= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
pangloss comments on The Sin of Underconfidence - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (176)
I don't think making a move towards logical positivism or adopting a verificationist criterion of meaning would count as a victory.
You don't have to do either of those things, I don't think. Have a look at the argument set out in George H Smith's "Atheism: the Case against God".
I didn't think that one had to. That is what your challenge to the theist sounded like. I think that religious language is coherent but false, just like phlogiston or caloric language.
Denying that the theist is even making an assertion, or that their language is coherent is a characteristic feature of positivism/verificationism, which is why I said that.
No, I think it extends beyond that - see eg No Logical Positivist I