Kate; Please explain. Explain how a-priori is not assumption. Then explain how assumption is not belief. Then explain how knowing is not free from some belief. Explain how assumption (a-priori) is not a part of all experience and knowing. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Thu, December 15, 2011 7:11:15 AM Subject: Re: Aesthetics, intellect, high intelligence, and sensibility. I think that there are two possibilities of argument about this, one of them including your knowledge and experience, and the other not including it, but proceeding from a priori. I have noticed that both you and Conger fail to keep these two separate,you mix them up, and I don"t think it works. Kate Sullivan -----Original Message----- From: Mike Mallory <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 4:28 pm Subject: Re: Aesthetics, intellect, high intelligence, and sensibility. 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,
