<<I am formally offering to Chuck and Jim to move this argument to private
e-mail and I will not publically respond to these issues any further.
Neither Chuck or Jim has provided any reason why they can't or shouldn't
persue the primary literature of the subject they are interested in.>>
Jim responded:
<<This is a good place to end, for I think it demonstrates the complete
cross-purposes of the current discussion. But I have to clarify one thing.
I
really don't know how Tom thinks I believe one shouldn't pursue the primary
literature. Nothing I've ever written says that. The Priesthood Fallacy,
which
started all this, is merely an argument used by some to state that only
those
with a certain level of attainment are allowed into a discussion. Nothing
more, nor less. Agree or disagree on that basis, not on something that
isn't
there.>>
I agree that the discussion is probably at a dead end, but I would like to
know if the group feels that it has been worthwhile. Private e-mail would
be fine.
I have one clarification of my own to add: My "genetic fallacy" and/or
"priesthood" remarks were not directed specifically at Tom or anyone else
on this reflector. It's when a Carl Sagan or a Michael Dawkins directly
deny the existence or relevance of God, *in the popular literature* and
invoking their scientific credentials to do so, that the "Priesthood"
appellation is appropriate. Where I find many TE's culpable is that you
don't hold these guys' feet to the fire, in the popular literature, for
making unwarranted metaphysical claims.
Chuck