There is no paradox here. — aletheist
To state what a belief is, you have to put it into a sentence with a subject/predicate form. So whether or not beliefs are propositional, you have to say them in so they sound as if they're propositional. — Pneumenon
I think that we should believe in religious tolerance. What's your view? — frank
You can have "propositional content" in your mind without having any words to mean by it. You can have, as I phrase it, an "attitude toward an idea" (a picture in your mind held to be in a certain relation to the world), which is what a proposition is, without yet having words with which to communicate that to someone else. — Pfhorrest
...if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of 'object and designation' the object drops out of consideration as irrelevant.
If I say of myself that it is only from my own case that I know what the word "God" means - must I not say the same of other people too? And how can I generalize the one case so irresponsibly?
Now someone tells me that he knows what God is only from his own case! --Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a "God". No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he knows what a God is only by looking at his God. --Here it would be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box. One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. --But suppose the word "God" had a use in these people's language? --If so it would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box might even be empty. --No, one can 'divide through' by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is.
That is to say: if we construe the grammar of the expression of sensation on the model of 'object and designation' the object drops out of consideration as irrelevant.
This is a greedy reduction. The use of the word God isn't determined solely by its attachment to a private sensation; it's rather that when someone senses such a presence, it is attributed to God. Just like the word "tree"'s use isn't determined by "I see this tree" when functioning as a basic belief. — fdrake
It can be said that there is God. It can be said there is no God. Rainbows and Psyche likewise. And allowing for context, there need be no contradiction. — unenlightened
My contention is that what most people count as direct experiences with God are merely psychological. This is not to say that there can't be real experiences with God (if one exists), but only that it would be difficult to discern in most cases. — Sam26
If you're going to make any condition of use sufficient for basicality, if you change the use you change the criteria of basicality. — fdrake