[MD] Demanding Evidence From Theists

[david buchanan]

Steve said to dmb:
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.



dmb says:

Sorry, but I still don't understand. How can we say it is true in the absence of justification? This doesn't make any sense unless...

Oh, wait. Are you saying that a propositional sentence (The cat is on the mat) is true if it corresponds to an objective reality? This can't be right. He rejects objectivity, no? He couldn't use that definition of "true" without contradicting himself in a major way. 

In any case, I don't see how "true" can mean anything at all in this formulation. If you can't provide some kind of reason, some kind of justification then what basis do you have for saying it is true? Do you think we can make truth claims about cats on mats that exist somewhere outside of our experience? 
You see what I'm asking?




 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469230/direct/01/