[net.religion] On Rational Assent and the Idea of Holy

tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (12/17/84)

I am getting pretty damned sick of Wingate claiming that there are all sorts
of flaws in Lord Russell's reasoning without ever putting forth even an
intimation at a refutation of anything Russell said.  Wingate, if you have
some refutation of something he's said, let's see it; otherwise I'll assume
you're just gainsaying by insult what you can't by reason.

People have been very specific in their criticisms of arguments from Lewis;
I am fully prepared to back up my unfavorable review of "Mere Christianity";
what about you?
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center
ARPA:	Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K	uucp:	seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe:	74176,1360	audio:	shout "Hey, Tim!"

"Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are
but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains."
Liber AL, II:9.

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (12/17/84)

In article <20980033@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes:
> I am getting pretty damned sick of Wingate claiming that there are all sorts
> of flaws in Lord Russell's reasoning without ever putting forth even an
> intimation at a refutation of anything Russell said.  Wingate, if you have
> some refutation of something he's said, let's see it; otherwise I'll assume
> you're just gainsaying by insult what you can't by reason.

While I agree a great deal with what Russell said, I certainly wouldn't want
to make an argument for his infallibility.  (:-)

Much of what he writes is aimed at explaining and convincing, rather than
formal reasoning.  As such, many of Russell's arguments are incomplete.
Lewis, on the other hand, may make more complete arguments, but usually he
tries to slip in bad assumptions with much handwaving.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh