Nonsense on life-after-death in Irish Independent.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Typical 'You can't prove it doesn't exist so I'll pretend it does!' rubbish.

http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/do-you-believe-in-life-after-death-2651328.html

Yes: Deirdre Reynolds

Have you ever said goodbye to your granny, best friend or even beloved pet dog? I have -- and as an Irish (admittedly lapsed) Catholic, I was brought up to believe that some day I'll get to see them all again. According to scientist Stephen Hawking this week, though, that makes me -- and the millions of others like me who believe in life after death -- a tragic nut-job who simply can't accept the 'reality' that, in the end, we're all just destined to become worm food.

As a journalist, cynicism is practically in the job description -- and certainly, I can't stand the so-called psychics who cash in on people's grief by claiming they can cross over to the other side.

However, I've not yet become so hardened by life or my profession that I've ruled out the possibility of pearly gates altogether.

From Catholicism to Hinduism, the notion that there's something more after we flatline is a basic tenet of most religions. Buddhists and Sikhs go one step further, believing that when one candle goes out, another is lit by reincarnation.

Sure, scientists may scoff at the fantastical depiction of heaven in movies such as What Dreams May Come and The Lovely Bones. But back here on planet earth, there have been countless reported ghost sightings and near-death accounts of bright lights and long tunnels over the years -- and they can't all have been crazies, can they?

Meanwhile, palliative nurses say it's a common phenomenon for those who are dying to see loved ones who have gone before them in their final moments.

Some years ago, I tried past life regression -- going under hypnosis to recall memories of your past incarnations -- and discovered that I'd been around the block before as a farmer's wife. As I sank back through the years while under, I could feel the apron I was wearing, smell the bread rising in the oven and see the black and white sheepdog lying on a rug in front of the fire.

OK, so it's not exactly the stuff of JK Rowling -- but sadly, not even my imagination is good enough to concoct such a backstory in just a few minutes.

From the Big Bang theory to string theory (which reasons that space-time could have up to 11 invisible dimensions), so much of science orbits on supposition and the unknown.

For someone supposedly attempting to crack the mysteries of the universe, it's disappointing that Hawking is so closed-minded on the subject of heaven. So far, scientists can't even definitively prove there's no life on Mars -- how can they prove there's no life after death?

From Socrates to Shakespeare, some of the world's greatest thinkers believed in an afterlife -- even Einstein reportedly admitted on his deathbed: "God is the garden and the gardener."

Hawking's arrogant religious assertion is insulting to anyone living with a terminal illness -- for whom death is more likely to be a relief than something to be feared -- anyone who's stood in a graveyard talking to a headstone hoping their loved one could hear them and even the hundreds of kids across the country who've just made their First Holy Communion.

If all we've got to look forward to is decomposition: Prove it, smarty pants. After all, there's really only one way to find out what happens when you kick the bucket -- and hopefully that won't happen to any of us for a long time.

Thankfully Darragh McManus is a lot more sensible in his part of the article.

Galvasean

First line in:

Have you ever said goodbye to your granny, best friend or even beloved pet dog? I have -- and as an Irish (admittedly lapsed) Catholic, I was brought up to believe that some day I'll get to see them all again.

Obviously she is a lapsed Catholic if she thinks dogs go to heaven.

Does the article get less ignorant as it goes on or will I keep reading?

edit:

there have been countless reported ghost sightings and near-death accounts of bright lights and long tunnels over the years -- and they can't all have been crazies, can they?

Ghosts? Ghosts!?!??! FFS, why are people like this allowed to live write articles?

More edit:
Past life regression? Durr Einsten said the word God so it must are bee truuu!!!!!

Prove it? Another person who hasn't heard of the burden of proof so :rolleyes:

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Galvasean wrote: »

First line in:

Obviously she is a lapsed Catholic if she thinks dogs go to heaven.

But they do! I seen a film about it!

Galvasean

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

But they do! I seen a film about it!

which was condemned by the church

Penn

As I sank back through the years while under, I could feel the apron I was wearing, smell the bread rising in the oven and see the black and white sheepdog lying on a rug in front of the fire.

OK, so it's not exactly the stuff of JK Rowling -- but sadly, not even my imagination is good enough to concoct such a backstory in just a few minutes.

