(urth) Academic commentary

[António Pedro Marques]

Hi Ryann,

Ryan Dunn wrote (02-12-2010 15:34):

> The least heartening thing about this whole conversation is that Wright
> has been deemed wrong or (worse) incapable of comprehending certain
> spiritual motivations of Wolfe's text strictly because he is reading it
> from an atheist's perspective.

Who's done that? I haven't seen it. I have seen people say that a strict 
atheist perspective precludes a full analysis of the work. That's quite a 
diferent thing.

(I don't even think it is so myself; I see many so-called atheists unwilling 
to follow certain lines of reasoning, just as one used to see so-called 
religious people unwilling to follow others, but I don't see that a given 
(ir)religious framework absolutely stunts the analysis of any given work. As 
I said in response to Lee, one may even argue that there is no God in NS - 
since we're talking about NS - but one has to go through all the hoops first 
to be convincing, unless one is, as it were, preaching to the choir.)

(Whose was that old story in which an atheist managed to become Pope?)