[MD] Demanding Evidence From Theists

[david buchanan]

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 it. 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/