> Was hoping that people that see themselves as enlightened and rational would recognize the complete lack of nuance or reality in statements like "entire dogma

> Was hoping that people that see themselves as enlightened and rational would recognize the complete lack of nuance or reality in statements like "entire dogma is a fiction without any basis in reality". Lack of nuance? Maybe. Lack of reality? Not really. I don't think nuance is helpful here. The fundamental defining characteristic of the institution is faith as an epistemology. The details of how exactly this irresponsible epistemology is constructed don't really contribute anything to the understanding of why that makes it a bad institution. > You don't believe that's simplistic? Is that a way to jumpstart useful dialog about that institution? No, it's simple, but not simplistic. And whether it's a way to jumpstart a useful dialog? That's generally difficult to judge before you see the result, really.