Kismet wrote:I am not discounting criticism, only that it is premised by a certain particularism and destroys the coherence of what I wish to demonstrate.
I wasn't just talking about criticism, Kismet. Not all the replies we have made to your posts have been critical, let alone destructively critical. Some have engaged directly and constructively with the points you make. It would be good if you could engage directly with the points we make. I don't know what you mean by "a certain particularism", but you must know that we are bound to have premises that are different from yours. They are open to challenge. But the accusations you have made about humanists, and the assumptions you have made about what humanists believe and how they behave, must also be open to challenge. And if we challenge them, that doesn't mean we are judging you as a person, let alone condemning you. In fact, some of your own criticisms of humanists read rather like a condemnation. As you said earlier, none of us is exempt from judgement.
Kismet wrote:This is not easy, but there is a unity in these associated assertions I am tryng to show....
I think it might help if you engage in constructive debate, and hold back a bit on the unsupported assertions.
Kismet wrote:Perhaps it is a no-starter.
Depends what you mean by no-starter. It's likely to be a nonstarter in the sense that you're unlikely to win us round entirely to your point of view. But if your criticisms of humanism (or, as I suspect, of views that are not exclusively humanistic or common to all humanists) are valid, then you might at the very least offer food for thought.