1451. Blaming 'The God Delusion'

Comment #12968 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 5:13 pm

"Besides, The God Delusion quickly drops its sour tack and becomes a most impassioned, endearing, articulate and heartening secular-humanist call to arms. Call it the book's evolution. Despite the clumsy burka metaphor with which he wraps up his essay, Dawkins is humane, logical and erudite."
_________


Eloquently put and reflects my sentiments.

Chapters 8 through 10 in TGD are lucidly written with intense compassion. When I encounter critics of Dawkins describing him as a cold-hearted man embracing uncaring and dogmatic science that he insists on cramming down our throats, I think of these last chapters and realize these critics have not read TGD from cover to cover.

I regard this review as the adequately competent review for which we were all waiting. However, it is from the progressive side and directed towards that side. Will we ever encounter the equivalent in terms of an adequate review from the god botherers?

The author writes well and clearly, and it was a very enjoyable read.

1452. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12962 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 4:39 pm

TearTheRootOffTheSucker, thanks for the insightful post--I really enjoyed it.

1453. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12946 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 2:42 pm

T Larson, Thanks for the clarification.

1454. Intelligent design: The God Lab

Comment #12937 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:39 pm

Jcosta, submit the original article (http://www.cspo.org/home/perspectives/index.htm) to this site for possible listing as an article for discussion. This way many more posters can analyse it.

1455. The Panel with Richard Dawkins

Comment #12856 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 4:45 am

29. Comment #12785 by Sancus on December 13, 2006 at 9:02 pm/Youths are segregated from society and held captive by various institutions, including the family. They do not need to be gullible to accept religion when it is forced onto them.
_______

Thanks for the link. This is a topic I have always been interested in? Why? Because I will never forget how I as a child was regarded as semi-human, and being female, more like one quarter human.

1456. Science Weekly for December 11: Creationism special

Comment #12846 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 3:12 am

The discussion regarding if teachers actually know what evolution truly is and Wolpert's comment concerning that evolution is a very complex topic to teach well was very unsatisfying.

It is my opinion that many teachers do not understand evolution correctly, and that it is not a complex topic at all to teach.

1457. Science Weekly for December 11: Creationism special

Comment #12845 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 3:08 am

Nell Boase's query as to if ID is just nonsense why discuss it all was refuted well by Wolpert when he said because supporters of the ID nonsense have gotten it taught as science in some schools which is why the silly topic has to be discussed and why we have to be vigilant in ensuring that ID is not being taught as science. She also tried to inject philosophy into the teaching of science, and Wolpert crisply said that there is no role for philosophy in science. This is the first time I have heard Boase discuss science, and she sounds like a bit of a god apologist.

Wolpert's saying that the bacterial flagellum evolved independantly more than once was a very interesting item of knowledge.

Also there were three scientiest against ID and just one for ID. Though it seemed unfair, perhaps the reason why is that there are not many scientists that do support ID.

1458. The A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science (US)

Comment #12837 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:52 am

I cried seeing this list.

Pol Pot is one dogmatic monster that I particularily detested. He and his minions killed you if you happened to wear eyeglasses because that showed that you were an intellectual (totally illogical of course).

I cried because the wonderfully gifted human beings including scientists that have won the Nobel Prize now feel that they must band together in order to practice science, an activity not long ago which their government had enthusiastically encouraged and supported.

I also bookmarked their site.

1459. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12833 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:36 am

Thanks so much for all your comments! You atheists are just too clever.

My household celebrates good will each and every day, and by the time Christmas comes around, I give myself an one day break, and I just go into vegetative mode. If some atheists want to go full hog on that day, that's fine with me. Christmas of course does have pagan foundations, and pagans sure knew how to have a pleasant time enjoying themselves.

1460. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12829 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:17 am

Who do you mean by you, and what do these 'yous' claim to be a priori illogical 'evidence' and therefore not subject to support from observations. What kind of observations?

1461. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12827 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:15 am

"What one can discuss is the improbability claim. But you don't do that, you claim a priori that it is "illogical' and not subject to support from observations. Well, that is illogical."
_____

You lost me. Please elaborate.

1462. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12825 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:04 am

Yes, and that is why I regard John's point as being clever, because it can be used effectively in debating with the huge number of theists that doubt their faith. Of course, they doubt their faith! They are equipped with a wonderful object, the human brain.

1463. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12824 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 1:02 am

On page 50 of TGD you will find a scale from 1 to 7 rating the intensity of belief and non belief. Only 1 and 7 represent unwavering stances, 1 for theists, and 7 for atheists, while 2 through 6 represents varying degrees of belief and lack of belief.

