In a Grain of Sand
What is not understood that needs to be? Not regarding the possibility of God but the means by which such questions are addressed and the honest and dishonest ways these questions are addressed or avoided. The problems with Gervais: 1) his faith in science and the scientific method. First that science posits as evidence what it posits, not all that may count: Romanticism v. Classicism. Second that in fact science is overwhelming driven by market and cultural forces and not the pure inquiry or the desire for knowledge itself that could be its only self-consistent means of justification. The problem with Dawkins: He says 1) we’re all bound to be wrong, as in we may choose Christ but Islam is in fact true. So we’re all willing to make choices that will prove for most of us failures. The choice of atheism isn’t different in kind. 2) The God of Love doesn’t manifest in history, ergo there is no such God (the Glouster complaint). 3) He asks “Why do I have to believe in God to be a good p...
