Re: MD Transubstantiation

From: Sam Norton (
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 14:36:35 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Primary Reality"

    Hi Ian,

    > Sam
    > You asked ..
    > Is there a place where I have been guilty of this [dishonest intellect] ?
    > Possibly Sam, but none of us is innocent - it was actually me
    > apologising for my losing my cool, not me pointing the finger or
    > fishing for apologies from anyone else. DMB had articulated a response
    > to that which simply made me angry.

    I didn't understand that, so I may have got the wrong end of the stick.

    > (It's odd you picked on my words, when I was merely agreeing with DMB ?)

    That seems disingenuous. You were cheering him from the sidelines, and he
    and I have been in a long running dispute about all sorts of things, the
    nature of religious belief amongst them. And as, to me, it seems the core of
    the thread is Scott's question about whether science and 'contemporary
    non-fundamentalist theism' are in conflict, you seem to be arguing that they
    are. This is reinforced when you say
    > 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.

    Which theologians are you referring to? As a large part of my worldview is
    formed by theologians I was wanting to know if you had something specific in
    mind that I had said (which could likely be traced to a particular
    theologian) or whether it was a generalised criticism, akin to saying
    'regurgitated pernicious Christian propaganda' and therefore qualifying as
    "partisan politics, closer to anthroplogy than philosophy. It's yah boo
    sucks debate not worthy of intelligent beings. A waste of electrons and
    pixels" (a sentiment I basically agreed with).

    Looking forward to a response on the nature of science question.


    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 - 14:44:57 BST