1464. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12821 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:56 am

I hear you, aidanjt, and it is an important endeavor to do.

1465. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12820 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:55 am

Just how common is this 100% faith? Many faithers admit to entertaining doubts about the existence of god all throughout their lives.

1466. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12817 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:49 am

And that is the super clever point of John's

1467. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12814 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:44 am

John P qualified his sentence with: Agnosticism is OFTEN defined.

My calling John P's statement as being a clever point should be taken within this context.

As you said if God produced evidence of 'his' existence somehow, then just as an atheist would review the evidence and revaluate their conclusions, a theist that had accepted previously that there was not a 100% certainity of God's existence would also revaluate their stance and then be convinced completely, and at that point his belief would become fact. While for the atheist his lack of belief would become acceptance of fact based reality.

1468. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12811 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:20 am

20. Comment #12806 by John Pritzlaff on December 14, 2006 at 12:07 am

Agnosticism is often defined as the belief that it is impossible to know whether god or gods exist, and many atheists and theists are also agnostics by this definition.
_____

super clever point, thanks.

1469. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12809 by Logicel on December 14, 2006 at 12:13 am

Self ownership is so more positive sounding than selfishness which is supposedly negative and is considered necessary to be watchfully curtailed in order for us to be decent humans.

Humility and selflessness are silly concepts, especially when there is so much false humility and false selflessness. For example, parents are supposedly less selfish than folks who have decided not to have children, and yet parents have children for selfish reasons, to have someone care for them for when they are older, to have someone whom they can mold, to have someone to love them, and to have someone whom they can love.

Selflessness means you suspend yourself, that you are less of a self. Why would that ever be necessary and why would it be considered smart to ever to do?

An elderly person, who was very infected with this selfish meme, the one whose creed I had mentioned earlier as being "I want only what I can have", when I pointed out that a selfless person, a person without a self, cannot be any good for anybody else if she/he does not have a self-centered base from which to act admitted she never thought of that and that it made sense. When I continued and said that a person who does not love themselves is unable to truly love others, as love begins at home, she again also agreed.

So many of these so called religious adages make no sense because they are very potent memes and therefore can be successfully spread without questioning their idiocy.

1470. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12803 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 11:52 pm

Saying that Dawkins only creed is me, me, me is, of course, lopsided. It would be more like: me and the not me, me and the not me, me and the not me.

1471. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12802 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 11:50 pm

3. Comment #12764 by Sancus on December 13, 2006 at 5:47 pm

It is the denial of the right for an individual to own herself that is the common and shared cause of both religious and Marxist injustices.
_________

Self ownership is a potent meme, and I have started using it recently thanks to you, Sancus.

1472. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12800 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 11:44 pm

"..., they must start trenchantly defending their beliefs against Dawkins and his ilk. And they must do so with intellectual conviction. ... Otherwise, they will continue drifting into irrelevance and insignificance."
______

Supporters of religious superstitions with their lifetime experience of cherry picking, of intellectual dishonesty, of condescension and patronizing people in the regard that people cannot learn how to successfully console themselves when necessary are ill equiped to proceed with intellectual conviction.

They will have to study critical thinking, and that would increase the chances of their understanding a bit more how wonky their 'intellectual' approach is. They then would either become deconverted or continue with their non-intellectual, non-convincing style and continue to become irrelevant and insignificant. They would be 'damned' if they do, and 'damned' if they don't--a definitely delicious irony.

1473. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12780 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 7:30 pm

Many years ago I had defined my soul as the union of my mind and body. A friend scoffed at my definition, and said the soul was immaterial. Not mine.

I often think of the African American use of the word soulful: it is not used in the religious sense, but in an equisitely human sense.

1474. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12779 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 7:15 pm

"... then I am proud to announce that I am chronically ill.
________

And I am proud to announce that I am chronically well.

1475. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12775 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 7:03 pm

"Because most of us slavishly swallowed the assumption that religion is the primary cause of conflict, and that if we got rid of it peace would prevail."
______

The opposite has been my experience, that many more people believe that the world would even be more worse off than it is if it was not as religious as it already is, and that religious belief needs to be even more instilled in the population, especially the Americans who are working towards building a theocracy.

