Al Shealy wrote:
> Paul Smith wrote:
>
> > The discrimination is between truth and falsehood, and that's not
> > something that many of us are willing to abandon, nor should we. We have
a
>
> <snip>
>
> Beautifully stated. I'll bet when you were typing that your face got all
> red like one of those fire and brimstone preachers.
The beauty of email and this kind of list is that it gives us the
opportunity to step back and think and come back with a thoughtful response,
rather than angrily responding in kind to this kind of comment.
So...let's take a thoughtful look at your implication. My assumption is
that your comment was meant to imply that in making a valued distinction
between truth and falsehood I am being dogmatic in the same way that those
"fire and brimstone" preachers are. I could further conclude that you are
arguing that there is no important distinction between truth and falsehood,
but it would be unfair of me to do so. Obviously you simply failed to
recognize that your response implied that kind of relativism.
The more substantive piece is in your implication that all valued
distinctions between truth and falsehood are equal - that by making such a
distinction I am doing the same thing that the "fire and brimstone preacher"
is. But of course none of that is true. Science works - as we all know, it
has an absolutely spectacular track record. There IS a reason to go through
all the trouble of doing research, and that reason has everything to do with
coming to a better knowledge of what is and is not true about the nature of
the world. On the other end of the spectrum, the "truth" that the "fire and
brimstone" preacher gets red-faced about has nothing to do with the results
of research. That preacher believes that "truth" is "received" as a result
of reading the Bible (and may believe that it is literally found in the
Bible). That preacher does not read the Bible for hypotheses that are then
to be empirically tested. He believes that there is no need for such a test.
He's a dogmatic.
[Of course that characterization certainly describe everyone who
preaches, but clearly you didn't mean in your comment to compare me to the
non-dogmatic, thoughtful preachers - for example the kind who accept
evolution]
In short, it is completely ridiculous to suggest that "believing that
science works" is "being dogmatic in the same way as a 'fire and brimstone
preacher'".
To take that a step further, it seems clear to me that you already knew
that. You just challenged us with the vita of David Dewitt (which you copied
from the Institute for Creation Research website). What was supposed to
impress us about that vita was the long list of scientific publications. If
you really thought believing in science were no different from that
"received truth" (from the Bible/Holy Spirit, etc.), you clearly wouldn't
have tried to impress us with scientific credentials. You'd have sent us a
vita full of items reading something like this:
DeWitt, D.A., Perry, G., Cohen, M., Doller, C., and Silver, J. Astrocytes
Regulate Microglial Phagocytosis of Senile Plaque Cores of Alzheimer's
Disease. Romans 3:24-28. (58 AD).
and presumably Dewitt wouldn't have bothered doing research.
So there it is - your implication that my comments were dogmatic are
without basis.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
