Not exact matches
Astronomers
on all
sides made scriptural and
theological arguments to support their ideas.
And if you stand
on either
side of the
theological debate, then you should be aware of his
arguments for the existence of God before you make any stance that is antagonistic to the existence of God.
This is why I believe it's so important to study both historical religious
arguments supporting the abolition of slavery and historical religious
arguments opposing the abolition of slavery (see my post
on Mark Noll's The Civil War as a
Theological Crisis» for a sampling), as well as historical religious
arguments supporting desegregation and historical religious
arguments opposing desegregation — not because I believe both
sides are equal, but because the patterns of argumentation that emerge are so unnervingly familiar:
Peter Abelard's seminal work, Sic et non, which quoted Church Fathers
on both
sides of a series of
theological questions, set the tone for the Questions genre of the Middle Ages, The writer set out a Question, stated the best
arguments on both
sides (thesis and antitheses), made a determination (synthesis), and then rebutted each of the antitheses in detail.
Those controversies ought to be left open by a
theological school so that the structure and merits of
arguments on both
sides can be rigorously tested.
Simultaneously, the proponents of this purported prophylactic speciously explain away or argue for ignoring tangible evidence of actual current harms being inflicted
on the child as well as developing iatrogenic effects, and in a defiance of logic reminiscent of
theological arguments, insist that the burden falls
on the other
side to counter their unsupported beliefs.