We Have Had To Learn That History

The Scientific Observer Of The Realm Of Nature Is In A Sense Naturally And Inevitably Disinterested. At Least, Nothing In The Natural Scene Can Arouse His Bias. Furthermore, He Stands Completely Outside Of The Natural So That His Mind, Whatever His Limitations, Approximates Pure Mind. The Observer Of The Realm Of History Cannot Be Disinterested In The Same Way, For Two Reasons: First, He Must Look At History From Some Locus In History; Secondly, He Is To A Certain Degree Engaged In Its Ideological Conflicts.

One Of The Most Pathetic Aspects Of Human History Is That Every Civilization Expresses Itself Most Pretentiously, Compounds Its Partial And Universal Values Most Convincingly, And Claims Immortality For Its Finite Existence At The Very Moment When The Decay Which Leads To Death Has Already Begun.

My Personal Attitude Toward Atheists Is The Same Attitude That I Have Toward Christians, And Would Be Governed By A Very Orthodox Text: "by Their Fruits Shall Ye Know Them." I Wouldn't Judge A Man By The Presuppositions Of His Life, But Only By The Fruits Of His Life. And The Fruits - The Relevant Fruits - Are, I'd Say, A Sense Of Charity, A Sense Of Proportion, A Sense Of Justice. And Whether The Man Is An Atheist Or A Christian, I Would Judge Him By His Fruits, And I Have Therefore Many Agnostic Friends.

Religion Is So Frequently A Source Of Confusion In Political Life, And So Frequently Dangerous To Democracy, Precisely Because It Introduces Absolutes Into The Realm Of Relative Values.

Human Beings Are Just Good Enough To Make Democracy Possible...just Bad Enough To Make It Neccessary.