FWIW I read his work while I still wanted to believe. In that case I suppose it's a nice warm blanket of 'reason'. But it all fell to pieces once I looked criti

FWIW I read his work while I still wanted to believe. In that case I suppose it's a nice warm blanket of 'reason'. But it all fell to pieces once I looked critically at the "evidence" and decided that believing without seeing was a fools' errand. What good is reasoning that digs oneself deeper into a pit of ignorance?