Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.
I meant did carrier really write that about his wife or is it trolling?
At the conclusion. Sorry fighting a non english spell checker on an ipad
I think it's real. Carrier defends himself in the comments section. He's a creep, but they're shrill.
It's my view that Rorty sometimes made concessions that he did not need to. There could be, in fact there curtainly are, other ways of looking at it. What I am doing, in fact what we are doing in general (in Rorty's view) when we make a truth claims, is we are inviting others to view the world the way we do. When we agree on something then it becomes true, in the sense that true is the word we use for those things we agree upon. That's Rorty's theory of truth. As I understand it, you understand.
I don't think it's particularly rational or reasonable to say the human mind is the ultimate source of all truth.
Who's saying the human mind is the "ultimate" source of truth? I feel like you're just making up straw man positions so you can attack them instead of dealing with the real issues being raised on this thread.
Truth is the label we apply to claims that match reality. Individual claims are either true or they are not true. When you say "ultimate truth" no one knows what you're talking about.
This would be like me making up some non-existent problem and then trying to use it to disprove Yahweh, "God can't account for Intrinsic Theocracy therefore all beliefs in God are self refuting."
Either the human mind is the product of undirected evolution, in which case there is no reason to suppose it has a particular capacity for identifying truth. Or else the human mind is the result of divine direction
Having the ability to process information is hugely beneficial to living organisms. No supernatural appeals required. Creatures that understand their environments have a distinct advantage over creatures that don't understand their environment. Wolves that know how to can track a herd of bison are going to fare better than the wolves that can't track the herd of bison and/or that do so incorrectly.
Thus wolves that have a better understanding of reality are more likely to raise offspring. And more likely to pass on that ability. Whereas the wolves that don't understand reality as well are less likely to raise offspring and less likely to spread their genes.
Darwin himself was aware of the problem. How can we know we are any better at picturing reality than a dog?
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.— I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I shd wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.—
How can we know we are any better at picturing reality than a dog?
Great question! And one with an easy answer.
We can know this the same way we can know which computer models work better than others - by their explanatory and predictive abilities. Models which give us useful explanations and have the ability to predict outcomes that match up with reality are considered good. And models which give inconsistent explanations or can only predict very short term outcomes - are considered not so good.
Our sense of reasoning is a tool. And the validity of any tool is how well it works to carry out a desired task.
Remember what I said before, truth is the label that we apply to claims that match reality.
Reasoning isn't a claim. It's a set of cognitive tools we use to make determinations about the world we inhabit. Tools aren't "true". They're useful.
SBF: Correct me if I am wrong, but your disagreement with science has more to do with the method for how truth is acquired (the criteria for when something can be accepted as more likely true than not) and not so much about the definition?
Is Rorty really entirely uncommitted in terms of how truth corresponds to reality? For instance, suppose two of my friends agreed his house belonged to us, would he then say that was an equally well-founded true as his opinion on the matter and when he called the police, we would be right in saying he was violating our property right?
That's the answer a pragmatist would give. Answers should be judged on whether they are useful not whether they are true. Answers can be useful without being true and can be true without being useful. It's usefulness that matters. This is the view I tend to agree with.
Answers should be judged on whether they are useful
Useful at what?
Carrier... damn... what a train wreck. So let me get this straight: He cheats on his wife for 17 years (hope he used a condom), then sorta kinda makes it out as if she has mental or physical issues on his blog to explain it... then goes on the make what appears to be a common midlife crisis into a sexual orientation (oh aren't you special snowflake!)
classy. just suuuper classy.
Imagine if this was WLC or some other christian who did that.