Actually, it came across more as a smear tactic against those whose philosophies
you disagree with.
>Obviously, I was much too subtle (something I'm
>not often guilty of).
Quite the opposite, I think. You were anything but subtle.
>Here is what I mean to convey. A materialistic world view is the standard in
>the academy. This is where the intellectual side of the debate takes place.
>However, this view filters down to society at large, through various means,
>primarily in the making of public policy. In any event, our hypothetical
>robber need not have consciously absorbed the nuances of the professors. It is
>sufficient that he grows up believing this world is all there is and there is
>no eternal accountability, etc., etc. He acts in accord with those beliefs,
>even though he is not going through a process of conscious justification any
>greater than "If I don't get caught, it's all OK."
However, if he is raised in such a way that his ability to empathize with the
feelings of others is encouraged, he will (as do most materialists) lead a
life in which he has respect for the feelings of others.
>Francis Schaeffer always said, "Ideas have consequences." It doesn't matter if
>the ideas are explored in fancy journals or merely accepted on ghetto streets.
>There will be consequences all the same.
Then by your own logic, all of Christianity is responsible for the murder of
abortion doctors, religiously-motivated racism, prejudice against homosexuals,
witch-burnings, and all of the other attrocities that have, in some way or
another, been justified using Christianity.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.