Doesn't good communication require using terms that are understood by
your reader/listener? If a person's worldview is that everything in the
universe occurs due to "matter in random motion", MIRM accurately describes
this view. Then this worldview can be contrasted with a theistic
>Why is not the simplest thing to point out the
>fundamental problem to start with? If we think that our belief in God is
>that fundamental to our thinking about the universe, how can start the
>discussion with the unbeliever on their terms, i.e. that it is possible to
>think about the world without God.
Because *they* do "think about the world without God."
As an educator, I don't understand why it is problematic to "speak the
language of a person" in order to help him learn a new concept. This is a
fundamental principle of communication. Don't we often use terms (murder,
hate, racism,...) to describe things that we don't agree with?
Well, it's time to go now. I'll respond to the rest of Terry's post
(and Allan's and Keith's) tomorrow morning.