"Motives prompting scrutiny of the issues do not particularly matter in
discussing the issues. However, motives in arguing about the issues do
affect the discussion. Are you trying to find out the truth or are you
trying to support your position? There is greater credibility if someone
with no particular viewpoint to promote comes down in favor of a
particular
view than if someone already promoting a viewpoint for other reasons
claims
the evidence is in his favor. There is no credibility if someone already
promoting a viewpoint for other reasons cites invalid evidence and
refuses
to acknowledge correction."
You miss my point. What I assert is that energy (& time & bandwidth)
discussing motives is not productive. Would you like to carry on a
discussion about Blaise Pascal -- or C. S. Lewis -- with a person who
wanted to talk about their Christian commitment being the reason they
wrote as they did? Or, for that matter, with the apostle John? Or maybe
with Jesus? "Well, sir, you obviously are saying what you are saying
because you really believe ... ."
That's always a good way to create heat -- but not a good way to generate
light.
The conspiracy theory attitude shown in the
quote below is not a good sign.
I also wrote -- somewhat off the subject:
"BTW -- I have not read PJ claiming that his motives are not primarily
religious. Has anyone?"
David C. replied:
"A recent discussion (whether there was a problem that one prominent IDer
was a Moonie) generated the following reply from PJ:... ."
I can infer from the quotation that PJ is claiming his motives are not
primarily religious. But that would be an inference, and no more. In a
courtroom it would have, by itself, no evidentiary value at all. IMHO of
course.
Burgy
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.