> now, if we don't want to change people's minds, that's another story.
> but isn't that what we want?
>
> and if we don't want to do it *in a religious mode* (i.e., by
> "converting" people from religion to . . . what? atheism? communism?
> what?), then it cannot be some bizarre, manipulative appeal to
> unconscious needs, but by trying to open up the genuine thinking that
> helps people see flaws in their own logic.
The idea of 'god' needs to be redefined in terms that can be accepted by EVERYone. The definition needs to be one that is familiar and comfortable as well as known and accepted. Defining 'god' as the unknown is both familiar, and comfortable. Unless you're a know it all. And the definition of 'god' suddenly becomes more personal, since we each have borders to our knowledge. And science, the study of the unknown, takes on new significance.
Martin