On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Jon Johanning wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2004, at 4:10 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:
>
>> So what interests LW is how claims like "God exists" become
>> certain statements in specific forms of life. In contrast,
>> creating or refuting philosophical arguments about the
>> existence of God was in LW's view a ridiculous waste of time.
>
> I would agree, except that I think refuting God-existence "proofs" has a
> certain value in keeping one's mind on an even keel, as it were. If one came
> along that I had to accept as sound, I would have to do a rather radical
> re-thinking of my whole view of the world. So philosophical arguments keep
> you on your toes intellectually.
But one argument won't come along that contradicts your whole view of the world, because you would have to give up too many other certainties. That's another good point LW makes: a statement is certain because it is embedded in a totality of propositions that are taken as obvious and true. The aggregation of the statements you are certain about is a mutually reinforcing network. (Thus our tendency to doggedly stick to our ideas in the face of opposing arguments.) I'll blow a Wittgensteinian raspberry at at anybody who claims that philosophical debates about God or ontology do anything useful.
Miles