Many atheists do not think that without religion there would be a utopia, nor do they even want one. They want to use their minds and hearts to choose for themselves what works in their lives, to learn from their mistakes, and to work with others for the common good. Their strong focus is using the human mind to the fullest, because it is more than able to do what is needed, hence the emphasis is placed on identifying delusions regardless of the kind, whether they are of a secular or religious nature.

1476. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #12773 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 6:50 pm

"...if you prefer the charms and consolations of religion to the savagery of Darwinian natural selection, you are a dupe."
______

Since Dawkins has pointed out in TGD that through a byproduct of evolution--human consciouness--the human species has transcended the 'selfish' gene and is able to create a caring, kind society, Dooley has unfortunately been only exposed to the 'savage' interpretation of Darwinism which is no longer applicable to humanity.

I recently have read a great Analog Science Fiction story, where a visiting representative of a highly evolved alien species tells a human that the reason why the rest of the highly evolved beings in the universe had voted to keep humans earthbound was because humans were unable to rejoice in the fact that they are highly successful evolved apes, and instead regard themselves as failed, fallen angels. This delusion on their part defined their behavior causing all sorts of problems which the rest of the universe did not want part of and therefore had decided to keep humans quarantined on earth.

1477. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12771 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 6:29 pm

"He is the un-Whitehead,..."
________

Such an odd literary style. Is Golda Meir the un-Marilyn Monroe? Is Bush the un-Einstein? However, one could say that bloomers are un-Derpants.

1478. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12740 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Steven Mading, I agree wholeheartedly.

1479. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12738 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:42 pm

NoLongerHaveBelief, yes, each country has wonderful and not so wonderful people, and America is no exception. I have not been back to my homeland in about 16 years--one of the reasons is because it is so possible to discuss interesting topics with so many people of different nationalities via the web, including Americans, and that exposure is enough for me to keep connected to my birthplace.

However, in the last 5 years, the erosion of constitutional integrity and human rights (American has violated human rights on the world scale, and also in its own country in the past), but now, as a loved one said recently, he feels about America now like he felt about Russia ten years ago--that he has no confidence as a non-American that he would not be picked up, put away, and never be seen again. So, he has decided not to physically plant his feet on American soil at present, and does all his work via the Web if he does need to work with Americans, or suggests that they come to Europe to meet him.

1480. Sunday Sequence with William Crawley

Comment #12735 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:29 pm

Perhaps the producer, BBC, will send you a transcipt if you request one, and you also can do a search on the net, adding the word transcript to crawley, etc.

1481. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12734 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:25 pm

Frans, there are as many ways to grieve as there are atheists. Thanks for sharing yours.

Anyone can still converse with godismybody via the troll comment discussion, it is not closed to non-trolls. So it has not been removed entirely, more like segregated so his inconsiderate postings does not clog up the very sincere discussion going on among other posters, and cause well meaning posters to stop reading or posting because of the annoyance one can feel at such trollish behavior. As I said, godismy hobby responded to your last response to him and you can read it and reply if so desired via that troll discussion thread--just click it on.

1482. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12658 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 6:08 am

Another page from the site I linked in my No. 16 comment: http://objectiveministries.org/members/#AMILLER

I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING, PLEASE SOMEBODY HELP ME!

1483. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12656 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 5:40 am

A poster from another thread listed this link:

http://objectiveministries.org/pastorscorner/

He had said that for months he thought the site was serious, and I can see for myself why that would have been. It is really a damning satire of supporters of religious superstitions, in all their gullible displendour.

Humans all have some degree of gullibility but suggesting that atheists--the free thinkers, the skeptics--are more so than those batty, religious delusionists is humor in itself!

1484. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12651 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 5:20 am

Frans, I submitted Godismyhobby's posts for removal to the troll comment thread (you can click on the view troll comment discussion just above the top of each comment page for this thread--go take a look, it is pretty gratifying!) to which site management agreed. Also Godismyhobby replied to your post on that thread. You can continue to discuss whatever with him via that troll thread.

Note the troll, spam, and offensive flags that are at the bottom of each comment now. I encourage all of us to be troll vigilant and use the flags as required. And if anybody needs a lesson in what constitutes trolling check out the troll comment discussion for this thread.

1485. Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid For by Taxes

Comment #12632 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 2:31 am

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued to block the financing. The school promised to use government money only for secular expenses, and federal financing resumed last May..."
________

Oh well, I for one can sleep comfortably at night, because I know addicts, whether their drug is religion or alcohol or compulsive sexual behavior, can be trusted when they make promises.

