Gurdur

So we meet, both slumming.

Isn't it interesting how unqualified people will dismiss entire areas of human study, and actually think somehow their dismissal is meaningful ?
The dismissal of philosophy, or even the strawmanning of theology, by those who don't know much of it, reminds me of say American Creationists gathering around to declare evolutionary biology a farce.
They could say, "I've never come across any Evolutionary Biologists who espoused "Evolution" that didn't spend their time denying reality".

One suspects that the statements share the same epistemological validity.
But then, of course, epistemology is a branch of philosophy.

Tyler Durden

Hey, speak for yourself! I'm just trolling here.
If they are going with lame argumentum ad verecundiam then I'm coming with a better one.

If a person is going to tell me what a colossal waste of time the sport of golf is, he or she damn well better know about the subject he or she is pissing on for me to take seriously.

To ridicule something requires some substantial experience of that "something." If the person lacks any experience (no, cursory skimming of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologiae doesn't count) his ridicule is based on ignorance and prejudices, not informed knowledge.


Careful there, Gurdur. With such heretical utterings, you just might be mistaken for a crypto-theologian/creationist!

breathilizer

Durden, I thought you might like to know that I checked with the employees of my local Blockbuster and they all agree that Edward Norton played the "real" Tyler Durden, and that's why the movie never says his name (because it would give away the ending). In fact, when I asked them about it, they had this look on their face like, "Yeah, so?" which made me feel kinda obsolete. lol

Tyler Durden

Blockbuster?
Sheesh, given all the lame appeals to authority in this thread, yours take the cake! They probably only took you to be saying that Norton's character was also Tyler Durden, not that his name was Tyler Durden before he met the Brad Pitt character.

breathilizer

Notice I said employees, and I was very clear about what I said.

trendkill

Are those fancy names for "answering the point in question" in the academic world?

Since my argument is not at all in conflict with your "authority"'s opinion as you have relayed it, I don't see what point you want me to address. I merely speculated that your own implication that the difficulty of a field somehow showed that that field was not nonsense, was in error.

I'm not much for wit over substance. Perhaps you could try making more sense if you want a reply.

The rules of this discussion forum appear to preclude me from answering that question.

Tyler Durden

Afraid not, Trendkilled. These fancy names were cited in light of your remarks.

Evasion one: Just which works of theology have you read?

Evasion two: how would you know that rational intelligent people do have difficulties with theology?

Please, no argument by bald assertion. Do you have any evidence substantiating this or is it merely bunghole philosophy that has run amok on these boards?

And that speculation of yours is grounded in ignorance, unless you have the balls to demonstrate how a field with nonsensical premises does actually make it difficult for logical inquiry.

I'm not much for black and white statements. Perhaps you could try looking for a Sense of Humor at the local Wal-Mart. I hear they're having a sale.

Nonetheless, your earlier statement "in fact, nonsense" should be taken literally, instead of your later revision that it actually meant "as consisting nonsensical premises that makes logical inquiry difficult."
Well, there's always Godless Heathens. You can complain loudly and clear over there, as is the regulars of this board's wont.

Gurdur

I had the assertions pegged for argumentum ad ignorantiam myself, in both senses. Also ignoratio elenchi.
Been there, had that done, got the T-shirt.

Isn't it interesting how certain groups will condemn heresy ?

abe smith

It is my opinion that Tyler Durden is mistaken in his statement (several posts aloft ^^^ here) that "theology is concerned with the (study of?) history of religions". As long as you're referring to Thos Aquinas, I'll assert that his two major works (which epitomise at elaborate & oxymoronic length "theology", do they not?) have NOTHING to do with "history of religions"; they are (ThAq said so in his introduction.) intended to teach ordinary people the TRUTHS of the one & only true Faith = Roman Catholicism.
(sic sic sickety sic)

(can't quite remember why I'm making an issue of this; to clear the deck....)

capnkirk

I give the same credit and maintain the same level of skepticism with theologians that I would for avowed feminists studying feminism, socialists studying socialism, or tree-hugger studying environmentalism. I simply keep in mind that with all of the above, what I am seeing and hearing is the "view from the inside", and therefore subject to all the biases and prejudices that such a perspective is vulnerable to.


__________________
Enterprise...OUT.