> >>>KO>...I for one would appreciate it if Stephen would be gracious enough
to
> >>>explain how we "TE/ECs" should "rationally discuss" his assesment
> >>>that we have been "taken 'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive
philosophy'
> >>>(Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism", such that "the 'E'
> >>>part of 'TE/EC'" controls "the Christian 'T' part."
>
> >>KO>For example, what
> >>>evidence or argument would he accept as proof that he is wrong?
>
> >SJ>Thanks to Kevin for asking! I would be prepared to reconsider my claim
> >>that "TE/ECs...have" to varying degrees "been taken `captive' by a
`hollow
> >>and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), if TE/ECs:
>
It has now become apparent to me that Stephen has completely misunderstood
what I was asking him to do, but at the same time I also misunderstood
Stephen. Let me try to explain.
Stephen claims that "TE/ECs" have been "taken 'captive' by a 'hollow and
deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism".
He claims that he is willing to accept that he is wrong, but only if "TE/ECs"
will "rationally discuss" the issue. This is where I misunderstood him. I
originally believed that he meant he might be wrong about "scientific
materialism-naturalism" being a "'hollow and deceptive philosophy'", when in
fact he meant that he might be wrong about "TE/ECs" having been "taken
'captive'" by it. In other words, believing as he does that "scientific
materialism-naturalism" is a "'hollow and deceptive philosophy'", he believes
that anyone who denies it has been "taken 'captive'" by it. As such he would
admit that he is wrong about this belief only if these same people were to
admit that "scientific materialism-naturalism" is a "'hollow and deceptive
philosophy'" and that they had been "taken 'captive'" by it (though
presumably not anymore). Based on this scenario, Stephen's answers to my
questions would in fact be appropriate.
However, where Stephen misunderstood me was in assuming that I saw the
situation as he did. I believe that Stephen is not only wrong when he claims
that "TE/ECs" have been "taken 'captive'", I also believe he is wrong to
claim that "scientific materialism-naturalism" is a "'hollow and deceptive
philosophy'", that it adversely influences the thinking of "TE/ECs" and that
"TE/ECs" are trying combine it with Christianity. As such, when I asked him
what evidence or argument he would accept as proof that he was wrong, I meant
wrong about everything, not just the one thing he was willing to admit to.
As such, in fairness I withdraw my previous complainbts about his answers,
but also in fairness I now request that he describe what kind of evidence or
argument he would accept that would convince him:
1. that "scientific materialism-naturalism" is not "a hollow and deceptive
philosophy"
2. that the scientific thinking of "TE/ECs" has not "been adversely
influenced by scientific materialism-naturalism" and
3. that "TE/ECs" are not "trying to combine the two competing philosophies
of Christian theism and scientific materialism-naturalism".
I believe this is a reasonable request that anyone who would want to discuss
this issue rationally should have no trouble fulfilling-*unless* they are
only interested in justifying their beliefs and forcing others to agree with
them. The ball is now back in the
Stephen's court!
Kevin L. O'Brien