From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 14:14:43 EDT
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 12:41:16 -0500 "Sarah Berel-Harrop" <sec@hal-pc.org>
writes:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:10:23 -0600
> John W Burgeson <jwburgeson@juno.com> wrote:
> >Dave wrote: "Anyone with a modicum of integrity
> >recognizes that
> >methodological naturalism is not metaphysical naturalism,
> >but Phil
> >continues to propagate his lie."
> >
> >I think this is a claim which cannot hold up. I know Phil
> >Johnson, and
> >while I disagree with him on this particular issue, I
> >believe that he
> >sincerely holds it with integrity, and, therefore, it
> >may, indeed, be
> >incorrect, but all incorrections are not "lies." (I think
> >I may have just
> >coined a word there).
>
> Yes, it's totally fruitless to infer intent. It is an
> argument, not necessarily a lie.
>
> However, when someone consistently writes material that
> is grossly incorrect, fairly consistently misquotes
> and misrepresents the work of others to make his point,
> quotes other peoples' positions in a two-faced manner,
> equivocates in a two-faced manner, and continues to do
> so even when corrected, the person may be considered an
> unreliable source of information. Unfortunately a one-
> liner requires a lengthy rebuttal in many cases.
>
> The extreme irony of doing it in the name of "Truth",
> well ... this is where words fail me
>
>
Please note, I did not infer motive with Johnson. If you like it better,
he propagates a falsehood, whatever his motive. There is a proverb from
Montenegro: When three wise men say you are an ass, bray.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 14:20:33 EDT