Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
"We could be seeing the creation of a more conservative House of Representatives than the one we have." -- George F. Will, just now on ABC.
He means that the liberal-to-moderate Republicans are being knocked off, and the Dems that are winning House races are more conservative. Sweet!
Subscribe
Comments
Giittv, there is in my experience a very short distance between religionists [who] use their subjective viewpoint as if it was the only objective view of reality[.] and my personal way of expressing the same thought: my subjective viewpoint is the only starting place from which I can obtain a reliable objective view of reality.
The difference is that I don't try to impose my POV on others, forcibly or otherwise. I suggest that Rob is not suggesting the use of force; the "otherwise" remains to be seen, nor do I see it as an obstacle. Just a thought, my friend.>
Posted by: Franklin Evans | November 10, 2006 4:44 PM
This is going to be fun...
As do/did Einstein, Polanyi, Florensky, Faraday, Pascal, the Curies, Stanley Jaki, John Polkinghorne, De Chardin, Francis Collins, etc., etc. Not that I'm putting myself in that category, but the phenomenon isn't entirely unknown.
Well, if Einstein, Polanyi, Florensky, Faraday, Pascal, the Curies, Stanley Jaki, John Polkinghorne, De Chardin, Francis Collins, etc., etc. jumped off of a bridge, would you do it too?
Heh. I crack me up.>
Posted by: GIITTV | November 10, 2006 4:45 PM
Franklin -- I guess my objection to your approach falls back on my belief that our minds were created with the capacity to know truth, and that when we avoid or reject truth (in this case, the LNC) we do damage to ourselves and others. So I could never be at peace with accepting a radical contradiction, knowing that by doing so I would be rejecting my 'telos,' which is never a good thing. If you're interested, a good article on this subject is here:
http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-06-085-f
It has a specifically Christian foundation, but I think that you'd find it interesting, as it puts a lot of meat on the bones of my rather poorly expressed and skeletal POV.>
Posted by: Rob Grano | November 10, 2006 5:42 PM
Rob, I am not accusing you of being dishonest, but you're not honestly stating the case.
I guess my objection to your approach falls back on my belief that our minds were created with the capacity to know truth, and that when we avoid or reject truth (in this case, the LNC) we do damage to ourselves and others.
My approach does not avoid or reject truth. It rejects the imposition of a Christian definition of truth. This is an inherent blindness in dogma. I don't have a polite way of putting that. Sorry.>
Posted by: Franklin Evans | November 11, 2006 2:56 AM
Franklin -- you seem to have misread me. I surely do not expect you necessarily to accept a Christian definition of truth. My quote was, again, to the necessity of the LNC as a starting place for rational discourse. I hope you don't think that I'm saying the LNC is specifically Christian, or that if accepted it will automatically lead to an acceptance of Christianity.
What I am saying that if one accepts LNC, the idea of dogma inescapably follows, no matter what belief system one holds to.>
Posted by: Rob Grano | November 11, 2006 6:55 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?