tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148952300031935997.post2086683478149231440..comments2023-10-09T12:05:52.247-06:00Comments on LifeSmart : The Intersubjective Worlds of Science and ReligionAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09718138217801350798noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148952300031935997.post-73454666348920185102009-03-03T10:21:00.000-07:002009-03-03T10:21:00.000-07:00I can agree with you there. But I do think Wallace...I can agree with you there. But I do think Wallace's points are (typically of his style) a little more complex than that. <BR/><BR/>His approach may be pragmatic, similar to James', in that he considers 'subjective truths' to be true in so far as they work for subjective aims (interpretation), and 'objective truths' to be true only in so far as they deal with objective claims - and, as James saidMichael-https://www.blogger.com/profile/17137291506357159071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-148952300031935997.post-5125615816863297312009-03-02T17:36:00.000-07:002009-03-02T17:36:00.000-07:00Just from what's posted here, it seems like he's s...Just from what's posted here, it seems like he's simply saying what pragmatists like William James have been saying about science and religion for over a century now: "truth" is just praise we give to ideas that seem to work where we need them to work.James M. Jensen IIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17424548803826283101noreply@blogger.com