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

[appolose]

Final-Fan said:

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:
1.  So you're arguing that those judgments aren't necessary because you might not actually have to eat, sleep or breathe because only sensory evidence says we need to?  If not, what are you saying?  Why, exactly, are the sense judgments avoidable?  How do you propose avoiding them in everyday life? 

2.  NO YOU COULD NOT SAY THE SAME.  51/49 is not equivalent consistency with 99/1.  And the coin would randomly be wrong more often than right as often as it would be right more often than wrong, so IMO that comparison is totally bankrupt. 

1.  Our sensory data doesn't say anything; it's what we make of it.  And when you ask how we can avoid them in everyday life, you're already assuming there is such experiences such as "everyday life", a concept created by our judgements.

2. You could, if you got lucky (lucky enough to have a higher consistency rate, like 60%).  Also , the constitency rate for empiricism is much less than 99% (dreaming every night ruins that by itself).  In any event, one could make up a method of truth that had 100% consistency ("Everything that I believe  to be true right now is true).  But consistency is not an argument.

1.  /facepalm Of course.  But you still need to accept the sensory data to interpret it.  And what other way is there to interpret the sensory data we get in any way that makes any kind of sense?  The only alternatives I see are (A) assume that you are just a bodiless mind dreaming the entire personally perceived universe; or (B) imagine some fantasy world that you can't sense but that really exists instead of the personally perceived universe and act accordingly.  Neither of these have evidence of ANY KIND to suggest any possibility they might be true, whereas our senses give plentiful if (apparently) questionable evidence for the universe. 

What I meant by "everyday life" is simply that (A) you are alive; (B) time has passed in your life; (C) time will continue to pass in your life; and therefore (D) you may need to make judgments on what requirements exist on how to continue to live.  The only way I see to make such judgments reliably is by trusting our senses at least somewhat.  Do you agree with A, B, and C?  Do you concede that D follows from these?  What alternative do you propose to the following conclusion? 

2.  I will concede that it could be technically possible to go through life flipping a coin a million times a day and have it give you answers as consistent as sensory data -- if you will concede that the probability of this happening is incredibly, fantastically unlikely -- like, we might be talking googolplex to one odds here. 

I almost never remember my dreams, even moments after waking.  So I guess I have more consistency than you do.  And consistency is an argument, but only if you accept the sense data.  (See (1) for if you don't.)

1. "...Our senses give plentiful if (apparently) questionable evidence for the universe".  In the sense that you mean, sure, they give plentiful evidence, and that is precisely the problem I'm presenting here.  You're sense data is evidence of many, if not an infinite, number of interpretations/judgements.  For example, what you're sensing right now is consistent with the belief (judgement) that your sitting in a room (or wherever you are), that you're having a very vivid dream, that you're in the Matrix, that you're in a room arranged to look where you think you are, that you're sitting at a particular angle in a very complex work of illusionary art, ad infinitum.  And this is the inevitable case for belief you have from start to finish (fundamental to "auxillary").  Thus, if every moment of sense data is consistent with a number of judgements, you're stuck to either pick a judgement arbiterarely or not pick anything at all.

2. Merely because you pick judgements of sense data that don't contradict each other (often) doesn't mean that any one judgement is true (as, again, there are a number of  judgement consistent with the sense data).  This is the real fundamental problem of the method of empiricism.  Heck, I could make a number of arbiterary assumptions right that would have 0 contradictions with each other (and so remaining "consistent", as you say).  Consistency among your beliefs does't mean any of them are right. 

 Pardon me if I've misunderstood something you've said (just in case).