Ben Goren wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > Richo wrote:
> >
> >> Belief makes a thing a god.
> >
> > It actually has to be "wor****ped as [representing/]
> > symbolizing..." and where we disagree is if the object itself
> > can really be called a god if that object does not really have
> > the attributes that someone attribute to it. To say "it's a god
> > if someone thinks it's a god" basically, IMHO, trivializes the
> > term "god" to the point of meaninglessness since anything can
> > then become a god as long as someone calls it such.
>
> Not at all! Context is everything.
>
> According to another definition of the word, the latest teen
> heartthrob is also a god -- and he probably doesn't have a fever,
> either. Just because the pants I wore today are black doesn't mean
> that they came from Africa.
But we would still agree that "those pants are black and these others
are blue." I.e. we still have objective meanings for the word "black" as
pertaining to the color of your pants and also a different but STILL
objective meaning for the word "black" as pertaining to someone's
nationality.
The British unit of currency does not
> mass just under a half kilo. And so on.
But you wouldn't look at a British pound and say "that's a tree" and me
look at it and say "that's love." We still have objective meanings for
the word, even if the word can mean two completely different things (a
unit of money or a unit of weight.)
>
> > Much like saying "a diamond is made of carbon" means we can
> > objectively look at something and say "that's a diamond" or
> > "that's cut glass." But saying "a god is simply anything someone
> > calls a 'god'" means we have no way to distinguish "is this
> > object a god or not?" without asking everyone in the world.
>
> First, that's not strictly true. Once you find a single
> affirmative reply, you can stop the search. It's only if you're
> attempting to prove a negative that your search in this case must
> be exhaustive.
Yes, if X is not a god, according to the definition you want to use,
we'd have to ask everyone in the world "is X a god?" (and even then
someone might think it is but not tell you.) But to tell if this rock is
a diamond or not, I'd simply have to test it and wouldn't have to ask
anyone at all. Words should have some objectivity to them and the
definition of "god" that you're using has none. Can you think of ANY
other word that has absolutely no objectivity to the definition? Even
something like "love" or "anger" can still be demonstrated to an extent
and we can agree, to an extent, that John is demonstrating sadness or
excitement.
> But, more to the point -- it's true of so many other words we
> freely use in exactly the same way, as well! Does the fact that
> the only way to know if somebody is a ``sweetheart'' is to keep
> asking people until you get an affirmative answer in any way
> diminish the usefulness of the term?
Even then we still have an objective idea of what a sweetheart is
("someone to which another person is endeared in a loving way") and we
can observe how the people interact to see if the term "sweetheart" was
really applicable (if John said "Jane is my sweetheart" but then he
beats her, I'd say he's using the word in the wrong way.) The definition
of "god" that you want to use basically amounts to "does someone call it
'a god'?"
>
> >> Being a god is entirely a matter of belief.
> >>
> >> There is no concievable physical test for "godness" (divinity).
> >
> > That's the point: by using the above definitions, we get to the
> > point of where "god" is a meaningless phrase.
>
> It's exactly as meaningless as ``sweetheart,'' ``worst enemy,''
> ``lovable hunk,'' and countless more.
>
> Cheers,
>
> b&
>
|
