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

by dhw, Thursday, May 28, 2009, 15:49 (5656 days ago) @ David Turell

David and I are playing a game of hermeneutics based on Bruce David's attack on "smug atheists". - David: I think he was attacking the 'smug' atheist know-it-all...And smug atheists should be attacked. - Atheists by definition do not believe in God, which means that by inference they reject what Bruce David believes to be "powerful evidence" for the existence of a Creator. They will do this whether they are smug or not. Is he then attacking smugness or is he attacking atheism? If he is attacking smugness, I'm sure we would all be on his side (except for smug people, but they probably wouldn't recognize their smugness, would they?). However, in that case he should also attack smug theists and smug agnostics and smug anybodies. If he is attacking atheism, what is the point of distinguishing between the smug and the non-smug? - DHW: David T, on the other hand, calls for open-mindedness among theists as well as atheists. Now that I applaud. - You admonished me for not including agnostics. As "the truth" is more important to me than "being right", I hereby acknowledge that you are right.