Re: [asa] Edward O. Wilson shares Dawkins' basic vie ws

At 04:49 PM 9/30/2006, George Murphy wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net>Janice Matchett
>To: <mailto:gmurphy@raex.com>George Murphy ;
><mailto:asa@calvin.edu>asa@calvin.edu
>Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 4:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [asa] Edward O. Wilson shares Dawkins' basic vie ws
>............................
>>George continues: You are the one who should be embarassed at your
>>foolish claim that a person who is wrong about one thing must be
>>wrong about everything.
>
>@@ Since I made no such claim, and agree that it would be foolish to
>believe such a thing, you have revealed yourself to be a careless
>reader... or worse.
>.....................................
>
> From : Janice Matchett
> <<mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net?Subject=Re:%20[asa]%20Edward%20O.%20Wilson%20shares%20Dawkins%92%20basic%20%20%20views>janmatch@earthlink.net>
>
>Date : Wed Sep 27 2006 - 10:17:22 EDT
>
>At 05:13 PM 9/5/2006, George Murphy wrote:
>
>"..... I think that the appeal he makes is reasonable. ...as Wilson
>notes, the opposition to sound environmental policy from some on the
>religious [insert "r" word] continues to be a problem - & that's
>especially the case since some people with those views are in
>positions to influence or make policy in the current administration.
>~ Shalom George
>
>@ Can an unsound/muddled "thinker" be thought able to make
>"reasonable" appeals --- except by one who has also denied the law
>of non-contradiction? : )
>
>I.e., a person whose thinking is unsound/muddled on some matters
>cannot make an appeal which is "reasonable," so such appeals must be
>wrong. & if all that person's "appeals" are wrong, it is very
>difficult to see how he or she can present any arguments for any
>position that are not wrong. Thus my paraphrase "a person who is
>wrong about one thing must be wrong about everything" is, I think,
>legitimate. & of course I would have "denied the law of
>non-contradiction" only if I had said that a particular unsound =
>unreasonable statement was reasonable. But I have done no such
>thing in connection with Wilson's appeal.

@@@ The careful reader will notice that I asked a rhetorical
question with a smiley at the end -- I didn't make a "claim".

Of course you knew I did it so that the alert reader would then
logically want to question why someone would choose to esteem the
value-judgements of one who shares Dawkins' basic beliefs, over the
judgement of those who haven't rejected Wisdom (God).

And of course it served your purposes to snip off the part of my post
that made that point crystal clear: Here is the part you snipped:

>At 12:25 PM 9/27/2006, George Murphy wrote:: But of course the
>purpose of my post was simply to state the obvious, that the fact
>that a person is wrong about one thing doesn't mean that he/she is
>wrong about everything - whether that person be E.O. Wilson, Janice
>herself, or anyone else. ...

@ One's worldview and emotional maturity is a good indicator of
either stability or instability. I wouldn't want to rely on the
opinions of unstable moral relativists - who by definition - lack Wisdom.

>At 05:13 PM 9/5/2006, George Murphy had written: "..... I think
>that the appeal he makes is reasonable. ...as Wilson notes, the
>opposition to sound environmental policy from some on the religious
>[fill in the "r"-word] continues to be a problem - & that's
>especially the case since some people with those views are in
>positions to influence or make policy in the current administration.
>~ Shalom George

@ As Steven M. Barr said, ".... *Edward O. Wilson
..share[s] Dawkin's basic views ...".

That means, like Dawkins, he has a contempt for Wisdom (God). And
since he has rejected Wisdom ---- who other than a fool would think
he could possibly know how to legitimately define "Wise stewardship
of the environment", or know what constitutes "sound environmental
policy"? [end quotes]

>George continues: I hope that this will show anyone who is not
>already convinced that Janice's arguments often fall far short of
>cogency and thus that, in particular, they will ignore her views on
>the environment. I won't respond to the other irrelevancies in this
>last post of hers & don't intend to continue this exchange. ~ Shalom George

@@@ The reader who has not rejected Wisdom will know what's cogent
and relevant and what isn't. The opinions of the others don't matter. :)
~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 30 17:27:25 2006