Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [RELIGION] creation myths

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
>
> > Trivers, it seems to me, sets forth an almost utilarian approach to 
> > knowledge.  Knowledge is good for me when it helps me live better (in 
> > some utilitarian sense of the word "better" e.g. my genes are more 
> > likely to be passed on.)
>
>
> I wasn't getting that from him.
>
>
> > So my goal in aquiring knowledge and understanding is primarily for 
> > the purpose of me fitting into the world better.
> >
> > Since knowledge is merely how I perceive it, it carries no content in 
> > the moral sense - there is not some knowledge that intrinsically more 
> > "right" than someone elses knowledge, except that it causes the former 
> > person to relate better to his world.
>
>
> That's really your view on knowledge -- that it is entirely subjective?

No.  That statement was part of a logical progression of ideas.  Before 
I became a Christian, I could not see how a utilitarian view of 
knowledge could do other than lead to this entirely subjective way of 
thinking.  But like all the other roads of thinking I tried out, it 
ultimately lead to God.

> > But then, if my personal experiences cause me to come to the 
> > conclusion that God exists, and if this knowledge causes me to relate 
> > even better with the world around me, why is it then bad for me to 
> > rearrange my whole life around this set of experiences?
>
> If there is no such thing as knowledge, just a collection of subjective 
> impressions, then fine, go for it.  But I think there is a real world 
> around me.  I believe that my ideas can either align with what is really 
> there, or they can go badly off course.  The ideas I prefer to hold are 
> accurate ideas -- ones that correspond well with the real world around 
> me. I don't choose to believe what makes me feel good.
>
> I think that people have a natural tendency to believe in ghosts and 
> spirits.  Does that mean that we should believe in them?  Does it mean 
> that they really exist?  People also have a tendency to have 
> hallucinations.  Does that mean it is good or that the hallucinations 
> are real?  I don't think so.

But that is where I would say - how do you know which are real and which 
are not?

Your prior answers seem to be in terms of applying the scientific 
method.  But you really only describe the method as the collection of 
evidence, and seeing what fits, without going into details.  Since 
brainiacs like Popper seemed to think that this whole process was much 
less obvious than how you state it, I feel that I am justified in also 
thinking that the scientific process is not well defined.

I really don't think that you have thought through this issue very much.

(Probably my ideas on epistomology are not mainstream, but most people I 
know with a philosophical bent realise that it is not so easy as you 
make it out to be.  As I have said, I think that how we know what we 
know is ultimately not a precise set of rules that we follow, but rather 
are based on an inner sense of what epistomological processes are valid 
and which are not.)



Next, I also prefer to hold ideas which accurately expressed the world I 
am in.  As Jesus said, "The truth shall set you free."  My experience is 
that the more accurate information and understanding of the world around 
me that I have, the better and more fulfilling is my life.

I have worked hard during my years of life to try to discern what 
reality is and what it is not.  In coming to believe in the Christian 
God, I have used all my senses, and all my intellect, to come to that 
conclusion.

Stephen

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion