From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 18:52:29 GMT
Hi Sam
You may be interested in the analytical philosopher
Arthur Gibson and his book God and the Universe
where he shows how the language of post-modernism,
theology and astro-physics have much in common.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Norton" < >
To: < >
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: MD secular humanism and dynamic quality
> Hi Matt,
>
> > Matt:
> > Well, the problem I have with conceding that "it is at least _prima
facie_ plausible that there
> will come a time when the Dynamic evolution of secular humanism requires a
reconsideration of its
> basic tenets" is a legitimate objection is that I don't see it as an
objection. I simply agree with
> you and fail to see why I shouldn't be able to.
>
> I think you've slightly misunderstood what I'm driving at. I didn't think
you'd disagree with the
> 'basic tenets' point, so I was wanting to drive you towards explaining the
language that secular
> humanism provides to enable that Dynamic evolution of the basic tenets.
Which essentially you've
> answered by saying 'free speech' (which I think is right). Yet, on the
other hand, on pragmatic
> grounds, you rule out religiously grounded criticisms of secular humanism,
so in effect you're
> saying that "secular humanism can evolve through free speech (except
religious free speech)".
>
> What I really want you to explain is how you distinguish the sort of
language which religious
> criticisms of secular humanism might use, from those sorts of language
which are necessary for
> allowing the Dynamic evolution of secular humanism. It seems to me that
they're the same sort of
> language. In other words, the sort of 'basic tenets' criticism of secular
humanism is _of necessity_
> something like religious speech. Different vocabularies between the
different religions (or even the
> MoQ), but a distinct family resemblance - and it's that family resemblance
which I'm getting at,
> which I think you have disallowed with your pragmatic boundaries. Or is
your boundary more
> fine-grained than I'm appreciating?
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> Sam
>
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
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 -
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 : Thu Mar 25 2004 - 20:46:07 GMT