If only things with phenomenal consciousness can have beliefs, then the answer would have to be No.
I’m inclined to think that zombies don’t have ‘beliefs’ as such, but I could be wrong

So how does something with no phenomenal consciousness have beliefs?

But that can be reduted by displaying n consistent scheme, whereupon the way is clear to reject postmodernism for its inconsistencies.

Good luck with your seminar

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/04/jeff-g-on-trilemma.html

Certainaly thinkers busy in finding some moderate ways to save whole human endeavour of past.The loss of objectivity/rationality comes with the loss of all human efforts so far in direction of ‘Knowledge’.Future may turn in two direction only;leave the present goal and find some other or find some way to restore. Since subjective knowledge is no ‘knowledge’ we need some other way with same goal or will be left with no goal and end up with same anarchic intellectual world as sophists’ in Greek thought or charvak in Indian.

‘Author is dead’ leaving space for everybody to interpret differently but text was written by author with one interpretation only in mind. The world also have one standard interpretation, finding ‘how’ in another question. Possibility of ‘Giving’ many interpretations does not mean ‘having’ many interpretations.

Subjectivity can not be left since ’subject’ is there. Either we have to change the definition of objective knowledge or learn the way to ‘know’ without subject. Some hints in the direction can be traced out in ancient Indian thoughts (as much I know) but needed to be developed in contemporary context otherwise it will be accused as mysticism only.

I believe that John Searle did use himself in the example, so I guess it is better to just use him as an example in the example – so instead of having John and Searle, just John Searle himself.
[End of report]

Unfortunately, I am not near as adept as you at articulating these abstract concepts. Hopefully this post is clearer.

1) I looked up both words, faith and belief, and they are actually used as synonyms for each other. So, according to the dictionary, the central idea is the same. Again, here’s what I mean when I say the word faith: taking a position for which you do not have complete evidence. That’s all. Now, obviously, the word faith has very religious connotations; like most words, it can be used various ways. The definition I gave is the most general and is what I mean when I use the word.

2) We agree on this. I was referring to what is “less than certain” or “not deductive in nature.” And yes, I was referring to this as irrational. However, I do not agree that this is trivial. It is huge to be uncertain. If the foundations for what I believe, or have faith in, are uncertain, everything is uncertain. That is why I harp on the faith thing – it applies to all people and demonstrates how incomplete we are on our own. (This is not a hidden argument for God. You could apply this to our need for “relationship” with the universe, instead of God. Basically, if I did not create myself I am dependent on something – either matter or non-matter.)

Another thing I disagree with is the ease with which you state the following: “By rational, I simply mean obeying the rules of proper belief and argumentation.” Is it really that easy? Are all people rational? If so, why do we not agree? The definition of rational is easy to state – here, you and I completely agree – but I completely disagree with you in your implication that it is easy to apply rationality or agree on exactly what rationality looks like. What would “sufficiently justified” look like? This is very difficult.

My point? Faith really is somewhat irrational in the sense that it is less than certain. And, second, when it comes to “ultimate matters” (defined below), it can be difficult to say what is rational. (Although, it must be attempted.)

3) Refer to 2.

4) By ultimate matters I meant meaning, purpose, origin, destiny, the nature of truth, God, most metaphysical concepts – things like that. Of course you can deny that all those things exist. Loaded in the theists favor? I hadn’t thought of that. From my perspective, most of the above concepts apply to a theist and atheist equally. What do you think? I hope I am not being unfair to atheists in any of my comments.

5) What am I getting at? Nothing more than we are forced to faith, i.e. taking a position when we are less than certain. How is this different than the FSM argument? Easy. I am not claiming that this is any GOOD reason to believe in God (while Mrs. Garrison does). It’s not; it’s a terrible reason. It’s just one of many factors (i.e. faith) that enters a discussion such as ours.

