Unsettling are the days in which everyone is an expert.

Reason begets honesty, and honesty, if given its head, begets confidence; so consequently, there is a sort of grand authority in the stances of those who know why they are standing.

A number of our scientists boast intelligence but lack wisdom. I find those to be the predictable ones.

So, how close are love and genius, really? We know that they are both mentioned far more than lived.

I don't pretend to know everything; I just only speak on matters I know I'll win.

So the paradox goes: No man who is really ignorant is ever aware that he is ignorant. That is its finest, most faulty manifestation; there can be no true ignorance without first some claim of intelligence or consciousness, or superiority or enlightenment.

The disruption of science is one which abandons the method and seeks to conquer grounds outside its territory. It is not at all religion but this pseudo-science that is the enemy of science.

If one should criticize one should always have a meaningful explanation to accompany.

Philosophy may serve as the bridge between theology and science. All atheism is a philosophy, but not all philosophy is atheism. Philosophy ('love of wisdom') is simply a tool depending on how one uses it, and in some cases, logically understanding the nature of God and existence.