Knowledge and belief eventually come down to truth. So, let me work backward
from there. I take a pragmatic approach to truth, which I refer to as the
"Reliable Theory of Truth." www.mikemallory.com/reliable.htm In a
nutshell, I believe that to claim a proposition is true is simply to claim
that one can reliably act on the proposition.
The only difference I see between knowledge and belief is that a claim to
knowledge is a claim that the reliability of a proposition is decided. A
claim of belief could be made even though the proposition is admittedly
undecided.
One could legitimately take my claim of atheism a couple of different ways.
On the one hand it can be taken as a claim that my view of the world is a
"naturalistic" model and the supernatural or divine simply does not exist in
my understanding of the world. I do not see this as self-contradictory. I
can have an idea of a supernatural entity whether or not it exists. (empty
set or non-referring notion)
The other way to interpret my claim of atheism is that it is simply a claim
that believing in God is unreliable. The problem with this is that it runs
into the pragmatist view that the significance of a belief lies in how it
affects behavior. It is not clear to me how a belief in God might affect a
person's behavior. The whole notion of "reliability" hinges, admitedly, on
the assumption of a "problem." The only way to judge the reliability of a
belief in God is to first determine what kind of problem "God" is supposed
to solve in your worldview. But, people are all over the board on this one:
afterlife, eternal justice, creation, etc.
12/12/11
Mike Mallory
PS A scripted presentation of this idea is online at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30872417/UU-Worship-Service-on-Beliefs
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Aesthetics, intellect, high intelligence, and sensibility.
My argument is that knowing or understanding requires belief. I see the
relationship between knowing and belief as overlapping concepts in both
degree
and kind. Some part of knowing is belief; some part of belief is knowing.
If
belief is always a part of knowing then why presume it can ever be absent
or
that any knowing can exist without belief? Except in everyday casual
talk, we
can't truly say "I don't believe it" about anything at all because even
the
denial of belief requires it. Thus it's not possible to deny belief in
the God
concept. We believe we will draw our next breath, and so we do....until
we
don't.
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: Mike Mallory <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, December 6, 2011 9:13:04 PM
Subject: Re: Aesthetics, intellect, high intelligence, and sensibility.
I'll second Cheerskep (and Hume and Penn Jillette). There is so much we
do
understand about the world, I don't see why it is necessary or even
desirable to
start positing assumptions about a divine purpose or "overwhelming
rightness."
I enjoy religious music and art and understand the attraction of the
aesthetics
of religion, but my enjoyment is limited to a fictive stance.
Mike Mallory
----- Original Message ----- From: "leosullivan" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: Aesthetics, intellect, high intelligence, and sensibility.
I agree with conger and apparently pascal on this.you have to start
somewhere
and you might as well start with assumption of the existence of the lord
as so
mnay have done before you. It isn't religious fervor or angels of heaven
that
is the basis but more of an assumption that somehow there is an
overwhelming
rightness that will out in the end.that assumption is the basis for
everything
else aesthetics included
Kate Sullivan
Sent from my iPod
On Sep 11, 2011, at 7:13 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>
wrote:
For some reason Cheerskep ignores my main point that belief is not a
choice
but
a necessity of consciousness. This aspect of belief has nothing to do
with
the
existence of a god or gods or anything at all concerned with religious
belief.
But it does imply that Cheerskep's denial of belief ignores the
fundamental
fact that our brains and consciousness rely on a-priori assumptions,
about
the
next moment, thought, act all the way on to grand totaliing concepts
like
God.
That's also the underlying assumption that Pascal, in the context and
language
of his time, recognized in his argument. Is it silly? Of course! Any
admission of assumptions -- the first recognition of philosophers from
Plato
to
Kant and beyond -- is silly form the standpoint of being conjectural
and
impossible to set beyond the circle of subjectivity.
It's no less a silly presumption to deny the "verities" of religion (I
extend
this to consciousness) than it is to accept them. What satisfactions
does
Cheerskep attain by denying them? Whatever they are, those
satisfactions are
no
more substantial than the ones he denies. When he says he can't
belive,
what
takes its place?
What's really silly is to presume the historical imagery of God,
angels, and
all
the rest, is to be taken as the substances and not as transient
symbols. If
the
symbols are silly does that mean that the symbolized is silly? I've
seen
many
silly portraits of Lincoln. Was Lincoln silly?
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, September 11, 2011 5:50:12 PM
Subject: Re: Aesthetics, intellect, high intelligence, and sensibility.
William asks:
Why is Cheerskep still angry over his early disillusionment with
religion.
I'm sorry you believe this about me, William. My sole remark about
religion
was this:
With the departure of the religious faith of my youth went many
reassuring
verities.
