Steve said to dmb:
... I understand completely that religious conflict around the world and
conservative fundamentalism in the US is the greatest threat to human
well-being at this point in history. That's a given, right?
dmb says:
Again, you're just making stuff up. Nobody said theism was humanity's greatest
threat. 18 million people die every year due to poverty and its consequences,
there are still thousands and thousands of nuclear weapons, we're running out
of oil and there's that whole global warming thing too. I'm not even sure if
fundamentalism would make the top ten list. I'm just saying it's a serious
problem.
Steve continued:
...I've talked about that a lot, and I admire Sam Harris as much as you do. Our
only disagreement as far as I can tell consists in your insistence that all
theism is evil in response to my assertion that all theism is not necessarily
evil. Such a difference can't explain your continuing "sky is falling" ranting
against my view, and I can't tell what else we disagree about here, so I'm
pretty confused right now. Are you keeping up with your meds?
dmb says:
There you go again. Nobody said, let alone insisted, that all theism is evil or
that it's necessarily evil. You made that up.
I ran out of meds years ago, by the way.
What I'm disagreeing with is the neo-pragmatic assumptions that lead you to
assert that one can believe whatever they like just because there is no such
thing as an essence or a single exclusive, objective Truth. I also reject the
notion that one can only disagree with this in one way, by being an
essentialist or an objectivist. Remember that scene related by Pirsig wherein
William James's friends got into an argument about whether or not the man ever
got around the squirrel? James settled the debate by pointing out that there
was no practical difference between the two positions. No matter which position
you take, the consequences would be equally meaningless and so he decided it
was merely a verbal dispute, which means it was just a fake problem.
That's what pragmatism is all about, the consequences. The hypothetical theist
who keeps his views held privately represent just such a fake problem. If that
belief is never acted upon then there will be no practical consequence and so
his position is practically meaningless. In that case, his beliefs will never
have the chance to fail or succeed in the course of experience and so asking
about the truth or falsity of such a belief, for a pragmatist, is also quite
meaningless. It is so very inconsequential that one would be hard press to cite
a single example of such a believer. If he keeps it private, how would we even
know he holds that belief? But if that position is ever actually tested, ever
actually put into practice then we can say if it's true or not because the
consequences will become apparent. And that where my short list of current
events (chicken little rant) comes into the argument. As pragmatists, we can
only evaluate a belief by looking at the consequences of i
t. Experience is the only place where truth and falsity have any meaning.
That's all "true" or "false" can ever mean, for a pragmatist. By talking about
the truth or falsity of "private" beliefs, which are by definition beliefs that
can have no consequences, you have abandoned the most basic principles of
pragmatism. In that sense, Rorty's public-private distinction is also
meaningless and it replaces the meaning of pragmatic truth with a rather
strange notion of truth as a means to serve our personal interests. It like
he's traded the pragmatist's slogan (truth is a species of the Good) for a kind
of consumerist slogan (truth is a species of goods and services). I don't know,
maybe he took that "cash value" thing a little too literally or whatever. In
any case, Rorty's take on it seems pretty crass and small minded to me.
See? I'm not saying the sky is falling. I'm just saying that we have measure
the value of a belief on the basis of its practical consequences. Of course,
this is not something we apply only to theists or squirrel chasers.
As far as my own position with respect to religion and spirituality goes, as
you probably already know, I think the theists and atheists both have it wrong.
It's not too tough to make a case that spiritual experiences are perfectly
natural and that they often have long-lasting positive consequences. I'd even
go so far as to say that the person who lives in the total absence of any such
experiences has really, really missed something and it seems to me that
religion is the consolation prize. (Put game show style descending trombone
sound effects here) "Thanks for for playing and please enjoy the home version
of our game", the host says as you're dragged off stage.
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/direct/01/
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/
