When such a critic says, for instance, that faith kept the world in darkness until doubt led to enlightenment, he is himself taking things on faith, things that he has never been sufficiently enlightened to doubt. That exceedingly crude simplification of human history is what he has been taught, and he believes it because he has been taught. I do not blame him for that; I merely remark that he is an unconscious example of everything that he reviles.Kinda reminds me of the "scientists" saying the global warming debate is closed because they have "consensus." As if that would pass the scientific test. Isn't science about forming a theory and then doing everything you can think of to break the theory? Or is it now to form a theory and get grants to perpetuate the theory and publish your theory so you get more grants?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
I love G.K. Chesterton. And this is vintage.The Ironic Catholic: Friday's Chesterton QOTD