Oh, this "ghost of Ilíon" is there from the beginning. For example, consider the 1:59 mark -- "If Christianity is untrue, than no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be. If it *is* true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all."
Apparently, you all need to read what I write with an Oxbridge accent, and then all the constant whining about what a meanie I am can laid to rest, where it belongs.
In my inbox overnight was a little note, out of the blue, from someone (a name unknown to me) thanking me for my "contributions" (*). I presume he meant here, at this blog, though he didn't say. I seem to get one or two notes like that every year.
* and, full disclosure, he also thought I'm a bit rough, but understandably so. The term he used was 'ad hominem', but I expect he was misusing that in the way that almost every one does.
For the past couple of weeks (and continuing for a while) I have been conducting a little experiment here at DI. The observant, those who *want* to grasp truth, will be able to see the conclusion/result.
It's not completed yet (though, I have run it before, so I already know the result; I just didn't call attention to it before). And, yes, you must be unobservant, as you are participating in the experiment.
18 comments:
At 8 minutes 49 seconds in, the ghost of Ilion strikes!
Oh, this "ghost of Ilíon" is there from the beginning. For example, consider the 1:59 mark -- "If Christianity is untrue, than no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be. If it *is* true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all."
I do wish they'd chosen a different, less "posh" narrator. Still, it least it isn't a voice that sounds prissy, like Richard Dawkins.
Apparently, you all need to read what I write with an Oxbridge accent, and then all the constant whining about what a meanie I am can laid to rest, where it belongs.
"Apparently, you all need to read what I write with an Oxbridge accent".
What voice do you suppose they read you with now, Darth Vader's?
Try Henry Kissinger. Kinda scary, but it actually works!
Peter O'Toole works. too.
"Darth Ilíon" does have a ring to it.
In fact, dahr-thi'-li'-ohn sounds way cool.
In my inbox overnight was a little note, out of the blue, from someone (a name unknown to me) thanking me for my "contributions" (*). I presume he meant here, at this blog, though he didn't say. I seem to get one or two notes like that every year.
* and, full disclosure, he also thought I'm a bit rough, but understandably so. The term he used was 'ad hominem', but I expect he was misusing that in the way that almost every one does.
Vic and I have tangled over this particular essay before:
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/11/babinski-and-reppert-on-man-or-rabbit.html
And I contrasted Eric Hoffer's view contra Lewis's in this essay:
http://etb-biblical-errancy.blogspot.com/2012/04/c-s-lewiss-man-or-rabbit-and-eric.html
change "contra" above to "with"
For the past couple of weeks (and continuing for a while) I have been conducting a little experiment here at DI. The observant, those who *want* to grasp truth, will be able to see the conclusion/result.
I must be unobservant. I see no experimentation...
It's not completed yet (though, I have run it before, so I already know the result; I just didn't call attention to it before). And, yes, you must be unobservant, as you are participating in the experiment.
Am I the placebo?
Let's wait and see, shall we?
By the way, when I wrote "Peter O'Toole" above, I meant "Michael Caine" - I always get those two confused.
Post a Comment