You and I still very much disagree re realism in the works of Morris. It comes down to our definitions here, what you consider realism I consider to just be assertions about natural facts with no moral veneer that can be true or false applicable to them. I will try to find some specific quotes on this, but it seems like we are in the biology vs intelligent design semantics game here where the biologist says “the eye is designed to see”, the ID person says “he says design, that is ID terminology so he is really a believer in intelligent design” and the biologist saying “nope, I use that term in a specific way”. Neither of us would accept the ID proponent come back that the biologist’s language is like theirs and therefore this is just ID at base.
Your penultimate paragraph is an interesting one. Good that we have some level common ground on the thread. For what it is worth regardless of any disagreements, it has been a useful discussion for me
Given that Stanford page covers a lot of ground. What part of it do you feel applies best to your position? Maybe we can start there?
Your penultimate paragraph is an interesting one. Good that we have some level common ground on the thread. For what it is worth regardless of any disagreements, it has been a useful discussion for me
Given that Stanford page covers a lot of ground. What part of it do you feel applies best to your position? Maybe we can start there?
