From: Sarah Berel-Harrop (sec@hal-pc.org)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 13:41:16 EDT
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:10:23 -0600
John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com> wrote:
>Dave wrote: "Anyone with a modicum of integrity
>recognizes that
>methodological naturalism is not metaphysical naturalism,
>but Phil
>continues to propagate his lie."
>
>I think this is a claim which cannot hold up. I know Phil
>Johnson, and
>while I disagree with him on this particular issue, I
>believe that he
>sincerely holds it with integrity, and, therefore, it
>may, indeed, be
>incorrect, but all incorrections are not "lies." (I think
>I may have just
>coined a word there).
Yes, it's totally fruitless to infer intent. It is an
argument, not necessarily a lie.
However, when someone consistently writes material that
is grossly incorrect, fairly consistently misquotes
and misrepresents the work of others to make his point,
quotes other peoples' positions in a two-faced manner,
equivocates in a two-faced manner, and continues to do
so even when corrected, the person may be considered an
unreliable source of information. Unfortunately a one-
liner requires a lengthy rebuttal in many cases.
The extreme irony of doing it in the name of "Truth",
well ... this is where words fail me
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 13:43:42 EDT