An assumption that seems to be rooted in the fallacy of modernity and linguistic totalitarianism.
You're cleaving to an antiquated definition, I'm pointing out that if you want to be understood you have to use language as people use it - if either of us is a 'linguistic totalitarian', it's not me.
The same language and concepts are still being used as professional language in the fields of theology and philosophy.
But these communications aren't being put out for the benefit of theologists and philosophers, they're being put out to the laity.
Concepts don't automatically have a sell by date like cheese.
The point is, though, that if you still call it 'cyse' rather than cheese no-one's going to know you're talking about cheese because that's no longer current usage.
Only giving people concepts they can understand is patronising guff.
You're confusing concepts and the language used to convey them. Whether the concept is outdated is an open question, but whether the language is outdated really isn't.
Science shouldn't dumb down and neither should other fields.
There's a reason your archenemy, Professor Dawkins, held the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science - is there an ecumenical equivalent?
Religion on the other hand is not totally dependent on the intellectual acquisition of facts or concepts.
Quite. The evidence suggests it's dependent on the lack of intellectual acquisition.
Which brings us to the totalitarian pseudo ownership of language claimed by scientism, an example par excellence being the appropriation of the term nothing by new atheist scientists like Krauss., who claimed that what people were referring to in the past was an airless vacuum.
When you talk to people that's what they think 'nothing' is, typically. That's not linguistic totalitarianism, that's understanding current usage.
He failed to realise that philosophers were actually talking about the absence of anything one could think of or possibly think of.
I suspect he didn't forget, he didn't care - he wasn't writing for philosophers, he was writing for the general public. His scientific papers spell out what he means in more technical language because that's the appropriate language for that format.
O.
