Comments on: Fish questions “rational” critiques of religious epistemology http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2009/05/fish-questions-rational-critiques/ rhetorics, compositions, technologies, literacies, sexualities Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:32:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ira Socol http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2009/05/fish-questions-rational-critiques/comment-page-1/#comment-19664 Ira Socol Sun, 24 May 2009 22:20:30 +0000 http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/?p=1306#comment-19664 I tend to agree with Fish that you end up with equally absurd arguments on both sides when these collide. Maybe its my brief but intense bit of Terry Eagleton training, or maybe its a bit of Celtic cultural training, but I find the need of some to have a "triumph of science over religion" as tiresome as those who need a "triumph of religion over science." They involve completely different, but certainly parallel, forms of human vision. We need to not let modernist positivists convince us that only one answer can exist. I tend to agree with Fish that you end up with equally absurd arguments on both sides when these collide. Maybe its my brief but intense bit of Terry Eagleton training, or maybe its a bit of Celtic cultural training, but I find the need of some to have a “triumph of science over religion” as tiresome as those who need a “triumph of religion over science.” They involve completely different, but certainly parallel, forms of human vision. We need to not let modernist positivists convince us that only one answer can exist.

]]> By: Kyle Bella http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2009/05/fish-questions-rational-critiques/comment-page-1/#comment-19460 Kyle Bella Wed, 20 May 2009 03:11:35 +0000 http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/?p=1306#comment-19460 I think the histories of science and religion are more similar then we'd like to believe. And I do think this influences arguments for or against science/religion. Science, too, is guilty of some of the same prejudices that those of religious faith have preached. I think the histories of science and religion are more similar then we’d like to believe. And I do think this influences arguments for or against science/religion. Science, too, is guilty of some of the same prejudices that those of religious faith have preached.

]]> By: Michael http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2009/05/fish-questions-rational-critiques/comment-page-1/#comment-19420 Michael Tue, 19 May 2009 02:34:11 +0000 http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/?p=1306#comment-19420 Thanks, AL! I didn't think this through fully when I posted. I think the commenters at your link (specific post <a href="http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/05/does-the-ny-times-not-realize-that-stanley-fish-is-philosophically-incompetent.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>) are right to point out that the extension of Fish's argument is that all positions are epistemologically equal. Something I definitely don't agree with. I do agree with Fish's general claim, though, that assumptions cloud/shape what we see as evidence and that critiques of religion need to move beyond positivism. Thanks, AL! I didn’t think this through fully when I posted. I think the commenters at your link (specific post here) are right to point out that the extension of Fish’s argument is that all positions are epistemologically equal. Something I definitely don’t agree with.

I do agree with Fish’s general claim, though, that assumptions cloud/shape what we see as evidence and that critiques of religion need to move beyond positivism.

]]> By: AL http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2009/05/fish-questions-rational-critiques/comment-page-1/#comment-19419 AL Tue, 19 May 2009 01:38:08 +0000 http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/?p=1306#comment-19419 And for the alternative view, http://leiterreports.typepad.com/ And for the alternative view, http://leiterreports.typepad.com/

]]>