From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 8:06 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Studying the numinous
Oh god, not Ed Fess again. No, that isn't a good place to start. I read his blog once and had a laugh at a few errors about physics and Steven Hawking but most of it seems based on other things you have to read, like there's some vast esoteric store of knowledge that you have to adopt. Why bother when we have easier ways, unless he thinks them inadequate? Most of what he has to say about Thomas Aquinas (I think it was) is interesting but hopelessly out of date, I'm sure TA would have been the first to admit it and would love the new developments in cosmology, I imagine any philosopher would be happy to have the most advanced knowledge. They didn't have any data gathering methods in those days, so they had to rely on what they thought about things, without scientific method they had no way of testing what they thought - if you even can. And if you can't what use is it? Maybe if you can provide a link to a critique by Ed Fess of physics or evolutionary theory showing why they are inadequate, instead of him merely complaining that atheists don't know as much about Greek philosophy as he does? You don't get it, Salyavin. The whole POINT is that people like Fess and Judy can complain that other people don't know as much about ____ <fill in the blanks> as they do. :-)
