Thursday, December 30, 2010
A God for the Godless
Something like the belief that the universe is not just susceptible of consequential description but also has -- and even somehow indicates, at least to certain especially lucky people -- preferences in the matter of how it is described, has long seemed to me to be the vestigial trace of infantile religiosity sometimes to be found among the otherwise most intransigently atheistical materialists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You talking about the preference for the sacred over the profane, or some other tholaw preference?
> [T]he belief that the universe. . . has. . . preferences in
> the matter of how it is described. . . [is the last] vestigial trace
> of infantile religiosity. . . among the otherwise
> most intransigently atheistical. . .
Is the universe relatively absolute, or absolutely relative? -- that
is the question. Meanwhile, have another beer.
I find congenial James' definition of truth as the good in the way of belief, provided the definition allows there are a plurality of goods (scientific, moral, aesthetic, ethical, political, and no doubt others besides) true belief facilitates. That the world is susceptible of consequential attention, description, and belief seems to me beyond sensible question, but such concession provides little solace that I can see to the ones who pine for certainty, final solutions, unanimity, or perfect control. I can't say that either absolutism or relativism appeal to me, when it comes to it, although I can see sense in both to a point. I do like beer, but I prefer Cointreau.
> I do like beer, but I prefer Cointreau.
Oh, well, so do I, when it comes down to it! In fact, I have to admit, I've
never learned to like beer. Call me infantile, but there it is.
Post a Comment