James Le Fanu: Why Us? (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 18:05 (5658 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Tuesday, May 26, 2009, 18:42

Let me first state the obvious: if you substitute "smug theist" for "smug atheist", and "non-existence" for "existence", the pattern will be equally apt. Any evidence that runs contrary to one's beliefs will be seen as a threat, and there are certainly just as many smug theists as there are smug atheists. - I don't think David is 'smug'. The real issue for him (and for me) is the willingness to follow new scientific developments and possibly reach new conclusions from them as to what may be the underlying 'truth'. - > Bruce David says that "there are two kinds of people in the world: those whose highest value is truth, and those for whom being right is more important than anything else." He admits, however, that this is a vast oversimplification, and I would say that it is so oversimplified as to be practically worthless - Not 'worthless' if my interpretation of Bruce David is correct. People who stick with always being 'right' about their belief system, and who do not follow where science is apparently leading the path to truth are rigid and unwilling to change their conclusions. - 
> You ask whether agnostics are anywhere in this comment. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I would say that being right scarcely enters into the equation. That is one reason why the case of Antony Flew is so notable and so admirable. But whether his conversion from atheism to deism represents the "truth" or not is another matter. - Bravo for you. Antony Flew followed my prescription for clear thinking. We all should.