> So, you think that Obama and Clinton are just lying
> about their faith?
Possible. In Clinton's case, maybe likely.
> Btw, my Cambridge advisor Mary Hesse, one of leading
> philosophers of science of the last century, was a
> devout Anglican. When I expressed ridicule for the
> theory of American philosopher Donald Davidson that
> most of anyone's beliefs must be true as a sort of a
> priori condition of understanding them at all, she
> said to me, That's one area where Christians and
> Marxists can agree. (It took me a minute to realize
> that she was talking about original sin.)
Swinburne's a Christian, as are Plantinga and van Inwagen. They're all 100 times smarter than I am.
> I don't call myself a Marxist anymore, btw.
You're a Marxist in the same sense that we're both Darwinians.
> Anyway, don't be disingenuous. You were not making a
> statistical remark that was neutral about what people
> ought to believe. You were implying that if you were
> smart and well-educated, you would not be a Christian
> because anyone with half a brain can see that it's a
> crock of superstition -- Christianity is for the
> stupid and ignorant, you suggest. And you believe it
> too, I bet. If you don't, better watch how you talk --
> it will be misinterpreted.
Well, I guess I'd better watch how I talk, because I wasn't trying to imply what you inferred (though I can agree that yours was perhaps the most natural inference).
-- Luke
> jks