Wow. What an amazing past life. No way anyone could have simply just imagined such an intricate and historically accurate past life.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Galvasean wrote: »

which was condemned by the church

It was made in Ireland surprisingly.

Opinicus

discovered that I'd been around the block before as a farmer's wife. As I sank back through the years while under, I could feel the apron I was wearing, smell the bread rising in the oven and see the black and white sheepdog lying on a rug in front of the fire.

Oh for God's sake!

Galvasean

Barrington wrote: »

Wow. What an amazing past life. No way anyone could have simply just imagined such an intricate and historically accurate past life.

I once had a dream where I was a chief vampire hunter in an intricate sci-fi universe. All it means is that I had a dream though.

So in this article we are faced with a 'Catholic' who believes dogs go to heaven, there are thousands of ghosts flying around and that there is such a thing as reincarnation. There really should be a law stopping people from calling themselves Catholics when they haven't the slightest f#cking clue what a catholic is.
I'm so sick of all of this 'ala-carte' bullsh!t :mad:

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I want to find an email address for this woman just so I can link her this thread and let her know how laughable her opinions are.

Galvasean

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

It was made in Ireland surprisingly.

Don Bluth studios. Also made the Land before Time and American Tale. I miss them.
The person in the OP's article probably thinks Don Bluth studio died and went to heaven :rolleyes:

Monty Burnz

Have you ever said goodbye to your granny, best friend or even beloved pet dog? I have -- and as an Irish (admittedly lapsed) Catholic, I was brought up to believe that some day I'll get to see them all again. According to scientist Stephen Hawking this week, though, that makes me -- and the millions of others like me who believe in life after death -- a tragic nut-job who simply can't accept the 'reality' that, in the end, we're all just destined to become worm food.

As a journalist, cynicism is practically in the job description -- and certainly, I can't stand the so-called psychics who cash in on people's grief by claiming they can cross over to the other side.

Cynicism - maybe. Critical thinking? Apparently not.

However, I've not yet become so hardened by life or my profession that I've ruled out the possibility of pearly gates altogether.

From Catholicism to Hinduism, the notion that there's something more after we flatline is a basic tenet of most religions. Buddhists and Sikhs go one step further, believing that when one candle goes out, another is lit by reincarnation.

Religions all promise something after death? Clearly there's no other possible reason for a religion (of all things) to promise life after death - so it must be true!

Sure, scientists may scoff at the fantastical depiction of heaven in movies such as What Dreams May Come and The Lovely Bones. But back here on planet earth, there have been countless reported ghost sightings and near-death accounts of bright lights and long tunnels over the years -- and they can't all have been crazies, can they?

Yes. They can.

Meanwhile, palliative nurses say it's a common phenomenon for those who are dying to see loved ones who have gone before them in their final moments.

Some years ago, I tried past life regression -- going under hypnosis to recall memories of your past incarnations -- and discovered that I'd been around the block before as a farmer's wife. As I sank back through the years while under, I could feel the apron I was wearing, smell the bread rising in the oven and see the black and white sheepdog lying on a rug in front of the fire.

So you believe in reincarnation now? In that case, you won't be seeing granny again, will you? Oh god.

OK, so it's not exactly the stuff of JK Rowling -- but sadly, not even my imagination is good enough to concoct such a backstory in just a few minutes.

That's a hell of a back story - bread and a dog. I can't wait for the film.

From the Big Bang theory to string theory (which reasons that space-time could have up to 11 invisible dimensions), so much of science orbits on supposition and the unknown.

Do I sense an epic misunderstanding of science on the horizon?

For someone supposedly attempting to crack the mysteries of the universe, it's disappointing that Hawking is so closed-minded on the subject of heaven. So far, scientists can't even definitively prove there's no life on Mars -- how can they prove there's no life after death?

Ah, there it is.

From Socrates to Shakespeare, some of the world's greatest thinkers believed in an afterlife -- even Einstein reportedly admitted on his deathbed: "God is the garden and the gardener."

Isn't this the common fallacy known as an 'appeal to authority'?

Hawking's arrogant religious assertion is insulting to anyone living with a terminal illness -- for whom death is more likely to be a relief than something to be feared -- anyone who's stood in a graveyard talking to a headstone hoping their loved one could hear them and even the hundreds of kids across the country who've just made their First Holy Communion.

