[MD] Demanding Evidence From Theists

[X Acto]

dmb says:
.

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.

Ron:
Aristotle makes almost the exact same arguement leading up to the theory behind
the axiom of non-contradiction and it is precisely how you explained above that
truth and falsity have any meaning, which is an arguement distinct from the one
Rorty as you characterize his position above,truth as a means to serve personal
interests, Socrates in Platos Protagoras makes a similar arguement with Sophism,
 it is a love
for wisdom that allows pragmatic truth to have it's highest quality meaning.

There is a wisdom that comes along with pragmatic truth, for a metaphor
you may appreciate, the distinction is quite like the distinction between
biological and social quality. Pragmatic truth is thought by Rorty to be
biologically dominated and requires a wisdom of social level patterns
a love of wisdom a social desire for goodness, excellence, as a first
principle to come to the kind of social value good you seem to be requiring.