From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Fri Sep 19 2003 - 08:41:12 EDT
I can think of lots of examples to replace "cynical old lawyers" with, but a
contemporary lawyer may call that libel!
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: <Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au>
Cc: "Asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: Capuchin's show sense of justice/fair play
> 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 - 08:56:47 EDT