Steve said to dmb:...The tack that most people would like to take in conversations with theists is to argue that what theists believe just isn't true. I'm wondering if the pragmatist can argue in that vein or if he is constrained in such conversations by his use of the word "truth" or his denial of there being a way things really are. dmb says:Well, there certainly is a pragmatic theory of truth. It rejects the notion that there is a single, exclusive "Truth" (with a capitol "T") in favor of multiple truths and provisional truths. As I like to put it (more casually) we don't need THEE absolute truth or the notion of one objective reality to which all our assertions must correspond. We just need something with which to push back against nonsense, bullshit, wishes and propaganda. I mean, pragmatic truth lies somewhere between absolutism and "whatever works for me at the moment". Absolutism and objectivity are too restrictive and oppressive while the anything goes model is intellectually paralyzing. You know, pragmatic truth is the middle way between rigidity and chaos, between absolutism and nihilism. Steve continued:Though "the MOQ rejects beliefs based on faith, tradition and authority" it suggests that there is such a thing as intellectual quality that is independent of those things and has its own measures of goodness in terms of coherence with other beliefs, parsimony, and agreement with experience. Though pragmatists may agree that truth is what is good in terms of belief, pragmatists don't separate the terms by which beliefs should be evaluated from the terms by which social patterns should be evaluated (e.g. authority versus agreement with experience, coherence versus tradition). Could this explain James' and Dewey's ambivalence about religious dogma?
dmb says:It's true that Pirsig's levels are not a feature of pragmatism is general but it's not much of a trick to accomplish the same basic division by simply pointing out that, say, traditional religious beliefs and scientific inquiry are two completely different contexts and so our notion of what counts as true will differ for that reason. I'd echo Matt's sentiment to a certain extent here. He pointed out the tradition is something like experience writ large and the same is true of history in general. As such, it would be wrong to dismiss tradition just because it is tradition but by the same token it would be wrong to accept tradition just because it is tradition. I mean, we're certainly allowed to conclude that some things are obsolete and we ought to learn from history, both the mistakes and the patterns of progress. In fact, that's one of the central means of justification for complaining about theism. Religion has a track record and some of it ain't too pretty. The current Pope was a member of the Hilter Youth movement, and that was back when the Catholic Church was complicit, if not cooperative, in the holocaust. And I think its pretty true that today's religious fanatics are quite hateful and lethal too. These actual effects are real world experience with which we can measure the truth of religion. It shows us what happens when people adopt certain beliefs. It shows us the consequences of certain beliefs, like the belief that 72 virgins will be waiting for me in heaven. It is nonsense in and of itself, of course, but criticizing such beliefs is not about correct facts so much as saving lives. Less dramatically, if Jung is right then religious dogma can and often does prevent the spiritual development, growth and transformation of countless individuals. I don't even know how to calculate that kind of damage. If "ambivilence" means we don't think its all bad or all good but both good and bad, depending on the particular situation, then I think that's the only reasonable stance toward just about everything including religion. Did Krimel's advice work out? Is this post readable? I hope so. dmb _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/howitworks?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_allup_howitworks_012009 Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
