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

[Final-Fan]

appolose said:

Final-Fan said:

appolose said:
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).

1.  You say that the Matrix theory is an interpretation of the evidence, but really it is just a fantasy that contradicts the evidence (while being compatible with it). 

"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."  But we're not picking arbitrarily IMO.  See the second paragraph of my above response to (1).  I do not see that you responded to it. 

And I have no idea what you mean by "auxiliary" -- where did that come from? 

2. I agree that consistency of belief does not mean correctness of belief.  But I'm getting to practicality here.  I do not see any practical alternative to accepting sense data as at least somewhat reliable.  ANY.  And once one gives the slightest credence to one's senses, the rest follows.  Because once you have evidence that you accept even partially, you can see whether your belief holds up to the evidence, especially whether your belief can predict future evidence accurately, etc. 

YOU have said that these IS an alternative to accepting sense data of any kind.  "judgments made on sensory data are not necessary and are avoidable"  Forgive me if I missed it, but I do not recall you ever specifying your strategy for such avoidance.  See my ABCD paragraph.

1. It does not contradict the evidence in that sense data can be interpreted any way you decide, so it can be supported by "evidence" (evidence being whatever you decide the sense data represents).  And we are picking what we think sense data represents arbitrarily (I thought that that word looked wrong), as there is no reason to think that what we've picked is correct (other than consistency. See 2).  For your second paragraph in your other post, A, B, and C are all interpretations of sense data already, so it doesn't make any sense to ask how we're going to go about in everyday life without making sense judgements when everyday life is a sense judgement in itself.  By auxiliary, I just meant the opposite of fundamental.

2.  My point was that there are a number (if not infinite) of beliefs that could be consistent, and that only inconsistency can demonstrate anything, like the falseness of a method of truth (e.g., "Flipping a coin ALWAYS yields truth" *Flips coin twice*, "Heads and tails.  Huh".)  Managing not to contradict yourself is not evidence, it merely shows a coherent method.

Avoiding a judgement on senses is fine, because your ABCD paragraph, as I noted above, was dependent on assuming empiricism anyways.  In other words make up a truth statemnt in your head that doesn't entail a "Because I saw this" or "I felt that", and that's how it can be done.

1. If you're now saying that the passage of time could also be an illusion, I think we're just about done with this.  It means you don't trust even your own mind, let alone the senses.  Even if all your memories are false, you still have memory.  More than that, if you deny (A) you deny that you exist at all, which takes contrarianism past the point of silliness.  I don't see how one's own existence (the bare fact, devoid of any particulars) can possibly be said to derive from sense data.  Even Descartes agrees. 

2. So your alternative to accepting the sensed world is to make up your own fantasy world, or have no world at all, correct?