1486. Scientologists get £270,000 subsidy

Comment #12627 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 2:15 am

In France, where I live, Scientology is labeled as a dangerous cult and is treated as such. Would the European Court of Human Rights have the power to overwhelm France's decision to deny Scientology being regarded as a bona fide church hence a charity?

I do not understand why any church, both the traditional ones like the Catholic church or the more recent ones, can escape paying taxes that other business have to or why they are referred to as charities.

They sell products and services, especially in scientology's case, and in the case of the more traditional churches, donations are squeezed out of the pockets of many who can not afford to but do anyway because of feeling that it is their religious duty to so--a definite religious abuse. Their profits are used to swell their coffers. Corporate businesses also donate to charity and use their time and energy to do community good, but their profits are taxed while their charitable contributions are not, or to a lesser degree.

As RD as pointed out in TGD, the double standards that churches and religion enjoy are unfair and needs to be addressed and changed.

1487. Julia Sweeney on The Late Show with Craig Ferguson

Comment #12624 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:49 am

I knew about Sweeney from her mention in TGD and from her blog but this is the first time that I have seen Sweeney talking.

As a poster has said on another thread here, that he is 'jealous' of the calmness in which RD addresses inanity, I am just as 'jealous' of Sweeney's firm but infectiously friendly stance on her 'dreaded' condition of atheism. I certainly need to buff up both my calmness and friendliness!

1488. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12622 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:33 am

A 'moral slave' that I know lives by this creed: I only want what I can have. Huh?

How do you know what you want without trying a lot of things? How do know that in your quest of fulfilling yourself, that you will not find surprises, that you will not learn valuable skills, knowledge, etc. in your search, though it was not these surprises in themselves which you were looking for? And some of these skills and knowledge will include learning how to have proportion and balance in your life. The search for fulfillment does not mean that the searcher is greedy and insatiable, it simply means that the searcher is willing to work and RISK the rocking of his little, stationary boat set in a stagnate pond.

And what is with this 'I can have.' Sounds more like what I can have that others have decided I can have.

1489. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12617 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 1:16 am

Sancus, thank you for your brilliantly insightful analysis.

As a poster on another thread said, sometimes he just wants to sit back and have a good old read because of the quality of the comments on this site.

To the hard-working posters who contribute their time and energy to this site by generating high-quality content in the form of comments, I thank you all.

And now, we have a means to rid insightful threads of trollish behavior. I hope this will encourage others to read and comment.

1490. Richard Dawkins on The Late Late Show with Pat Kenny

Comment #12616 by Logicel on December 13, 2006 at 12:54 am

Yorker, My comment concerning that we should not be allowed to die in pain, that includes that someone needs to be with us while we are dying. Cancer specialists, and the like, despicably desert their patient for the most part when death is near.

I remember when my 46-yr-old sister was on her breast-cancer hospice death bed, the 'death specialist' at the hospice, checked in and out during her dying, and then finally said, I can see that she will not die alone, as you are always here, if there is anything I can do for you I'll be in my office. And I did take her up on it, and she assisted me psychologically how to assist my sister to let go of her life during her last 48 hours.

In response to the question concerning what will replace religion in its role as a consolation in the face of the death of a loved one, especially children, someone answered simply, grieving.

When I was quite young, my 21 yr-old sister and my mother both died within 13 months of each other. Honestly, the most pain was caused by others that refused me the right to grieve properly, who wanted me to go along with their hypocritical nonsense, their 3 day wakes, their funeral breakfast, etc. In sharp contrast, my other sister's death was significantly less of a painful experience for me, because I knew that my sister was not feeling any pain (as I was running out to get a nurse to give her pain medication every hour, and then every half a hour when the end was very near), and that I was getting psychological support from the death specialist. Also, that sister was cremated per her request so no silly 3 day long wake to endure so people who never cared about her would have the time to make the socially accepted journey to her wake.

As I have said, I think that it is very positive for atheists to discuss these aspects, and though this thread may not be the most appropriate spot to discuss these aspects, I am glad that you did.

1491. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12602 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 6:24 pm

...Cliff Richard believes in God, and has had more than a dozen No. 1 hits in a pop career that has lasted nearly half a century.
_______

Hmmm, god botherers believe in Mephistopheles also--did Richard make a Faustian pact?

Very funny satire!