The truth is no longer true if it insults somebody. Good news for fat people.

If all we've got to look forward to is decomposition: Prove it, smarty pants. After all, there's really only one way to find out what happens when you kick the bucket -- and hopefully that won't happen to any of us for a long time.

liamw

Barrington wrote: »

Wow. What an amazing past life. No way anyone could have simply just imagined such an intricate and historically accurate past life.

You need to be more open-minded! :rolleyes:

Dades

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The truth is no longer true if it insults somebody. Good news for fat people.

ROFL!

Article wrote:

Hawking's arrogant religious assertion is insulting to anyone living with a terminal illness -- for whom death is more likely to be a relief than something to be feared -- anyone who's stood in a graveyard talking to a headstone hoping their loved one could hear them and even the hundreds of kids across the country who've just made their First Holy Communion.

It's insulting to debate reality now? Shall we sweep every possible truth under the carpet that might upset people?

It appears we are now 4 year olds hoping for Santa with our parents shushing those who would break the news.

MagicMarker

Deirdre Reynolds is on linkedin, I don't know if you can contact someone on that because I'm not on it myself, but I'm sure someone here may be able to send her a link to this thread.

After a quick google turned up some of her articles I'm not surprised with the trash she's written here.

Doc Farrell

'From Catholicism to Hinduism, the notion that there's something more after we flatline is a basic tenet of most religions. Buddhists and Sikhs go one step further, believing that when one candle goes out, another is lit by reincarnation.'

yes buddhism goes one step further than hinduism in believing in reincarnation. even though hinduism has been around longer than buddhism and even though buddhists refer to reincarnation as rebirth.

also please point out which religion of the 'most' does not have a basic tenet regarding something happening after death.

i'm sorry i read this thread as this is simply the laziest article i've had the displeasure of eyeballing this year. she wrote it between mouthfuls of toast, and crying over daytime tv.

And i'm not even a friggin Atheist! Is this the best journalism a national paper can drag out!
i'm going back to the funny threads.

Delirium

For someone supposedly attempting to crack the mysteries of the universe, it's disappointing that Hawking is so closed-minded on the subject of heaven. So far, scientists can't even definitively prove there's no life on Mars -- how can they prove there's no life after death?

I look forward to her follow up article about aliens existing on mars.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

branie wrote: »

Who is she and where did you get the poster?

Thats Deirdre Reynolds, and I made it.

branie

You did a great job on the poster :-)

Turtwig

You know I'm probably going to sound an arrogant prick here, but what is it exactly that makes someone a journalist in a leading newspaper. In so far as I can tell the majority of them are as dumb as f**k, have highly questionable standards for evidence and seem to do sweet f**k all research. Is it really that hard to learn to, you know, a bit of critical thinking, fact checking and honesty?

The only reason I end up reading a newspaper nowadays is because someone usually points me to an article in the hope of "proving a point" to me. It usually ends with curtly dissecting the article and pointing out its rubbish standards for arguments. Feel sorry for the genuine quality journalists out there, but it does seem ye are dying breed. Seriously, are journalists even taught about fallacies, statistics and critical thinking?

Malty_T

If all we've got to look forward to is decomposition: Prove it, smarty pants.

Speaking as a buddhist, stfu. :rolleyes:

Malty_T wrote: »

You know I'm probably going to sound an arrogant prick here, but what is it exactly that makes someone a journalist in a leading newspaper.

It's the indo, it doesn't count! Rag.
Not that yer wan Carey from the irish times was ever any better. Or Waters.
In conclusion, I don't know.

Zillah

What a daft eijit. I'm quietly hoping this is a case of Poe's law to be honest. Such a perfect storm of gormless stupidity:

- Non-Catholic Catholic
- Calling Hawking arrogant for disagreeing with her.
- Hypnotism.
- Reincarnation.
- Einstein as a theist (again...)
- Near death experiences.
- "Science doesn't know everything!"
- Close-minded for not completely agreeing with her.
- Things aren't true if they can upset someone.
- Shifting the burden of proof.

Just...disgusting.

MagicMarker

Malty_T wrote: »

You know I'm probably going to sound an arrogant prick here, but what is it exactly that makes someone a journalist in a leading newspaper. In so far as I can tell the majority of them are as dumb as f**k, have highly questionable standards for evidence and seem to do sweet f**k all research. Is it really that hard to learn to, you know, a bit of critical thinking, fact checking and honesty?

