Great Insight

This guy gets it.

This entry was posted in Jonathan Sacks, New Atheists, Richard Dawkins, Truth. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Great Insight

  1. Burk says:


    “Instead, Sacks suggests that no single system of knowledge can engage the world entirely. The result is a moderate’s manifesto; a lengthy, erudite defense of what Sacks calls “cognitive pluralism.”

    Well, I see you agree with him, but what does he get? That theology is a system of “knowledge”? It is not knowledge at all, as even its honest practicioners admit not knowing what they are talking about. They doubt and they stand in awe of mysteries they do not understand, even while they claim to appreciate them better than those who have a far more solid grasp of reality. It is a miasma of self-aggrandizement, self-abasement, imagination, social bonding, and power politics, same in Islam as it is in Christianity.

    “Now it’s as if it were almost a mirror image. Science is claiming a monopoly of knowledge, and thus some scientific atheists are intent on depriving religion of any cognitive status.”

    Precisely… because it has no cognitive status, at least in terms of discerning any truths about extra-social reality. About how to hoodwink people into strange beliefs, it has a very high cognitive status indeed. And the way he drags in morality … his scriptures are far from clean in the matter.

    Anyhow, does this mean you are thinking of turning Jewish?


  2. Darrell says:

    Well, Jesus was a Jew and it is the Judeo-Christian narrative…

    Anyhow, thanks for that careful, reflective, deep, and penetrating analysis of the interview.

    You certainly showed them.


  3. Burk says:

    I do indeed. Little deep reflection is required to figure out the con going on here, as though complexities of humanity are the proper franchise of people who, frankly, lie through their teeth day in, day out. All for our own good, of course! The presumption is breathtaking while the absurdity is heartbreaking. Oh, the humanity!


  4. Darrell says:

    “liars.” Wow. Well, we can always count of you for a sober, objective, rational, fair, and unbiased take on things.

    You are like the Fox News of atheist reflections or accounts of such matters.

    Well done.


  5. Burk says:

    Yup, and which side is the “fair and balanced” network on? The side of religion, of course- the more cynical the better.


  6. Burk says:


    In all seriousness, saying something is real that you don't know is true is lying, right? So any time you say god is X or god likes Y, you are lying, right? It is a big narrative based on a lot of imagination, no more. All the civility in the world (and all the sophistry) can't get around basic issues like that. Nor can a convenient redefinition of truth to mean whatever you want it to mean.


  7. Darrell says:


    “In all seriousness, saying something is real that you don't know is true is lying, right? So any time you say god is X or god likes Y, you are lying, right?”

    In all seriousness, saying that something isn't real when you don’t know if it is or not, is lying, right?

    Burk, to this day, you have never understood how to make an argument that isn't question-begging.

    Christians do believe what they are saying is true, just as the atheist does. But the reasonable and rational person knows it means that neither believes he is lying but believes what they are asserting is true and they both have their reasons. To disagree with someone is not to accuse them of lying.

    It is only the fundamentalists among us, the fearfully ignorant, who look at reasonable disagreement and call other people liars. Fox News all the way.


  8. Burk says:


    Well, the reasons are problematic, to say the least, have been known to be forever, and are getting whispier all the time as we understand psychology, history, and, yes science, better. Choosing to exist in an epistemological wasteland is exactly the strategy of the FOX news folks, who have their “reasons” for everything as well. Are they good ones? Are they warranted by reality directly, or are they justified by ulterior ideologies like making the world a better place, or making us happier and more comfortable in it? Or helping our “side”?


Comments are closed.