There's a lot to absorb here, at least, for me. One is a scientist, concerned with investigations to solve the mysteries of the material world, and the other a literary-writer, concerned with investigations NOT necessarily to solve the mysteries of the material world, but more so, to expand and deepen the meaning of those mysteries and, to certain extents, illuminate hidden mysteries. That's why, while this exchange feels fresh, it's also not easy to listen to it, because of the layers of perceptions embedded in their spoken words. The tone of their exchange proposes that they have the same wavelengths, and understand each other well. But I think that is an aspect of the highly deceiving glamor and color of appearances.
What is ironic about the way or tone Dawkins promotes his ideas regarding atheism and evolution is that he often sounds eerily dogmatic you think he's about to start his own religion, a fourth and official addition to the eternal triumvirate: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
What is ironic about the way or tone Dawkins promotes his ideas regarding atheism and evolution is that he often sounds eerily dogmatic you think he's about to start his own religion, a fourth and official addition to the eternal triumvirate: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