The only reason I end up reading a newspaper nowadays is because someone usually points me to an article in the hope of "proving a point" to me. It usually ends with curtly dissecting the article and pointing out its rubbish standards for arguments. Feel sorry for the genuine quality journalists out there, but it does seem ye are dying breed. Seriously, are journalists even taught about fallacies, statistics and critical thinking?

That's what I was thinking, there really should be a regulatory body that filters out this kind of shíte and puts it where it belongs, in Hello magazine or something.

Dave!

I'd also like this person to be linked to this thread... Do these people never actually voice these arguments to someone who might have a different perspective? Maybe I'm just battle-hardened by now, but all of her arguments have been shown to be bullsh*t by now, so the only excuse for her ignorance is (a) she hasn't been exposed to any counter-arguments, or (b) she's a total moron.

I'm thinking it's (a) tbh. When someone presents this crap as a kind of "gotcha" aimed at atheists and/or 'science', it must surely just be out of naivity because they've never had their views challenged in any meaningful way.

On the off-chance that she should happen to want to discuss her article, try to keep the abuse to the bare minimum!

btw if that's her in the picture above, she's quite hot...

Turtwig

I guess in the interest of fairness (and so we don't get accused of being sexism:pac:) we should analyse the other half too.

..

Stephen Hawking is right when he says that heaven is just a fairytale -- and I'm afraid, like the original versions of those stories, it doesn't have a happy ending. We're all familiar with these fluffy children's tales, but in their first telling in medieval Europe, they were gory, dark and bleak ... and always ended in death.

Little Red Riding Hood wasn't saved by a woodsman -- she was devoured by the wolf. And that's what happens to us when we die: there is no supernatural get-out clause, no last-second rescue by God or any other omnipotent being.

This bit seems unnecessary waffle to be honest. I'd prefer if he had opened by something along the lines of "most probably right" instead of "right".

In short, I believe there is no heaven and no life after death. We exist, and then we cease to exist. We are animals, after all, subject to the same laws of mortality as every other, turning inside the same great wheel of time and destiny.

When your time comes, the wheel stops. It doesn't spin you off into some celestial paradise. It doesn't somehow circumvent the physical reality of the universe. It just stops.

Again, I just wish he left out the certainty because, I feel, he should be separating himself as much as possible from the religious viewpoint not just providing the polar opposite. I think when we speak including our uncertainties, the religious argument of accusing us of faith become much less effective, both emotionally and rationally. Like the image of the wheel, not sure if I agree with using the word "destiny". I know he probably doesn't believe we have a destiny, but it could easily be focused on and twisted into a straw man.

There's no big drama about it, which makes death either less or more bearable, depending on your point of view. (Not everyone actually wants to live forever -- some people find the thought horrible.)

I love that he mentions that not everyone revels in living forever and I kind of wish he elaborated more on it.

There's no swell of the orchestra, no rolling end credits, no sense of closure or meaning. Life just stops. I am, then I am not.

More waffle.:)

You might think this is an arrogant view -- how can anyone prove there's no afterlife? But that's just philosophical and semiotic straw-grasping. For one thing, a negative can't be proven; to demand evidence that heaven doesn't exist is a logical nonsense.

Empathising with the reader that it was an arrogant view was a good idea because it is commonly perceived, rightly or wrongly, as an arrogant one. Sadly though he didn't use the opportunity to show that it's not arrogant. He could have elaborated here on how proving a negative is impossible. As this is such a key point and something most people fail to grasp merely stating something is nonsense is just never going to be enough.

Anyway there is evidence, or rather a lack of it. There has never, not once, in the incredibly lengthy history of humankind, been anything at all to prove life after death. Not one shred of evidence.

This, I do not like. There is evidence, only the quality of it is rubbish. Here he should have explained how anecdotes do not make for a good quality of evidence. Instead he just said there was none. Poor attempt at communication and the reader who disagrees with him, or is on the fence, will not just accept the line "there is no evidence" when he has heard tonnes of stories that claim to the counter.

