So if what we're referring to by "futile" is that something is in the eye of the beholder, utility is as futile as evidence.

No. That word game doesn't work. It is the DEBATE based on ' evidence '
which is futile. There is no debate about 'utility' except where the social implications of theism might be imposed on others.

Correct Frank! We know when to use it , but nothing can be said about it except for its social signification as to agreement about ' what is the case '.

'Delusions' are defined primarily by social consensus regarding 'inappropriate behavior'. The fact that what we call 'brain functioning' may be correlated with this is a more recent view which has tended to replace 'spiritual possession'. — fresco

No, delusions are irrational beliefs, not behaviors.

Correct Frank! We know when to use it , but nothing can be said about it except for its social signification as to agreement about ' what is the case '. — fresco

You seem to be saying that P is true IFF there is social agreement about P.

Not sure about that, but are you contradicting yourself accidently? Or does your view on relativity allow you to do that on purpose?

No. That word game doesn't work. It is the DEBATE based on ' evidence'
which is futile. — fresco

Dont you need evidence that the debate on evidence it futile? What reasons do you have to say that the debate is futile and wouldnt you be using your reasons as evidence?

If the debate is futile then why are you even on a philosophy forum debating it? Those of us that believe the debate to not be futile are at least being consistent in debating it. You arent. If I thought a debate was futile, then I would have abandonded the discussion, but you dont seem to believe your own words based on your behavior, so why should we believe you?

Sorry Harry, I don't do words chasing words round infinite regresses.
The short answer to your question is 'no' I don't..

No. That word game doesn't work. It is the DEBATE based on ' evidence '
which is futile. There is no debate about 'utility' except where the social implications of theism might be imposed on others. — fresco

Hence why I asked you to give the reason that you're using the word "futile." If the reason isn't that evidence is in the eye of the beholder, then don't say that that's the reason.

People do debate utility, and debating utility was the example I presented. So why isn't utility futile if debating something (that's in the eye of the beholder) makes something futile?

The reason for the futility of the 'evidence for God' debate, is that The 'properties of God' remain disputed, even amongst believers, hence the choice of 'evidence' is arbitrary.
The 'utility of belief in God' need not be a futile debate if its minimal psychological function (as a palliative) is contrasted with its potentially pernicious social consequences. But that debate is anathema to 'believers' and therefore tends to be hypothetical. In short, the 'utility debate' rarely happens

Sorry Harry, I don't do words chasing words round infinite regresses — fresco

Im not asking you to chase words. I'm asking you to be consistent. You arent. Any infinite regress is one of your own making. I'm basically asking you how you resolve the regress your own claims make. But what would one expect from someone who thinks that evidence is in the eye of the beholder?

I don't need 'evidence' to identify that arguments about 'evidence for God' are futile, anymore than I need 'evidence' for the futility of the claim that there is 'evidence for the beauty of the Mona Lisa'. i.e. The context of 'evidential' claims is one of agreed observational criteria.
Your demand for 'consistency' appears to be semantically vacuous.

The reason for the futility of the 'evidence for God' debate, is that The 'properties of God' remain disputed, even amongst believers, hence the choice of 'evidence' is arbitrary. — fresco

Which is no different than saying there is no evidence.

No. It means that subgroups of 'believers' have there own parochial observational criteria including, for example, 'the complexity of the life process'. Atheists might agree on that 'complexity' observation but consider it as 'evidence' for some yet to be discovered 'other natural process'.

In short, the 'utility debate' rarely happens — fresco

Does that really refer to anything besides you not observing it very often?

I'll throw that one back at you. How often have you come across debate about 'the utility of theism' ?
Other than Marx's 'opium of the masses' or Putin's manipulative promotion of the Orthodox Church, I don't seem to have encountered the 'utility' issue.

I don't need 'evidence' to identify that arguments about 'evidence for God' are futile, anymore than I need 'evidence' for the futility of the claim that there is 'evidence for the beauty of the Mona Lisa'. i.e. The context of 'evidential' claims is one of agreed observational criteria.
Your demand for 'consistency' appears to be semantically vacuous. — fresco

Then why do you believe that the arguments about 'evidence for God' are futile? Why would you not believe that the arguments about the 'evidence for God' are not futile? Any reason you give for your belief is evidence for your belief. Whether it is good evidence - evidence that integrates well with the rest of what we know and how we use language - is a different story.

