From: exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:55:23 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

Subject: Re: Atheism? Really Harold, how gauche...
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:03:21 GMT

In a previous article, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) says:
Sure, but I think that morality and truth are two different things.
The proposition "Keith believes that X is immoral" is either true
of false, and the proposition "Society will be less violent if
people believe that X is immoral" is either true of false, but
"X is immoral" alone is neither true nor false.  I think that
means it's not a proposition.

--kenny:
Doug, morality and spagetti are "two different things" too, but the
question here is Can there be moral propositions? i.e., moral statements
which have truth-value? So far we've seen no argument for "'X is immoral'
is not a proposition." 

However, I think you are meaning if X conforms to an absolute morality.
I would agree that there is no absolutes to judge against. Or, at least
we have no way of knowing such.

--kenny:
I would agree that we have no "publically agreed upon way" of knowing. But 
this is true of philosophical problems generally. And it is consistent with
an objectivist account of the nature of morality, since objectivists would
insist that people can make mistakes in moral judgement and belief. It's
the relativist who must deny that mistakes are possible--at least cross-
culturally [depends on the form your relativism takes].

I feel that stating something as truth, when one doesn't know it is
true, is a type of falseness. The validity of the object of the proposition 
is unknown, but the stating it as being known to be true is a falsehood. 
Also, I would consider "coincidental truth" in the same category. That is 
why I feel that statement, "God exists" to be false. )

And, whether or not one can determine the truth does not play a role in
knowing whether or not it is even really true, or even if truth/falsehood
has any meaning in the specific case.

--kenny: 
Uhh? This escapes me.

Such as: sure, "I believe it X is immoral" is clearly a true/false
question. ( you run into some problems with dichotomies thou.. )
However, *you* can never truly know if it is true or not. Sure, you
can believe what I tell you, but you never know it ( in the strong 
sense ) Only I can. 

Because I hold this distinguish, it a principle reason that for me,
other's testimony on God's existence ( be it in person, or written 2000
years ago ) is impertinent to my "knowing" god's existence. This is
the reason why I scoff at other's who try to prove god's existence using
the bible. Not because I believe the bible to be false [ which I do in 
one sense ], but that I see no relevant even if it WERE true.

I require strong knowledge of god's existence, not weak knowledge ( or
second hand )

--kenny:
If you're using the strong/weak knowledge distinction made by N. Malcolm,
then you must be willing to countenance "The sun is 93 million miles from
earth" as something weakly known.  And I think it would be perverse [or at 
least argue obscurantism on your part] to withhold assent from "God exists"
merely because it was not, in the stated sense, strongly known. Malcolm's
'weak' sense of 'know', after all, means to be reasonably certain. And 
'reasonably certain' in turn means something like, 'so certain that a 
reasonable person will not demand more evidence'. I suspect many atheists
would settle for that kind of certainty.

Anything subjective I guess.  Is "Marilyn Monroe was beautiful" a 
proposition?

Ah, I would interpret it as someone ( whoever is implied, maybe 
you ) though [sic] she was beautiful.

--- kenny: 
Only propositions can be thought. "Hurray for our team" cannot be thought;
but "Marilyn Monroe was beautiful" is not, on the face of it anyway, at all 
like that.  Or, you haven't given us any reason to think so. 

Failing that, I would evaluate it's truthfulness by asking, " Do *I* find her
beautiful?". 

Well, then there would be a truth to found: does person S really find her
beautiful? This is a matter for empirical psychology. Also, not 
philosophically interesting.

I do not believe it is possible to ever devoid one statement of all
excess baggage... )
//////////////////////////////////////
/* Kenny  *   Welcome to Mind Wars! */
//////////////////////////////////////
Newsgroups: alt.atheism