From: Erin Noonan (enoonan@kent.edu)
Date: Tue Oct 01 2002 - 15:40:49 BST
I think Scott is right. I think it is possible to eliminate 'faith based
arguing' without eliminating religion.
I think it is better this way because you can see 'faith based arguing'
outside
of religion (see Platt's belief in absolutes ha ha)
erin
>Matt,
>
>I feel like there's some confusion...
>
>Scott:
>"Only that one has a responsibility to recognize that
>religion is not limited to the "because God said so" kind of argument. "
>
>I certainly understand that. I realize that many people can talk
>intelligently and reasonable and level-headedly about religion and faith
>and reason. But if someone is not backing up their policy claim with
>"because God said so," then they've sufficiently secularized and there's no
>problem. There's only a problem if either side starts to use premises that
>the other does not agree with (up to and including Darwinian evolution).
>Rorty doesn't want to exclude priests from the conversation, he just
>doesn't want to be asked if he's taken confession or not. If the priest
>doesn't, and instead offers up some arguments about abortion, then
>God-forbid Rorty standing in his way;-)
>
>Matt
>
>
>
>
>MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
>Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
>MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
>To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
>http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:51 GMT