From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 09:26:07 BST
Hi David,
In response to Scott's point about Dawkins et al, you wrote:
> DMB says:
> Theologians and philosophers both operate upon assumptions, therefore they
> are the same? What kind of reasoning is that? Tables and myself both have
> legs, but I should hope that there are some very obvious and important
> differences between us. Sorry, but I don't think the similarities are
enough
> to erase the distinction.
and then in response to his question about whether you had in fact read any
theology you wrote:
> DMB says:
> Except for quotes and passages within other books, I don't have any of
those
> names on my bookshelf. I haven't read your favorite books. Darn. I guess
> that means I've made up my own myth about theology. Sheesh. I really don't
> know what to do with that kind of logic.
Come on David, you can do better than this. I think Scott's making some good
points (I would, wouldn't I) and it wouldn't harm you to engage with them,
rather than trying to brush them off with such trivial argumentation.
Let's start with the easy one. Can you name a single 20th century theologian
whose work you are familiar with? If so, we could then argue about whether
such work counts as 'intellectual' or not - and indeed, whether there are
guiding assumptions in such work that are more prejudicial to intellectual
analysis than in someone like Dawkins. In my experience, Dawkins is far more
lacking in awareness of his presuppositions than any theologian.
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 - 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 Mar 31 2003 - 09:58:13 BST