Reffectorites
On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 23:00:41 -0600, Chris Cogan wrote:
[...]
CC>If they are
>simply assumed, then what reason have we for thinking that the argument is
>sound?
[...]
It would help if Chris actually read what I say: Here it is again:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 11:21:22 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[...]
>This is not to say that one's ultimate premise cannot be critiqued - it can
>and be replaced by another ultimate premise. To that extent Chris is
>misconstruing what Johnson (and I) are saying by prefacing "assumed"
>with "simply". The process at arriving at an ultimate premise does not have
>to be simple, but in the end an ultimate premise must indeed be assumed.
[...]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I repeat, ultimate premises are not "*simply* assumed". But they are assumed.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from
Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be
made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed
first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that
Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has
demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers
believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay
them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie J., "Universes", [1989],
Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p.22)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 08 2000 - 21:03:31 EST