Thursday is finally back, and he is considering supernaturalism, tradition, and the law. He raises an interesting point: why do the religious tend to fall back on religious arguments? There is nothing wrong with this, of course, but the point of argument is to inform and persuade. This often means adapting to audience, even as there is refusal to compromise on principle. How often do we fail to consider how our interactions appear? How little do we attempt empathy outside of ourselves?