Richard Dawkins has written: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be

Richard Dawkins has written: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be

Richard Dawkins has written: That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Is this valid, logically? If not, what are the consequences? He is talking about religious belief, i.e., belief in some God or other. Dawkins' statement makes sense to me but can any logical argument invalidate it? Would he then have to retract his statement, or is there a gray area between semantics and logic?

Read another response by Richard Heck
Read another response about Rationality, Religion
Print