--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > JDG said: > > > I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually be > > true and another might actually be wrong. > > I'm clearly not neglecting that possibility and in fact in this thread > have been fairly open to it. However, nobody has yet presented me with a > criterion for deciding which one is true if one in fact is. Why, for > example, Christianity rather than, say, Atenism?
Well, its probably necessary to go back to your original post here: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brin-l/post?postID=l5WbcO1Gzikf9s1T1HoD3s\ bIYQ5c3oefOYVxPpvvrRD_nKQcuR2xuzIISUq9Jm9wVxoSqfZNgUvjxLkEOPE> , "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the most critical question involved is the understanding of the > > transcendental: Truths that are true, whether or not they are believed > > by humans, or even whether they are perceived by humans; Reality that > > exists apart from our perception. > > But that seems like an especially useless position. If we're discussing > which things are good and which are evil then believing that there are > transcendental truths doesn't help at all if different people have > different positions on what those truths actually are. So far as I can > tell you're reduced either to an argument from authority (whether that > of a priesthood, a holy book, one or more historical figures, or the > "general sentiments of society") or an argument from what makes you feel > all warm and fuzzy inside. At best, I suppose, you can argue that some > of those priesthoods, holy books, historical figures or warm and fuzzy > feelings are divinely inspired rather than ultimately reducing just to > opinion, but once again we can argue endlessly about exactly which of > those things are touched by the ineffable mystery of the transcendental. You argue that the existence of a "universal truth" is "an especially useless position" - or at least, that is how I read your post. To support your argument, you cite the fact that two different people can claim the existence of universal truth, while holding mutually contradictory positions. Say, for example, Christianity and Atenism. My point, however, is that: Given the existence of universal truth, I don't see how the number "n" of people who fail to recognize and accept that universal truth is at all relevant. After all, that universal truth is, by definition, universally true. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
