[MD] Demanding Evidence From Theists

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:46 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:

>
> Steve said:
> Rorty agrees with pretty much everyone that the assertion "X" is true if
> and only if X is true. It's that simple, and no so-called theory of truth
> will be any more helpful than that in telling us what it means for something
> to be true. For a pragmatist, to say that an assertion is, as far as we
> know, true, is to say that no other habit of action is, as far as we know, a
> better habit of action.
>
> dmb says:
> I don't get it. "X" is true if X true? That's not simple so much as it is
> just meaningless. In fact, I've ask you to explain this a couple of times
> now. How can anything be held as true without justification. How can true
> mean anything apart from justification. How does the claim that there is no
> better habit of action fail to count as a justification?
>
>
Steve:
For a more concrete example, "the cat is on the mat" is true if and only if
the cat is on the mat. In Rorty's view "the cat is on the mat" is not made
true by being able to justify it as you and James say. It is true if the cat
really is on the mat whether we can justify it or not.

Best,
Steve