What about deism? (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, June 22, 2008, 08:01 (5785 days ago) @ Cary Cook

Cary: "If I believed the odds were anything other than 50%, I would necessarily believe (1) one of the options, because that's what probability is all about." - I'm going to have to modify my acceptance of your definition of believe (1), which = to think something is true or probable. It's not strong enough. There has to be an inner conviction (which is missing from all your definitions of "believe"). If the weather forecast is a 51% chance of rain, I can't go round saying I believe ... i.e. am really, honestly, truly convinced in my heart of hearts ... that it's going to rain. You can ask me (as Curtis did) what is the minimum amount of probability I require in order to have an inner conviction that God exists/doesn't exist, but I can't answer. I will know if/when it happens. - ********
Cary: "Your classic definition of agnosticism is defective, because it cites only one of the two types." - The classic definition (as opposed to the more modern definition) is that of T.H. Huxley, who invented the term. The fact that it is one of two types does not make it defective, any more than your differentiation between types of belief makes each category defective. I quoted it only to illustrate the flaw in your argument. I am what you call a "soft" agnostic. - *********
Me: "I don't know which of the alternatives [God/No God] is true, and so I cannot believe either."
Cary: "This is totally erroneous by either definition of belief." - See first item. However, with respect, I think it's going a bit far for you to tell me that I'm wrong when I say I can't believe something. - *********
Me: "The statement that something is impossible may be objective if we all agree on it."
Cary: "Objectivity is totally independent of anyone's agreement." - True. However, your epistemological definition of "objective" is: "thought to remain the same regardless of diverse opinions." Question: thought by whom? I would say that "the earth rotates round the sun" is an objective statement. Once upon a time, people would have said "the sun rotates round the earth" was an objective statement. Question: how do we judge statements to be objective? - ********
Cary (20 June at 19.43): "It's not legitimate to add 'for me' to 'impossible'...possibility is objective." - You've now agreed that two categories of "impossible for me" are no problem. I'll settle for that.