Comments on: “Converted to the Cause of Truth” http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/ A First Things Blog Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Bret Lythgoe http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/#comment-17276 Bret Lythgoe Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:44:15 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=10204#comment-17276 Bernard Nathanson, was a man of great courage, and conviction. I admire him a lot. He sought after the truth, even when it was not to his own "benefit''. Bernard Nathanson, was a man of great courage, and conviction. I admire him a lot. He sought after the truth, even when it was not to his own “benefit”.

]]> By: C. Ehrlich http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/#comment-17274 C. Ehrlich Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:27:33 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=10204#comment-17274 Relax pentamom. Just because a commenter doesn't address everything in a blog post doesn't "demonstrate" that the commenter "entirely misses the point" of some more particular aspect of that post. We can of course also meditate upon the many admirable qualities of a person's commitment to truth-telling (even if the person happens to be quite misguided). Relax pentamom. Just because a commenter doesn’t address everything in a blog post doesn’t “demonstrate” that the commenter “entirely misses the point” of some more particular aspect of that post. We can of course also meditate upon the many admirable qualities of a person’s commitment to truth-telling (even if the person happens to be quite misguided).

]]> By: pentamom http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/#comment-17273 pentamom Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:07:33 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=10204#comment-17273 C. Ehrlich -- you've just demonstrated that you entirely missed the point of Nathanson's remark. His point was that a consequence of his conversion was a commitment to the truth, that had previously been absent. Yes, he identifies his religious beliefs with the truth, but it is not necessary for you to concede that they are, to get his point that he changed with regard to his beliefs about the necessity of dealing in truth. C. Ehrlich — you’ve just demonstrated that you entirely missed the point of Nathanson’s remark. His point was that a consequence of his conversion was a commitment to the truth, that had previously been absent. Yes, he identifies his religious beliefs with the truth, but it is not necessary for you to concede that they are, to get his point that he changed with regard to his beliefs about the necessity of dealing in truth.

]]> By: C. Ehrlich http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/#comment-17271 C. Ehrlich Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:19:30 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=10204#comment-17271 I suppose. if you like, we can say that, for many people, the cause of religious dogma and the cause of truth are <i>practically</i> equivalent. However, when people speak of "the cause of truth" they're usually already talking about a proper subset of the set of all truths. It would be comical to imagine people, in the cause of truth, promoting the explicit recognition of <i>every</i> truth. Imagine running around proclaiming the truth that this morning you've just brushed your teeth with 31 strokes of the brush. So yes, for many people, the cause of religious dogma is equivalent to the cause of truth. As for the George's regard by his professional peers in philosophy, try searching peer-reviewed philosophy journals for reviews on George's work. The little you find will be indicative. I suppose. if you like, we can say that, for many people, the cause of religious dogma and the cause of truth are practically equivalent. However, when people speak of “the cause of truth” they’re usually already talking about a proper subset of the set of all truths. It would be comical to imagine people, in the cause of truth, promoting the explicit recognition of every truth. Imagine running around proclaiming the truth that this morning you’ve just brushed your teeth with 31 strokes of the brush. So yes, for many people, the cause of religious dogma is equivalent to the cause of truth.

As for the George’s regard by his professional peers in philosophy, try searching peer-reviewed philosophy journals for reviews on George’s work. The little you find will be indicative.

]]> By: Craig Payne http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/#comment-17270 Craig Payne Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:00:19 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=10204#comment-17270 "For many people, the cause of religious dogma is equivalent to the cause of truth." Dear C. Ehrlich: They are not equivalent. But for us (if this were a Venn diagram), the set of D is entirely contained within the set of T. Regarding Prof. George's professional status: It depends on whom you ask. He is not as respected amongst professional philosophers as is, say, Alvin Plantinga. And he is not nearly as famous as is, say, Peter Singer. But I'd bet in terms of "respect" he is somewhere between the two. His writings certainly appear in and are discussed in many journals which are not at all "religious" in nature. “For many people, the cause of religious dogma is equivalent to the cause of truth.”

Dear C. Ehrlich: They are not equivalent. But for us (if this were a Venn diagram), the set of D is entirely contained within the set of T.

Regarding Prof. George’s professional status: It depends on whom you ask. He is not as respected amongst professional philosophers as is, say, Alvin Plantinga. And he is not nearly as famous as is, say, Peter Singer. But I’d bet in terms of “respect” he is somewhere between the two. His writings certainly appear in and are discussed in many journals which are not at all “religious” in nature.

]]> By: Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e162v2 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/#comment-17269 Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e162v2 Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:26:18 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=10204#comment-17269 [...] From pro-choice to pro-life, a journey recounted. [...] [...] From pro-choice to pro-life, a journey recounted. [...]

]]> By: Tuesday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/#comment-17268 Tuesday Highlights | Pseudo-Polymath Tue, 01 Mar 2011 14:23:42 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=10204#comment-17268 [...] From pro-choice to pro-life, a journey recounted. [...] [...] From pro-choice to pro-life, a journey recounted. [...]

]]> By: C. Ehrlich http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/#comment-17259 C. Ehrlich Tue, 01 Mar 2011 03:24:03 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=10204#comment-17259 Just making an observation. I entirely accept that, for many people, the cause of religious dogma is equivalent to the cause of truth. And it's generally among these people that Robert George has his influence. I'm not even saying that this is bad. Just making an observation. I entirely accept that, for many people, the cause of religious dogma is equivalent to the cause of truth. And it’s generally among these people that Robert George has his influence.

I’m not even saying that this is bad.

]]> By: Orthodoxdj http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/#comment-17252 Orthodoxdj Tue, 01 Mar 2011 02:13:15 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=10204#comment-17252 C. Earhart, Is your argument that if someone isn't influential among peers, then that person doesn't have good arguments? If not, then what's your point? Do you expect him to convert people like you to the pro-life position? I doubt that will happen. Then again, maybe you hang around the FT blogs because deep down there's something you're looking for. C. Earhart,

Is your argument that if someone isn’t influential among peers, then that person doesn’t have good arguments? If not, then what’s your point? Do you expect him to convert people like you to the pro-life position? I doubt that will happen. Then again, maybe you hang around the FT blogs because deep down there’s something you’re looking for.

]]> By: C. Ehrlich http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2011/02/%e2%80%9cconverted-to-the-cause-of-truth%e2%80%9d/#comment-17251 C. Ehrlich Tue, 01 Mar 2011 01:43:18 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=10204#comment-17251 Robert George himself seems to be converted to the cause of religious dogma. My impression is that this accounts both for his influence in certain spheres and for his lack of influence in others. Though you wouldn't know it from the way he is revered here at First Things, his work isn't highly regarded among his professional peers within philosophy. But, then again, I suppose this isn't his aim. Robert George himself seems to be converted to the cause of religious dogma. My impression is that this accounts both for his influence in certain spheres and for his lack of influence in others. Though you wouldn’t know it from the way he is revered here at First Things, his work isn’t highly regarded among his professional peers within philosophy. But, then again, I suppose this isn’t his aim.

]]>