[lbo-talk] Appeal to Ignorance

[snitsnat]

i don't know what shane means, but can you know yourself without other 
humans knowing you? that is, does jeffrey know who jeffrey is in isolation? 
*wink*  so, whether shane intended it or not, it was a good test of our 
capacity to really believe we're social beings. after all, we can't really 
escape anthropomorphisism here. when we talk about god, we talk about 
ourself. what else do we know?

of course, you could also counter that god doesn't operate as we do, but.....

still, i like it. i like it. durkheim would want to give shane a hummer for 
that one! i'd give shane one, too, but i don't think i'm his type! HA!

At 05:42 PM 6/18/2005, Jeffrey Fisher wrote:


> >
> > I would point to a different syllogism:
> >
> > 1.  God=unknowable
> > 2.  What is unknowable must also be unknown.
> > 3.  God totally lacks self-knowledge.
> >
> > Thus "God" stands lower on the scale of consciousness than
> > the most humble paramecium.
>
>this seems to rest on an ambiguity in the term "unknowable". certainly
>we cannot claim that god is unknowable in some absolute sense, but
>only relative to our own ability to know anything (and here we mean
>ability in the absolute sense . . . that is, that no training or
>technololgy will result in that ability). so god = unknowable really
>means, god is categorically unknowable *by us*. if we can't know god,
>how can we possibly know *about god* that god can't know god's self?
>
>
>
>--
>Among medieval and modern philosophers, anxious to establish
>the religious significance of God, an unfortunate habit has prevailed
>of paying to Him metaphysical compliments.
>   - Alfred North Whitehead
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."

                        -- rwmartin