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

[appolose]

donathos said:

appolose said:

That was just one method that needed that assumption to work; that does not imply a universal need for it (nor does it somehow mean we have to grant all sensory data the assumption).  Another method would simply be "Anything that I currently think is true is true".

 And how do you know our language/meaning comes from sensory data (as opposed to other possibilites)? Also, you say that we get all our language/meanings from sensation, and as you mentioned we can make incorrect judgements about reality, so I must ask your method for determining which of your judgements are true or false.

I don't really see why I would need to answer such a battery of questions in order to defend the proposition that sensory data is valid.

You're responding to an argument that I've made that, presumably, you've read; in doing so you relied on your sight.  Your answer was formed by typing, relying on your touch.  In short, by having this conversation with me, I believe you're making a thousand micro-decisions that are all based on this: at heart, you trust your senses.

More than that, I presume you live your life accordingly.  I don't expect that anyone who took seriously any idea like "anything that I currently think is true is true" would survive very long on planet earth; reality would disabuse them of that notion swiftly and brutally.  If you drive, you likely pay great heed to your senses.  When you talk to people, you hear them and act accordingly.  When you eat, if something tastes rotten, maybe you spit it out.

So, I feel like you're asking me to prove something that should be readily apparent and impossible to ignore.

I suspect that ultimately you want me in the following position: all of my "evidence" for believing in the senses is based on sensory evidence, so therefore it's circular, or fails according to Godel, or something like that.

But really, I find sensory data to be axiomatic, and my "proof" for that is that any attempt to "disprove" sensory data will necessarily rely on sensory data, even if you proclaim that it isn't so.  (Like I've said, in "proclaiming" anything, you're using language--and if you've ever observed teaching, or if you've ever been taught anything, then you'll know that teachers and students rely on their senses.  That's why Helen Keller had such a rough go at it, at first.)

Beyond that, I find this sort of discussion as pertinent as Zeno's paradoxes; it's perhaps entertaining to discuss Achilles and the Tortoise, but the question of "does motion exist?" doesn't actually need much asking.

Sorry about that; I don't mean to sound overly on the offense.

For your first paragraphs;

Yes, I do assume all those things.  I, personally, trust my senses.  But that's just because I do, not that it's a necessity or anything like that.  I never said you couldn't assume, just that it's an assumption on the level of any other assumption. Furthermore, all the consequences you've listed for not assuming empiricism are all derived from empiricism again, which still, even if these consequences are going to happen, has nothing to do with truth or assumption.

For your next paragraphs;

I do agree with you that sensation is an axiom (an unavoidable one at that); the difference here is the judgements  we make from our sensations are not necessary, and not a better idea than anything else.  Furthermore, I still disagree with you on the idea that meaning and sense data are inseperable, as I gave the possibility of there being an outside source that simply drops meanings into your mind.

For your last line; that would be a correct assessment if your position is true. If mine is true (that judgements made on sensory data are not necessary and are avoidable), then that has massive ramifications.