From: Glenn Morton (glennmorton@entouch.net)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 07:18:31 EDT
Hi Richard,
You have illustrated perfectly the case laid out by Stephen Meyer today in
the paper. He wrote:
"Cynical old lawyers have a maxim: When you have the facts on your side,
argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When
neither is on your side, change the subject and question the motives of the
opposition." Stephen C. Meyer, "Textbook Debate: It's All About the
Evidence," Houston Chronicle Sept 19, 2003, p. 35A
There is little of substance in your note to reply to. You asked:
>But as far as your rebuttal is concerned, how's this for "inconsistent":
>
>"Nothing is self-evident."
>
>How do you know this is true - the absolute truth - if it's not
>self-evident?
>
>This is more than inconsistent. It is an absolute contradiction since it
>proves the very notion of self evidence. You say "I am most certainly NOT a
>relativist". How do you know this, if you reject self evidence?
I will rephrase what I said above. I have never seen anything that is
self-evident, thus I don't beleive any such thing exists. If you would take
more philosophy, you would find that absolutely nothing is unquestionable.
Try reading David Hume. Because there is no item which is 'self-evident' in
the sense that absolutely no one can question it, your pleas that people
should accept your view fall on deaf ears here.
IF something is self-evident, and that is a big if, then it is in the
logical form of an assumption. You are saying that everyone should accept
your assumption simply because you think something is self-evident doesn't
put it above question.It is not an inconsistency to note that everything can
be questioned.
But, if you chose to respond to this note, why don't you drop the
name-calling and deal with these things in a substantive and intellectually
satisfying manner. Calling me a relativist doesn't seem like a very cogent
intellectual argument. Seems kind of childish.
You didn't even address the problem of humans who lack conciences and thus
have no 'sense of justice' for others. Thus it is not 'self-evident' that
humans have a sense of justice'.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au
>[mailto:Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au]
>Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 10:54 PM
>To: Glenn Morton
>Cc: Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au; Asa
>Subject: RE: Capuchin's show sense of justice/fair play
>
>
>
>
>You wrongly accused me of being inconsistent (re-read what I wrote -
>experimentation can show intention).
>But as far as your rebuttal is concerned, how's this for "inconsistent":
>
>"Nothing is self-evident."
>
>How do you know this is true - the absolute truth - if it's not
>self-evident?
>
>This is more than inconsistent. It is an absolute contradiction since it
>proves the very notion of self evidence. You say "I am most certainly NOT a
>relativist". How do you know this, if you reject self evidence?
>
>In the least, you are sitting on the verge of relativism. One thing about
>relativists, they never notice what they utter is self referencing and
>therefore false. You say I suffer from a "severe conservative theological"
>bent and that "It seems to be saying that if one doesn't agree with you
>theologically one can't be a christian."
>
>I guess given your relativist bent then, the scripture must be suffering
>from the same "severe conservative theological" disease: "Everyone does
>what is right in his own eyes".
>
>Congratulations on your qualifications. Very impressive. But don't try to
>_argue from authority_. Particular when your arguments are self-refuting.
>
>
>Best Regards.
>Richard.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 19 2003 - 07:18:55 EDT