I'm trying to rid myself of this idea of 'winning' or 'losing' an argument. When someone has the intellectual honesty to look at what their 'adversary' had been saying, discover and admit that they've been mistaken, we all win.In other words, you “win” as long as you learn something, or improve your understanding of something you already knew. (Or already believed, in the absence of compelling reasons not to believe it.) Seems reasonable to me.
Then again...if what Kierkegaard's Johannes Climacus called “the way of objective reflection” leads me to “discover and admit” that the War on Terror is a necessary evil given the demonstrable threat of Islamic extremism, do we all win?
Depends on whether or not I’m correct, I guess.
Time will tell. Probably.
My diabolical insinuations aside, I agree with PZ’s summation:
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that Mr McEwen is a decent, sincere person in addition to being a fervent believer in his religious dogma. However, he has been consistently misled. His sources have lied to him. And he is working hard to propagate those same lies to more people. That’s the real tragedy of creationism, that it is a fabric of outright dishonesty that persuades good people to do wrong, all in the name of their religion.Amen to that!
In other news, Brian Doherty at Reason Online calls Milton Friedman “the last century’s most energetic and effective advocate of liberty.”
(Illustration: “Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism” by William Hogarth.)