6) Of all things, I thought for sure we’d be exactly on the same page as this one. I assumed everyone agreed on this point. Perhaps I was unclear in what I was saying. I am not talking about verifying ANY belief except one: the belief in the efficaciousness of reason. That can not be verified, right? How can I prove reason by reason? This is circular reasoning. The moment you start to argue is the moment you’ve assumed your mind is capable of “getting anywhere,” i.e. that it is actually trustworthy. This is unavoidable but key. So, we apply reason to ALL things. Except reason itself. Are you familiar with this argument? I assumed everyone knew. It is possible I am a terrible communicator and you thought I was talking about something else.

Yes, reason should be applied to God. If you see no reason for believing in Him, don’t believe in Him.

7) So, I can absolutely see what you’re saying here. I am not familiar enough with the “God’s existence” debate to respond with anything substantive here. Sorry. Perhaps you are right (about the burden of proof)! I am not sure.

What would constitute as “verifiable?” This is the key to both your argument and mine (in this point only).

Thanks for your thoughts! Sorry soooooooo long. I really enjoy hearing what you have to say since we come from two totally different ideas. You’re helping me think.

Regarding your other points – in which the problem was not just my lack of clarity – I will get back to those also.

Good thoughts! I really appreciate you taking the time to engage me. I’ll be back.

1) What faith means is that I have chosen to believe despite lacking full evidence.

I always get worried when people start dropping the “F bomb” (faith) because it can mean almost anything. If we are just talking about belief, then lets use that word instead. If you are talking about something more than that, then lets get the exact meaning nailed down. I suspect, though, that you simply mean belief

2) Faith must be seen for what it is – somewhat irrational.

Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “irrational.” If you simply mean “less than certain”, or “not deductive in nature” then I agree with you, but such a point seems rather trivial. One can be quite rational without being absolutely certain or being deductive in one’s logic. By rational, I simply mean obeying the rules of proper belief and argumentation. A belief is rational if one is sufficiently justified in believing it by reasons, evidence, pragmatic value, etc. To be irrational is to go against such things.

3) My further claim is that we live in a world that demands “somewhat irrational” positions.

Same thing as above. I don’t think that the world demands us to make irrational moves as I have defined the world, especially in cases where we get to take our time and evaluate a claim such as God’s existence.

4) all positions on ultimate matters are based on faith and reason.

I’m not sure what you mean by “ultimate matters”. It seems like this phrase is loaded in the theist’s favor. What, exactly, are the ultimate matters for an atheist? Whatever they are, they certainly seem to lend themselves to rational evaluation as I have defined it.

5) However, what is necessary to say is that it can’t be proved one way or the other.

I’m not sure what you are getting at in this part of your comment. It seems like a sentence accidentally got deleted or something perhaps? How is “it can’t be proved one way or the other” different in the case of God than it is in the case of the FSM?

6) I can not verify the reasonableness of my reason; no one can. I can not, and do not, verify most things in my life.

With this I must disagree. You may not be able to verify whether your belief is true or not, but you can certainly evaluate how reasonable your belief is. This is pretty much all we can ever do, and I see no reason why the belief in God is not on all fours with every other belief in this matter.

7) However, “burden of proof” seems dependent on one thing: knowing which side is least likely.

I don’t agree with this either. The burden of proof is simply the opposite of presumption. Presumption is simply being the default position. When it comes to existence claims we simply cannot give the affirmative side presumption, otherwise we would literally believe almost everything. This is what I take the FSM to illustrate: that all arguments aside, and I mean ALL arguments, we start off with a disbelief in the existence of everything. Now, from this point we can begin to consider arguments for or against the possible existence of something. Now I certainly allow that some argument for God’s existence might be good, I just haven’t heard it yet. Furthermore, I fully acknowledge that pragmatic arguments might work quite well for people other than me. Nevertheless, I see the burden of proof, which I take the theist to bear, as not having been met.

In a situation in which empirical evidence is, by definition, completely unreachable, no burden of proof can truly be established.

I’m not sure that this is really a path which you should want to take. Either God is relevant to this world or He is not. If He is, then should be make some empirical difference which should, in principle at least, be verifiable. If He is not, then why should I care about whether He exists or not? Perhaps you will appeal to the next life, but how do we know about the next life if not by way of God’s interacting with the world?

Shouldn’t this be “Searle”?

What are you studying? Some form of philosophy?

Good luck with your work!