No, I'm not talking about that at all. My only problem with what
Matthew calls "mirror testimonies" is that they aren't doing their
job because Matthew doesn't get your point.
I'm talking about abuse and ridicule, and particularly about abuse and
ridicule directed at people rather than ideas. It's one thing to say
that inerrantism is stupid and ridiculous (though personally I think
that is going too far); it's another thing entirely to say that
*inerrantists* are stupid and ridiculous. *Even if it's true* (which
I have reason to believe it is not) it is unacceptable behaviour in
what ought to be a forum for civilised debate. And it's even worse
to say that *particular inerrantists* are stupid and ridiculous;
again, this applies even if it's true.
I don't suppose you will agree with me about that. But you should at
least be aware that with me, at least, you do your cause no good at
all by being abusive. The way to convince people is by providing
carefully reasoned arguments (which, fortunately, you do as well),
not by saying "Nyaaah, nyaaah, these people are soooooo stupid".
> > Harry Truman said, "I would rather be right than
> > president," and I share that view. I would rather be right and despised
> > than wrong and respected.
>
> I think you will find that the inerrantists agree with you on this.
> It is possible to be passionately concerned for truth, and still
> wrong.
>
> TILL
> You are absolutely right. The profoundest concern for truth would not be
> any protection at all from error. However, when I see Xians consistently
> responding to arguments with statements that I know from my education and
> experience in teaching critical thinking are completely devoid of logic,
> that certainly doesn't give me any cause to think that my position may be
> wrong.
You misunderstand, I think. My point is not that your desire for truth
doesn't make you secure against being wrong; it is that the inerrantists'
wrongness doesn't mean that they aren't just as zealous for truth as
you are.
Incidentally, you are using "Xian" to mean "inerrantist" again. Or,
if you really mean that Christians consistently respond to arguments
with statements devoid of logic, please provide me with two instances
in which I have done so.
(And are you ever going to post your demolition of my response to
your posting about how far the Bible claims inerrancy for itself?)
- --
Gareth McCaughan Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@dpmms.cam.ac.uk Cambridge University, England.
====================================================================
For help, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"help" in the subject or body of your message. To unsubscribe from
ERRANCY, send a message to errancy-request@infidels.org with the word
"unsubscribe" in the subject or body of your message.