I thought Howard is redeemed so that's that.
I confess to being annoyed at criticisms that H has not criticised
scientific atheism. He has as should be clear to all. May I suggest more
careful criticisms to avoid hurt.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard J. Van Till" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Joel Cannon" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2001 1:09 AM
Subject: Re: criticising scientific naturalism (fwd)...anecdote about
science held hostage
> >From: Joel Cannon <email@example.com>
> > It happened that year that four of my best (and favorite) students
> > were quite avowedly secular. These bright students (one was truly
> > exceptional) were so agitated by what Howard said that they could not
> > write a coherent paper. They even went so far as to question the
> > character of that mean guy Howard Van Till (I think one said something
> > akin to Howard being a "slasher").
> > This was truly a delightful change for me since I was used to having
> > fundamentalists attack the book (and myself for assigning it and
> > liking it). I passed the papers on to Howard so he could have the joy
> > of being attacked from the left for a change.
> Yes, I was happy for something to balance (in small part) the criticism
> comes from the other direction.
> Howard the Mean
> Howard the Slasher
> Howard the Redeemable
> (Take your pick)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Dec 12 2001 - 16:05:01 EST