>Susan said:
>> >It's not so much that we mind our own business, but that we consider
> >>proselytizing to be in bad taste. :-)
>
Bertvan
>>As an agnostic I would never proselytize, but I regard ridiculing anyone's
>>religion in the worst possible taste.
Chris
>And, of course, truth is *much* less important than good taste, right?
>Besides, you have repeatedly claimed that Darwinism/Naturalism is a
>religion *and* you have repeatedly *ridiculed* it. Wouldn't that be bad
>taste, by your own claims? Just asking.
Bertvan:
Since no one is going to prove the "truth" or "untruth" of any religion, one
might argue that good taste is all that is at stake. If I have ridiculed
Darwinism/Naturalism it was inadvertent and in poor taste. I don't usually
try to dissuade Darwinists or materialists from their beliefs. Materialism,
or determinism, is a view widely held by perfectly intelligent people. I have
stated repeatedly that your particular arguments are complex and well thought
out. I object to materialism being imposed upon society as "scientific
truth". I have one point in these discussions. Namely, that one doesn't
even have to be religious to be skeptical of "chance and selection" as an
explanation of evolution. My hope is to see belief or skepticism of "chance
and selection" regarded as a legitimate difference of opinion - just as
materialism and its alternatives are legitimate differences of opinion. I
have also stated repeatedly that if everyone stopped calling ID
"creationism", I'd probably lose interest in the controversy.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 11 2000 - 18:57:50 EST