Re: MD Transubstantiation

From: ian glendinning (
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 03:51:00 BST

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Quality and the Nuremberg-Tokyo Tribunals"

    (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

    > On 5/2/05, David Buchanan <> wrote:

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 02 2005 - 04:15:48 BST