The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).
Insightful article, here.
2 comments:
The fact there is no evidence at all of the existence of any gods is all that's needed for the disbelief to be considered skeptical.
Greetings,
Wittgenstein has rightly observed that our worldview nets only capture fish bigger than the holes of the net.
The modern scientific nets never capture the Christian evidence because it is ruled out from the beginning.
On the other hand, they usually do not understand what we mean by evidence: the mere act of reasoning, being and knowing are evidence of a Creator for such acts presuppose an omniscience and omnipotent Triune God.
[see God: The Failed Hypothesis, a Review, here:
http://www.examiner.com/christian-apologetics-in-denver/god-the-failed-hypothesis-a-review-part-1 ]
Post a Comment