« STR Radio Sunday | Main | Crown Him Lord of All »

March 27, 2010

Comments

The argument goes both ways -- why argue the validity of evolution when our brains are physiologically predisposed towards absurdity? Even worse, why bother making any sense of anything since whatever we come up with will inevitably be meaningless. This is Sartre and Camus repackaged for a 2010 editorial in the WSJ.

Try this if you have trouble following the other link.

RonH

oops, that's no better.
first link here

http://tinyurl.com/yf466bg

It would be more accurate to say, "so goes the naturalistic argument..." Regardless of a person's position on the theory of evolution, we need to recognize that some Christians believve in it. They would not be any more impressed by the argument in the WSJ article than those who do not believe in evolution. The divide is naturalism verses theism, not evolution verses "God created."

From the article: "Clearly, [religious conviction] depends more on the imaginative and deeply felt assertions of thinkers and advocates than on the kind of tough evidence, for example, required in a legal trial for fraud."

To Mr. Tiger: to prove fraud, you must prove that the person speaking knew that the assertion he was making was false. Thus, "deeply felt" assertions certainly are "the kind of tough evidence required in a legal trial for fraud." That the speaker believed his assertion is a defense to the charge of fraud. Thus, it is completely relevant and admissible evidence. But law doesn't sound like your thing, so stick to another subject.

The comments to this entry are closed.