Holy books are worse than useless in verifying anything. The word of God means nothing if there is no God; the whole thing is a self-reflexive trick, a self-fulfilling prophecy, literally and metaphorically. Religious faith is the same: just because you believe something doesn't make it so. Especially when it goes against every atom of rationality, knowledge and intuition.

I'm not sure there was a need to mention the bit about religious faith. Just mentioning holy books and that if God doesn't actually exist it's a load of rubbish, is enough. No need to mention rationality, because that gives the impression that you trying to sound superior in some sense or form.

And all those operating table experiences, where someone "dies" and is drawn towards a light, or sees themselves floating above their corpse: I believe that's just the brain playing tricks on you. Chemistry creating imagery in times of duress.

Here was an ideal opportunity to show that his opinion wasn't based on personal belief. Alas, he just stated "I believe" and left it at that. If he had only vaguely given reference to experiments done into NDEs e.g the one that had posters hanging in the ITUs wards. his position would appear a lot more convincing and less faith based.

I don't mean to sound too reductive: I agree we're more than just bundles of molecules and electrical impulses. There is a beautiful mystery to being alive; it's strange and unknowable in many ways, a sparkling chimera beyond empirical comprehension.

There is magic inherent in the fact of life, all life, and especially ours, as we are aware of this magic.

But it does end. Plants die, birds die, bacteria die, humans die. There's nothing to fear: it's natural and right. It makes sense that individual lives come to a stop. There's no reason to be "scared of the dark", as Hawking rather unkindly phrased it. And there's no need for fairy-tales

This bit is kinda weird "it's strange and unknowable....beyond empirical comprehension" it appears he just embraced the idea that there are other standards of evidence as means of comprehension. Since he didn't define which standards and clarify what he meant, you could make the leap that anecdotes are allowed because he never excluded them. I think implying that death shouldn't be feared isn't a good idea because the vast majority of us, no majority how rational we are, will fear it.
To be honest though, I rather liked this closing section.

Ok folks, your turn tear him (and me) apart.
Ignore the theist crap. Let's try to refine our own stuff.:)
(And assume some asshat like WLC is going to respond it)

aidan24326

The Indo seems to be giving a job to just about any eejit these days. First we had the gormless and moronic ramblings of Alison O'Riordan and now this. 'They can't all be crazy can they'?

Well no Deirdre, they mightn't all be crazy but they might all be wrong, silly, deluded, misguided, clutching at straws, believeing what they want to believe etc, take your pick. It's heavy on the facepalm here I'm afraid.

doriansmith

Did she seriously call Hawking 'smarty pants'? She sounds like a five year old.

Beruthiel

What really saddens me is the fact that out there somewhere, there is a very talented journalist with the talent for critical thinking, looking for a job.
How is it that this newspaper is staying afloat during this period of time?

sensibleken

This woman is an idiot

I could literally shove an ink cartridge up my arse, fart at a ceiling fan and i'd write a better article on the floor

CerebralCortex

sensibleken wrote: »

This woman is an idiot

I could literally shove an ink cartridge up my arse, fart at a ceiling fan and i'd write a better article on the floor

I don't mean to sound too reductive: I agree we're more than just bundles of molecules and electrical impulses. There is a beautiful mystery to being alive; it's strange and unknowable in many ways, a sparkling chimera beyond empirical comprehension.

There is magic inherent in the fact of life, all life, and especially ours, as we are aware of this magic.

But it does end. Plants die, birds die, bacteria die, humans die. There's nothing to fear: it's natural and right. It makes sense that individual lives come to a stop. There's no reason to be "scared of the dark", as Hawking rather unkindly phrased it. And there's no need for fairy-tales.

He is as full of **** as she is unfortunately!

Turtwig

The one thing that occurred to me this morning was that perhaps, maybe just maybe, they were asked to write their respective sections rather quickly and while both of them had their personal beliefs, neither of them really had given their beliefs much thought.

*Fingers crossed*

sensibleken

CerebralCortex wrote: »

He is as full of **** as she is unfortunately!

well its certainly not the most elloquent but compared to this...

Some years ago, I tried past life regression -- going under hypnosis to recall memories of your past incarnations -- and discovered that I'd been around the block before as a farmer's wife. As I sank back through the years while under, I could feel the apron I was wearing, smell the bread rising in the oven and see the black and white sheepdog lying on a rug in front of the fire.

