You can argue all you want about Kuhn exegesis, which to me seems a pointless exercise, but it seems no one is aware that from a philosophical standpoint he was a relative lightweight who stood on the shoulders of giants, to simultaneously coin a phrase and mix a metaphor.
What a critic of the church really has to show is that not only that Kuhn was "wrong" but that all of those who believe that the meaning of a proposition is based on its linguistic context and not on some relationship to "the world" were wrong.
That includes every Pragmatist- from whom Kuhn actually got his ideas, especially Polanyi, including Rorty were wrong. They have to show that Nietzsche was wrong and most of continental philosophy was wrong. They have to show that Wittgenstein was wrong and all constructivists are wrong, that postmodernism was wrong, antirealism was wrong, and really much of analytical philosophy was also wrong.
In other words they have to show that a great swath of 20th century philosophy was just bunk and that pretty much only the logical positivists were "right".
Good luck with that.
The usual M.O. around here is to pick the philosopher of the day when such a topic arises and an apologist has enough nerve to bring one up, and have everyone pile on repeating the same mantra "you don't understand his philosophy" until the apologist gives up re-writing the same post a hundred times demonstrating to each critic how in fact he
does understand the philosophy and they don't.
It gets tedious and the apologist invariably tires of the tedium and repetition, and knows it is going nowhere.
That's where this thread is clearly headed and perhaps good sense has prevailed with LOAP and he sees the futility of trying to discuss something with a hostile unreasoned mob.
But fortunately religious discourse IS NOT scientific discourse and has nothing to do with it, and as long as some people recognize that - and they most certainly do- religious discourse will still be seen as "rational".
There are even agnostics who see themselves as in some sense "religious" and see the importance of such types of beliefs, emphasizing seeing God as a "friend" in a human context.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134940Seeing God as man- or Christ as a friend- gosh where have I heard that before?
If your response conceptually includes "You don't understand Rorty" or "But that's not Mormonism" I am not interested in replying. Sorry, I can tell you right now that
you have missed the point. I will respond to any substantive points that actually seem to understand this post.