What's right With It?

[JonMiller]

Just because in our current discussion, a certain subset of Christians have taken a word and made it theirs, doesn't mean that the word doesn't (And shouldn't, if you look at it's root, and the fact that we don't have any other word to mean similar) have the other meaning.

JM

 

[sentipente]

JM, you are being disingenuous here. You know full well that this is a discussion about religious fundamentalism. You defined it as strict adherence to a set of rules but you claim not to understand why you are being asked to say what you are comparing strict adherence to.

Further, in our earlier discussion on the meaning of science you seemed ignorant of the same principle you are now espousing, whereby a set of individuals may adapt a meaning of a word that is not all-inclusive.

 

[JonMiller]

I am going with the original defintion, not the common definition that has only become common recently. That is why people denote it as religious fundamentalism (more properly).

I wouldn't taken as great an exception to your statements if you had called them natural philosophy (more properly) rather then science. Science had that term first, and is what is commonly associated with it, and there is already (different) words to denote the more generalized meaning.

To my knowledge, none of these three things hold true with fundamentalism. Of course, this could just be a lack of education on my part, if there is a better word I would love to use it as I don't like the connotations that most people have with the word fundamentalist (unless my goal is to shock people).

JM

 

[sentipente]

I wouldn't taken as great an exception to your statements if you had called them natural philosophy (more properly) rather then science. Science had that term first, and is what is commonly associated with it, and there is already (different) words to denote the more generalized meaning.

I think you have it reversed. Those who are now called scientists used to be called natural philosophers.

 

[JonMiller]

Science is a particular sort of natural philosophy. Natural philosophy is the more generalized term.

Your positions (as I remember them) were not a subset of what is traditionally called science. In fact, they opposed what is called science by scientists. Such, it is better to use a more broad based term that includes them, rather then pervert a narrower term which doesn't include them.

JM

 

[thecountrydoc]

Closed At The Request Of The Op