From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 03:51:00 BST
(Re-send) > DMB (and Sam) ..
DMB said of Sam's argument ...
This strikes me as a fairly typical example of what theology does and
is .... intellect in the service of faith and I am sincerely baffled
that you don't already see how intellectually dishonest that is
..[later] .. I'm not trying to say that science should replace
religion or anything quite so simplistic ...
Ian says ...
I agree with you DMB. I personally, have run the risk of painting
myself into the opposite "scientism" corner, but nevertheless, I'd
like to link a couple of your words to something I've been trying to
say ...
If I may paraphrase you, you talk of
"[dishonest use of] intellect in the service of ... "
This is my very point about "[low] quality of expalantion of ..."
The thing that keeps angering me is seeing theologians using bad,
out-dated pseudo-science, dishonest-rhetoric to back up their
religious beliefs. As I said in my last post on this subject - whilst
I do indeed hold up "science" [good 20th & 21st century physics,
actually] as a paragon of high-quality expalantion - it's the
explanation (the honest use of intellect), not the science that has
quality, whether you are a scientist, a poet, or a philospher.
Like you, I just do not see theologians moving in that direction.
Great post DMB
Ian
> On 5/2/05, David Buchanan <DBuchanan@classicalradio.org> wrote:
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 02 2005 - 04:15:48 BST