Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[donathos]

appolose said:

donathos said:

appolose said:

No problem.  But the question isn't answered by whether or not you have senses, or if you can sense; it's if they are trustworthy, or if they actually can communicate reality (at all).

 

 

Everything that our senses communicate is reality.  Our intellectual interpretations of the data from our senses might be faulty (e.g. a hallucination or a mirage) but the data itself is right; there are reasons for hallucinations and mirages, too, and our senses point to them.

 

 Which would do little to alleviate the problem, for now we can't know whether or not our interpretations of our sense data are correct.

 

Well, that's what we have. :)

I mean, our interpretations of sensory data are tested all the time--we see an apple, we go to pick it up and the sensations of touch agree with our sight, which we take as confirmation.

Now, it might all be hallucinatory, sure.  We ask others if they see and feel the apple, too, and they say "yes" and we take that for what it's worth. 

In real life, there are hallucinations.  But we come to know those because they fail our "confirmation" checks (sight versus touch, or others say "what apple?").  In other words, the potential shortcomings of the interpretation of sensory data is remedied by more sensory data.  We don't just throw it all out.

Might it all be a house of cards?  Perhaps.  But if it were, there'd never be any way for us to determine it (because all of the evidence we'd collect to "prove" that it was a house of cards would rely on other sensory data).

So, anyways, it is "reality" because really there is no other possible kind; all of our theories, conjectures, arguments, beliefs, etc., are all based on the validity of sensory data.  If we reject the senses, we're left with absolutely nothing, and certainly not this conversation.