Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- From: Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:58:27 +0100
Ken Down wrote:
In message <87k5rv952i.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
2. He isn't, in any case, claiming that the words are identical
in meaning. He's claiming something like: although they're used
in different ways, the difference in usage is arbitrary (as if
we had different words for "work" depending on whether the person
doing the work has red hair or not)
All definitions are arbitrary. Is there any *logical* reason why "Monday"
should mean the second day of the week or "snoop" mean spying?
Definitions aren't entirely arbitrary; I think it would be reasonable
to say that there's something wrong with a language in which different
words are used for "work" according to the colour of the worker's
hair (or, if not, that there's something wrong with the society
to which the language is adapted).
But: you may well disagree with what Dirk is saying. I do too,
as you may have noticed, though my disagreements aren't necessarily
identical to yours. I was just pointing out that he isn't saying
what you said he was saying.
and depends on ideas that
are too fuzzy and unclear to support such a distinction (as if
you had different words for paintings, supposedly depending on
whether the painting is "vurbish", but couldn't explain what
"vurbish" means other than by reference to other equally ill-defined
terms).
Many words are similar in meaning with a fuzzy distinction, but that doesn't
mean that the distinction doesn't exist nor that it is unimportant. Try
explaining to a non-English speaker the difference between "watch" and
"observe" and giving a good reason why you cannot "observe the television".
You *can* observe the television, but it means something different
from watching it. The distinction is subtle but I'm not sure it's
exactly "fuzzy". Anyway, what I was saying Dirk was saying isn't
"the distinction is fuzzy" but "the concepts are fuzzy so there's
no point trying to make precise distinctions".
And, again, I wasn't defending his complaint on this point, and
I don't agree with it. I was just pointing out that he wasn't
saying what you said he was saying.
--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- From: Sam Wilson
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- References:
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- From: thedirkhartog
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- Prev by Date: Re: With total respect...Faith & Works.
- Next by Date: Re: Faithful Christian Women & the Priesthood [was The Protestant church is NOT worthy of the name "church"]
- Previous by thread: Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- Next by thread: Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|