Sorry. I didn't mean to be condescending. I meant to emphasize that I am puzzled to see people straddling high logical faculties, while choosing to disregard those abilities when it comes to some of their beliefs.
I am puzzled to see people straddling high logical faculties, while choosing to disregard those abilities when it comes to some of their beliefs.
Isn't that an a priori assumption that Larry's completely disregards his logical facilities in certain areas of his beliefs? Have you ever talked to him about what he believes and why? He might surprise you.
I would love to meet him someday. Larry is obviously very thoughtful about many things. I guess it would have been more accurate to state that he uses his logical facilities to shoehorn what to me seem like obvious contradictions, into an integrated mindset, even though some of his axioms derive purely from his faith in tenants with no evidence.
even though some of his axioms derive purely from his faith in [tenets] with no evidence.
That reads to me like another a priori assumption.
Larry's one of the most humble people I've ever met--and one of the most startling. Just when you're sure you've finished thinking about something, he can come up with a different approach that works better (and is often a simpler synthesis of ideas I'd considered too far separate).
I wish I'd had the pleasure of being able to say the same thing about a George MacDonald or a G. K. Chesterton.
