration or consideration of the logical alternative: that concepts of God occur in humans because – gasp! – God exists?
If that is so, then Dunbar’s prose becomes as silly as a search for the sociological roots of the belief in trees. Your response may be that religious writing is inappropriate in ¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ. I agree, but that means Dunbar’s article is inappropriate too.
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, US