OK, so it's not exactly the stuff of JK Rowling -- but sadly, not even my imagination is good enough to concoct such a backstory in just a few minutes.

...his article sounds like one of the finest works of literature ever created (presumably by JK Rowling).

how slow does your brain have to operate that imagining yourself as a woman in an apron married to a farmer takes more than a few minutes

old hippy

Sigh. Dunno if the world would be a better place without religion but perhaps boards.ie would?

Turtwig

old hippy wrote: »

Sigh. Dunno if the world would be a better place without religion but perhaps boards.ie would?

Whatever about a world without religion, a world without shoddy journalism would definitely be a better place.

magicbastarder

CerebralCortex wrote: »

He is as full of **** as she is unfortunately!

i don't see too much objectionable in what he wrote?

CerebralCortex

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't see too much objectionable in what he wrote?

Well, he's clearly a reductionist yet he tries say he isn't. I smell bullsh!t. Use of the word magic gets up my nose. The appeal to nature fallacy etc. all culminated in disappointment for me. She is worse granted I didn't actually read all of her section.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Ye're right on his part of the article being fairly bad as well. I think that I was so appalled by her part that his article only seemed good in comparison because it contained a tiny bit of common sense. It was like being ill and going from a witch doctor, to someone who had failed their first year of medicine.

Nodin

koth wrote: »

I look forward to her follow up article about aliens existing on mars.

...complete with past life recall of being a microbe on Mars, made believable (and irrefutable) by its imagery of red dust and being very, very, very small.

aidan24326

silly journalist wrote:

OK, so it's not exactly the stuff of JK Rowling -- but sadly, not even my imagination is good enough to concoct such a backstory in just a few minutes.

Just spotted this bit now aswell. So she reckons her imagination couldn't possibly concoct a story where she's a farmer's wife baking bread and there's a sheepdog lying in front of the fire? Bloody hell I hope she doesn't ever venture into a career in fictional writing.

studiorat

So there's an afterlife, brilliant.

Still doesn't mean there's a god.

sensibleken

This is so annoying Im going to have to get some reiki to calm down.

condra

In fairness, at least they published 2 sides of the argument.

sensibleken

condra wrote: »

In fairness, at least they published 2 sides of the argument.

Deal Or No Deal is also balanced

Turtwig

condra wrote: »

In fairness, at least they published 2 sides of the argument.

Immediately reminded me of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ

condra

hahaha

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

condra wrote: »

In fairness, at least they published 2 sides of the argument.

'... but in the interest of balance, we have Barry here, and he believes the sky is a carpet painted by god'.

mikhail

Malty_T wrote: »

Seriously, are journalists even taught about fallacies, statistics and critical thinking?

Most journalists were never taught journalism at all. There are courses now - the masters degree in DCU for instance - but most of the journalists floating around have an arts degree at best. You might argue that an arts degree should teach critical thinking, and I agree. It should.

Galvasean

A friend of mine did adegree in journalism. According to her all they teach you is how to misquote people without legal ramifications, how to sensationalize headlines and misinterprate statistics.
Sounds about right actually.

Calibos

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

'... but in the interest of balance, we have Barry here, and he believes the sky is a carpet painted by god'.

You forgot to put airquotes around the word balance there, you silly toothyologist.

Monty Burnz

Galvasean wrote: »

A friend of mine did adegree in journalism. According to her all they teach you is how to misquote people without legal ramifications, how to sensationalize headlines and misinterprate statistics.
Sounds about right actually.

To be honest, my understanding is that journalism degrees or masters are not really as highly regarded in the industry as actual experience. I don't see why having a journalism degree would give you a better understanding of or insight into the existence or otherwise of god.

mikhail

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't see why having a journalism degree would give you a better understanding of or insight into the existence or otherwise of god.

Neither do I, but I would suggest that being able to construct a logical argument would be a welcome addition to the skill-set of most practising journalists, whatever their religious views.

Monty Burnz

mikhail wrote: »

Neither do I, but I would suggest that being able to construct a logical argument would be a welcome addition to the skill-set of most practising journalists, whatever their religious views.

For that, you'd probably be better off with an Arts degree in philosophy and English, or somesuch. That would give a hypothetical journalist the habit of examining meaning, understanding logic, and the ability to communicate.