Dubuc/ Reply to Stuart Gathman on (historical) causal imputation

[Stephen Kennedy]

In article ??? Paul Dubuc writes:
>I think maybe you haven't studied enough. There are certainly
>fundamentalists who interpret Scripture as you say. I see a similarity
>(as far as intellectual integrity and *modesty* is concerned) between
>that and the way rationalists (like you) take one kind of knowing
>(scientific knowledge) and treat is as the only kind.
>
You've made this comment about scientific knowledge many time before.
While I'm not opposed to the idea there may be other kinds of knowing,
I still haven't figured out what _your_ kind of knowing is. I would
say a kind of knowing which can't decide anything is useless. From what
you've said before on the subject, I can't honestly see how you can decide
anything, yet you obviously do. What gives?

[stuff deleted]

>
>Luther sawed while standing on the Bible. I don't think there is
>anything that secular theology is standing on. I rather think the

Aargh. Yet another "proof" by appeal to the presupposed importance
of the Bible...

>--
>
>Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd

Steve Kennedy cbosgd!smk

President, Rich Rosen Fan Club

Disclaimer: I don't speak for Bell Labs (unless threatened)