Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion
Subject: Re: On Rational Assent and the Idea of Holy
Message-ID: <279@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Dec-84 12:34:00 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.279
Posted: Mon Dec 17 12:34:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 03:10:27 EST
References: <1933@umcp-cs.UUCP> <20980033@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 17
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:1323 net.religion:5151
Summary: 

In article <20980033@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes:
> I am getting pretty damned sick of Wingate claiming that there are all sorts
> of flaws in Lord Russell's reasoning without ever putting forth even an
> intimation at a refutation of anything Russell said.  Wingate, if you have
> some refutation of something he's said, let's see it; otherwise I'll assume
> you're just gainsaying by insult what you can't by reason.

While I agree a great deal with what Russell said, I certainly wouldn't want
to make an argument for his infallibility.  (:-)

Much of what he writes is aimed at explaining and convincing, rather than
formal reasoning.  As such, many of Russell's arguments are incomplete.
Lewis, on the other hand, may make more complete arguments, but usually he
tries to slip in bad assumptions with much handwaving.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh