re Vietnam: Of course, there are similarities and there are differences. The analysts I referred to point to the former and you to the latter. The simple point I was making is that those analysts’ views are published and accepted as credible. It’s enough that competent knowledgeable writers doubt the certainty of US military victory over Islamism. To my mind, that is quite enough to establish the “crass nonsense” of your own certainty.
re Kant: I never claimed that Kant’s philosophy was perfect or final in its full breadth. It was final on the question of empiricism’s powers viz a viz metaphysics. The quotes you provide do not negate that.
re Jesus: Your own statement is incoherent. “Jesus was the Son of God” is incorrect since Jesus *was* a man and *is* the Son of God. The first is an empirical historical fact which scholarly research can assist with; the second is a metaphysical (eternal) assertion that simply demands faith. “Jesus was insane” belongs in the same category as “Jesus was a man”. My “third way” allows all three statements to be true, the two empirical ones being subject to science while the metaphysical one remains a matter of faith. As a matter of fact, I do believe or accept all three myself and find no inconsistency in doing so. Tell me, vvv, what do you believe?
re the Koran: You must surely be aware that those variant readings of the Koran have absolutely no impact on Muslim faith in the Koran’s divine authorship. For one thing, the variants are trivial and the main gist of the book is quite unaffected. Secondly, there is a wide range of Muslim views on the divine authorship, ranging from the very naive belief that a bound book actually dropped into Mohammad’s lap from the skies to a more sophisticated understanding closer to the Christian view of the Bible. At neither end of this spectrum do those variants have an impact.
re Plato: Red herrings are never helpful in a debate.