1492. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12598 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:35 pm

He is the un-Whitehead, a man who will never (barring divine intervention) appreciate this sublime comment by my philosophical mentor: "In the study of ideas, it is necessary to remember that insistence on hard-headed clarity issues from sentimental feeling, as it were a mist, cloaking the perplexities of fact. Insistence on clarity at all costs is based on sheer superstition as to the mode in which human intelligence functions. Our reasonings grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions."
______

Dastardly Dawkins, abominably 'un-Whitehead', keeps on insisting being himself--a man who uses all of his being, his energy, his time so we do not have to grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions. Wait a minute, does that mean Dawkins is more Whiteheadish then Whitehead himself?

1493. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12596 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:15 pm

...including numerous quotes from that popular author, atheist, and graduate student, Sam Harris.
_____

A graduate student of what discipline and from what university and at what level?

Per Harris' bio at his site: He is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University and has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. Mr. Harris is now completing a doctorate in neuroscience.

1494. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12593 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:07 pm

(The depth of Dawkins' political thought is shown by his failure to ponder for one second the implications of a government that can tell parents what beliefs they can and cannot transmit to their offspring.)
______

Again, science and critical thinking are not beliefs, based on faith. One of Dawkin's commandments is to encourage your child to disagree with you.

I once said this to an elderly lady with 4 grown children, and she said, well, in that case I would not have had any children.

Children are not parental property, they are full fledged human beings, and their marvelous mental capacities need to be encouraged and nourished by their caretakers, and not stifled.

1495. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12592 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 5:00 pm

how religious beliefs are given undue social deference, why Einstein's references to God aren't religious, why eastern religions aren't religions, why religion developed (socio-biologically), how the Bible is a jumble of historical trash, how religion promotes intolerance and undermines science, how Hitler may have been Catholic, why Stalin's atheism doesn't matter, why society doesn't need religion to be moral, why Jefferson was probably an atheist (the non-mentioned God-statements on the Jefferson Memorial to the contrary notwithstanding), why studying religion to understand literary references is okay, and why parents indoctrinating their children with religious beliefs are guilty of child abuse.
_______

Such fluff Dawkins concerns himself with--did he actually fill up an entire book with these unimportant points?

1496. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12591 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 4:55 pm

To simplify, both the Reformation and modern science arose out of a "movement of thought" that, in the case of science, rebelled against final causes. Yet, ironically, the confidence that modern science displays in its intellectual project rests upon an unconscious faith in the universe's detailed rationality that was derived from medieval theology.

Don't look for anything like this kind of subtle analysis in The God Delusion.
______

Wonder if Kirk could also appreciate the 'subtle' irony of evolution giving us brains so we can imagine and increase our understanding of the natural world, and then we just go along and diss the importance of evolution anyway?

_______

1497. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12589 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 4:48 pm

I do not think...that I have even yet brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement. I mean the inexpugnable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope.... My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivation from medieval theology.
________

Since Kirk has been so intellectually dishonest concerning the focus of TGD, and since I have not read any original writings of Alfred North Whitehead, I cannot know at this point if Kirk has taken his words out of context also.

But as the quote in itself reads, this what I can make out: human curiousity--that evolution has shaped so we can survive by asking questions and solving problems--is not the reason why science has advanced. It has advanced because of 'faith' in the possibility of science which has been given to us 'unconsciously' from medieval theology. If it is unconscious then how can Whitehead know about it?

1498. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12583 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 4:23 pm

15. Comment #12579 by prelevent on December 12, 2006 at 3:56 pm

Just a little clear up. When I say, "I see relatively little substantial difference between the two quotes" I mean to say that they are several hundred years removed from each other, but that the central "awe" is found in both. One comes with several hundred years of refinement though... and this means that the other lacks the new framework with which to approach that awe.
_________

Unlike Pascal, Kirk in living at present, so what is his excuse to choose to blind himself to a few centuries of scientific achievment that has occurred since Pascal died?

1499. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12580 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:57 pm

In short, it is the greatest sensible mark of the almighty power of God that imagination loses itself in that thought.
________

Though I agree with prevlevent's post, about how this pascal quote actually does show an affinity with Dawkin's and Sagan's awe of the beauty and immenseness of the natural world, Kirk is using that viewpoint in his unrigorous way to say that one cannot question this sublimeness, and certainly not in a tendentious manner, by pointing out evidence supporting the improbability of a God just because of this immenseness that we must all just worship.

1500. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12576 by Logicel on December 12, 2006 at 3:47 pm

As trite and useless as this kind of writing is, I do think it is important to include this type here. In researching Jung on the net, I came across a reference to this article on a blog called repaired reason--just check out that blog to see how much bile against Dawkins is being released because of this spineless mush.