tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6796768459231152140.post47225321800361237..comments2023-08-11T02:21:13.551-05:00Comments on Jefferson Aero Plane: Hmm, what an interesting point RICHARD DAWKINSJoelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03786978569048188890noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6796768459231152140.post-7589654599261590782011-12-23T10:27:04.903-06:002011-12-23T10:27:04.903-06:00Sorry for being inscrutable.
YES - but more so th...Sorry for being inscrutable.<br /><br />YES - but more so that Dawkins believes that "scientific methods of criticism" are an "infallible method" of understanding the world. Dawkins' whole point, as I understand it, is, "God's existence can't be proven scientifically or logically, therefore believing in him is foolish." This is a line of argumentation that died in the 19th century, mostly because trying to judge transcendental truths with human observation and experimentation - trying to judge the spire from the basement - is absurd.<br /><br />I just really enjoyed finding a line in Tolstoy that so neatly refutes Dawkins 118 years ahead of the fact.Joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03786978569048188890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6796768459231152140.post-75688880479123404502011-12-22T15:40:45.671-06:002011-12-22T15:40:45.671-06:00I'm not sure what you're getting at here. ...I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you using Tolstoy's position that the quicker you are at rejecting something without a second thought the more likely you're very ignorant of it -- and applying that with Dawkins' flippant attitude toward religion? I had to read the first paragraph a few times just to write this comment.Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049166934169957534noreply@blogger.com