No. It means that subgroups of 'believers' have there own parochial observational criteria including, for example, 'the complexity of the life process'. Atheists might agree on that 'complexity' observation but consider it as 'evidence' for some yet to be discovered 'other natural process'. — fresco

It's not the complexity of the life process, it is the imperfect design of organisms, the extinction of 99% of life that has existed, and the vast areas of existence that are devoid of life that is evidence that existence was not intentionally designed with life in mind. If the properties of God are so difficult to agree on by believers, then how do the believers know that they aren't simply talking past each other? There could be many "gods". God could just as well be defined as an extradimensional alien. Is it the terms that we are disagreeing on, or are we simply talking past each other?

I think you are talking past yourself !:smile:
The continuing cacophony of views that you have reported about complexity should be sufficent 'evidence of futility' for you !

I'll throw that one back at you. How often have you come across debate about 'the utility of theism' ? — fresco

I'm not making any general claim about the frequency of one over the other. You are.

That's right...on the basis that 'existence is relative' is an usual or counter intuitive assertion.

That's right...on the basis that 'existence is relative' is an usual or counter intuitive assertion. — fresco

Huh?

.....because 'evidence for existence of God' is taken to be the primary issue for debaters, not 'utility of belief'. I have characterized the primary debate to be futile on the basis of the relativity of 'existence' but preoccupation wilth it tends to exclude the second.

Here is a Rorty link giving a backcxloth to my assertion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3enH7ntOAM

Your comment didn't make any sense to me in context. (In other words, "Huh?" )

Sorry if I triggered the reply button inadvertantly.

Heckling is boring don't you think !

I suggest that anybody actually interested in my position should listen to the Rorty clip before further comment.

I suggest that anybody actually interested in my position should listen to the Rorty clip before further comment. — fresco

You could have just gone, "I'm a Rorty fan. Let's casually discuss some of his ideas. Go!" That might have worked better.

Are you saying that my assertion about 'existence' is not supported by Rorty ?

The problem, as I see it, is that we cannot disentangle ontology and epistemology. All ontological claims are grounded in some particular epistemology, but all epistemology is grounded in ontology. Ontology in the former sense refers to what we say (logue) regarding what is (ontos), and in the later sense to what is. In other words, without something there would be nothing to say and, of course, no one to say it, but what we say is not what is, it reflects our current knowledge and understanding regarding what is.

The claim that there are :

... only consistent human 'interactions' with an aspect of the world ... — fresco

asserts that there are humans, a world, aspects of that world, and interactions between humans and aspects of the world. They could not interact if they did not in some way exist.

The question then is what are they? The answer is, we do not know. Whether an electron is a "thing" or "object" that exists independent of us is an epistemological question. How one answers the epistemological question determines the ontology, in the sense of what we say, of the electron.

Is the question of the ontology of an electron the same or different than the question of the ontology of, say, the moon? Is the interactions between humans and aspects of the world of the same kind or different in the case of electrons and the moon? Would the moon exist without some form of interaction with humans? Is the aspect of the world of the same kind in the case of the moon and an electron?

The problem, as I see it, is that what we call 'dead insects' do not 'exist' for starving frogs because their mode of interaction is not attuned to dead insects. And are we not just bigger and cleverer frogs that use transducers to assist the focus of our selective interactions ? And is not the range of our focus only limited by our lifespans, before and after which what we call 'the moon' had or will have no meaning.
And who knows whether 'the thing' we call 'the moon' will not in the future be deemed to be some minor manifestation of a larger 'unit' considered in multidimensional space. (Historical Ref: The Morning Star was found to be identical with The Evening Star')
So does not all this imply that 'existence' is relative not absolute unless we adopt a metaphysical, eternal
'God's Eye' view, in which 'thinghood' gives way to fluxless holism ?




.

The problem, as I see it, is that what we call 'dead insects' do not 'exist' for starving frogs because their mode of interaction is not attuned to dead insects. — fresco

I don't believe there's any way to know what frogs aren't aware of.

I did not use the anthropomorhic word 'aware', you did. The empirical 'evidence' is that the frogs starve to death surrounded by a potential food source. And who knows what 'dead flies' humans may be 'missing' ?