Reflectorites
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 23:37:40 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>Here is a test of "dogmatism". I have in the past stated that I am prepared
>>to admit that I could be completely wrong about theism, Christianity, ID
>>and/or creationism and that atheism, Darwinism, and/or naturalistic
>>evolution could be completely right.
>>
>>I have invited Chris and other atheists to similarly state publicly that
>>they could be completely wrong about atheism, Darwinism, and/or naturalistic
>>evolution and that theism, Christianity, ID and/or creationism could be
>>completely right.
>>
>>To date, AFAIK, no atheist has been willing to admit this.
RW>I did so shortly after joining the Reflector and again recently in response
>to another of your challenges.
I can't remember it. But if that is the case I stand corrected.
So Richard *really* believes that he "could be completely wrong about
atheism, Darwinism, and/or naturalistic evolution and that theism,
Christianity, ID and/or creationism could be completely right"?
RW>However, I don't consider this to be an effective test of dogmatism. One may
>say that one is open-minded, and even genuinely believe it, but that does
>not make it so.
Agreed. So how does Richard know that *he* is not dogmatic?
Perhaps a more "effective test of dogmatism" is seeing if a person
constantly says his opponent is "irrational" and talking "nonsense"?
RW>You are clearly not open-minded on most of the subjects
>discussed here.
Says Richard un-dogmatically? :-)
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not
designed, but rather evolved." (Crick F.H.C., "What Mad Pursuit: A
Personal View of Scientific Discovery," [1988], Penguin: London, 1990,
reprint, p.138)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 17 2000 - 17:52:18 EDT