Why didn’t letter writer criticize religious claims?
After reading the letter that chastised The News for its decision to print an article featuring a psychic, I am left wondering why the writer chose to dismiss this particular claim as “nonsense,” when articles involving religious claims that are far more extraordinary than any made by this self-proclaimed psychic are included in The News almost daily.
We are all susceptible to being duped if we don’t hold all extraordinary claims to critical examination. The Paul Kurtz who was cited in this letter required extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims, whether such claims were made by a psychic or a religious institution. If the writer supports the fight against idiocy and Dark Ages thinking, then why has he given religion-based claims a pass on such examination?
Each time a reader is inspired to dispute the claims of an article, whether those claims are based in religious myth, misinformation or junk “science,” then The News has provided society with a critical service.
Lisa Deck Drdul