tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post3569468912684109368..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Silly Philosopher Admired by Even Sillier PhilosopherUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-57448050562945342132012-04-20T02:26:16.780-04:002012-04-20T02:26:16.780-04:00Hi John, you're essentially correct. I think ...Hi John, you're essentially correct. I think you'd only find apologists or those sympathetic to ID pretend that it isn't religious. Though, I don't think they are fooling anyone. ID is pretty transparent. Honestly, I think the Dover trial did much more damage than one would have expected it to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-35377960606524436022012-04-18T01:46:57.949-04:002012-04-18T01:46:57.949-04:00There's a wide variety of definitions of "...There's a wide variety of definitions of "religious". Whoever wants to, can put ID in, or out, of that category, depending on the definition he chooses.Melvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-72365788833926587262012-04-16T23:10:31.848-04:002012-04-16T23:10:31.848-04:00This may be slightly off topic, but, is anyone, an...This may be slightly off topic, but, is anyone, anywhere, still pretending that ID isn't religious?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10876775111703252840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-76894996414960773772012-04-15T18:27:36.444-04:002012-04-15T18:27:36.444-04:00As for Plantinga's EAAN, I more or less view i...As for Plantinga's EAAN, I more or less view it as an intelligence test. If you can quickly see what is wrong with it, then you have the intelligence of a bright high school student and we can probably have a good conversation. On the other hand, if you view it as interesting or important, then you're not worth discussing anything with.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-85550815464005492132012-04-15T18:23:52.667-04:002012-04-15T18:23:52.667-04:00Right there in the comment (I guess we wrote our c...Right there in the comment (I guess we wrote our comments more or less simultaneously).Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-40356334908266818772012-04-15T17:19:46.057-04:002012-04-15T17:19:46.057-04:00No, an "ad hominem" attack is on the ord...No, an "ad hominem" attack is on the order of "Monton is wrong about philosophy because he's ugly".<br /><br />You're welcome to read my critique of his book <a href="http://recursed.blogspot.ca/2011/04/review-of-montons-seeking-god-in.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-7157834847943734872012-04-15T17:17:23.266-04:002012-04-15T17:17:23.266-04:00Have you written a review of Monton's book? Or...Have you written a review of Monton's book? Or Plantinga's work?Luke Barneshttp://blog.lukebarnes.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-59886176977437826962012-04-15T13:47:38.694-04:002012-04-15T13:47:38.694-04:00Calling someone "silly" without a whiff ...Calling someone "silly" without a whiff of an explanation.<br />That's an ad hominem attack.<br />(Monton's openness to intelligent design, right or wrong, says nothing about his philosophical abilities.)Lariatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-11236249376330136182012-04-15T05:52:49.774-04:002012-04-15T05:52:49.774-04:00Lariat:
You don't know what "ad hominem&...Lariat:<br /><br />You don't know what "ad hominem" means, do you?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-88275569983714303002012-04-15T01:44:36.898-04:002012-04-15T01:44:36.898-04:00You used to avoid the ad hominems.You used to avoid the ad hominems.Lariatnoreply@blogger.com