This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Hah. I was thinking the same thing :)Good for him!
AN WILSON writes'Of course, only hard evidence will satisfy the secularists, but over time and after repeated readings of the story, I've been convinced without it.'
Per Steven's report: so, it's kind of like his atrocious biography of Lewis anyway, then. Ah, well.JRP
A similar thing happened to Brit philosopher Roger Scruton. One cannot overestimate the paucity of imagination and emotion inherent in materialism. From that angle, Wilson's comment about "hard evidence" makes perfect sense.
Steve Carr,Do you agree that the amount of knowledge that would fall under the title of 'evidentially supported' is just a small subset of knowledge in general?
I don't have a google account and I'm not interested in creating one.But over at Steven Carr's blog he stated:AN Wilson was an atheist, but he has now returned to faith.He writes 'Of course, only hard evidence will satisfy the secularists, but over time and after repeated readings of the story, I've been convinced without it.'Faith - belief without evidence.Steven,why did you make the jump from "hard evidence" in the quote to "evidence" in your closing comment?Before I commented:Do you agree that the amount of knowledge that would fall under the title of 'evidentially supported' is just a small subset of knowledge in general?But I'd like to change that.There's a difference between evidential support and scientific support. I believe my wife loves me. I can think of numerous forms of evidential support to help bolster that claim. But none of that evidence would fit the requirements of scientific support.But regardless.You made a jump that I don't believe you have warrant to make.
Ricky 'The Hitman' Hattin: "I don't have a google account and I'm not interested in creating one."If you have a Hotmail account, that will work just as well as a Google account.
Thanks Ilion.I wasn't aware of that.
' can think of numerous forms of evidential support to help bolster that claim. But none of that evidence would fit the requirements of scientific support.'CARRI see that psychology has now been deemed a non-science by Christians.And if you have no hard evidence that your wife loves you, I suggest you get a divorce.
Yet, I have seen scads of evidence that Mr Carr is not intellectually honest. Odd, isn't it?
For instance, in just this thread alone Mr Carr engages in intentional equivocation.
"I see that psychology has now been deemed a non-science by Christians."Psychology may be loosely a science (like economics, say, or pol sci) but it's not a "hard" science. It ain't chemistry, in other words."And if you have no hard evidence that your wife loves you, I suggest you get a divorce."Evidence you may have, but it won't be the type that bears investigation in a laboratory.
I have not a shred of hard evidence that Ilion molests young boys.Nobody has.There is not a shred of hard evidence to support the claim that Ilion molests young boys.You don't need hard evidence for belief in the resurrection. Ask AN Wilson.You only need hard evidence for things which really actually matter, such as the moral probity of Ilion.For *that*, you need hard evidence.But for the trivial stuff, like the resurrection, AN Wilson assures us you can get by without hard evidence.
RICKYSteven,why did you make the jump from "hard evidence" in the quote to "evidence" in your closing comment?CARRMy apologies.Wilson clearly has 'soft' evidence in mind.Although, of course, his article never gets around to telling us any of this 'soft' evidence - the kind which is not 'hard' evidence.Hey, Wilson is only saying why he has returned to faith. So who expects him to put any evidence in his article?Especially as he can get by without any hard evidence.Of course, he would want hard evidence that he got his money from the Daily Mail for writing the article.But Wilson reserves his love of hard evidence for things which are really important, like getting paid for his article.He doesn't need hard evidence for his faith, only for his bank balance.
Hi Steve,could you define "hard evidence" as you use it?Also,regarding the love I assume my wife has for me: what would count as hard evidence in that context?Are you married, Steve?Or in any type of relationship? What is the general theme of that relationship? Overflowing love?Probably not. But, do you doubt the feelings of that person for you?I stated that I don't have hard evidence in the sense in which I assumed you were meaning. Or this might be another example of you stating one thing "hard evidence" but meaning another "evidence".
Now, now, Ricky! Don't be wondering whether Mr Carr equivocates; that's my job!
NT Wright exposes AN Wilson's scholarship
Post a Comment