Re: Feet to the Fire

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Tue, 23 Apr 1996 14:02:55 -0500

In response to Jim Bell:
>Steve Clark writes:
>
><<I would like to suggest another acronymic category for the group to use:
>TC, for theologically correct. These would be defined as those who
>steadfastly rail against the Secular University, Methodological Naturalism,
>while conveniently ignoring the philosophical limitations of their own
>epistemology.>>
>
>Oh yeah? Who says you get to define TC? What are you, a relativist or
>something?

I get the permission to define TC from the same place you get permission to
criticize my opinion.

>
>Anyway, Theistic "Realists" have no limitations in epistemology TO ignore.

Note that I commented about the Theologically Correct and made no point
regarding TRs as a whole. I recognize that the TC are a subset of TRs and
would be those who are unwilling to submit their epistemology to the same
level of rigor they insist for their opponents.

As implied in what I wrote earlier to Chuck Warman, examples of the TC would
be those who argue that evolution should not be taught as fact, but are then
silent about teaching creation science as fact. Another example of the TC
is seen in the often cited complaint that the secular university excludes
anyone of heterdox viewpoints (read conservative Christian viewpoints here),
but then ignore or summarily dismiss as irrelevant similarly enforced
orthodoxy in Christian circles. I also refer to those who complain that
TE's do not hold Sagan's feet to fire for his unwarranted forays into
metaphysics--but who, when asked why they do not hold Henry Morris' feet to
the fire for a similar grievance, quickly back pedal and say, "don't look at
me--I don't agree with Morris"--do you catch the double standard at work here?

The TC are those brave souls who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their
intellectual brethern and point fingers outward at "others" and chant their
memorized mantras about the "secular" world, but who lack the courage to
turn that accusing digit inward. They accuse the world of favoring
naturalism over theism, but themselves have a bias of theism over
naturalism. Neither side can claim the standard of Realism.

Thus, the limit of the epistemology of the TC is that they do not evenly
apply the rules of the debate. Their credibility suffers for this double
standard.

I guess that Chuck Warman's earlier comments pushed my button.

Steve
__________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53792

"To disdain philosophy is really to be a philosopher." Blaise Pascal, Pensees
__________________________________________________________________________