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

[appolose]

donathos said:

appolose said:

"I'd also say that you can't question judgements on sensory data without making them.  It is via sensory data that we are aware that there is such a category".

For one thing, this is already false; our judgements of sense data must be questionable because we know they sometimes are wrong (dreams, hallucinations).

What is a "dream" or a "hallucination"?  (Those sound suspiciously like things that would only have meaning if we make judgements based on sense data...)  Isn't saying that our judgements in those cases are wrong an assumption?  How do you know that they are "wrong"?

The distinction here is that definition and logic are apart from sense data judgement, so it can be questioned with logic.

You're making an assertion, that definition and logic are apart from sense data judgement.  But I'm asking you how do you know that they are apart?  And also, why do you assume that such judgements are different in character from the decisions you make based on logic or definition?

Actually, what do you mean by "sense data judgement"?

I wish I could do your quotebox thing.

It's possible that you can.  I suggest you try again.

While composing your reply, hover your cursor around the line of the text box.  At some places on or around the line, it will turn into a four-directional arrow, kind of like a compass rose.  When you see that, click on the text box (you'll know you've done that when you see little open boxes appear along the line of the box) and then copy it (Ctrl-C).  Then, you'll be able to paste (Ctrl-V) the text box into the body of your response whenever you need it.

Or at least, that's how it works for me.

'"What is a "dream" or a "hallucination"?  (Those sound suspiciously like things that would only have meaning if we make judgements based on sense data...)  Isn't saying that our judgements in those cases are wrong an assumption?  How do you know that they are "wrong"?"'

I'm not saying the dreams are right or wrong, just that they contradict our other judgements (when we wake up, we think "Oh, that wasn't real", so we question our own judgements occasionally.  I since we do question them, that means we can question them).

"You're making an assertion, that definition and logic are apart from sense data judgement.  But I'm asking you how do you know that they are apart?  And also, why do you assume that such judgements are different in character from the decisions you make based on logic or definition?

Actually, what do you mean by "sense data judgement"?

Because, by definition, they are apart.  Reality you can question (because it's not self-defeating), whereas logic and definition you cannot (because that would be self defeating (how do you question meaning without using it?)).  I do not assume they are different in charactr, because meaning is immutable, whereas our thoughts concerning reality are certainly not (even apart from my own objections; you, I will guess, have changed your mind about something in reality at least once, right?).  And, by sense data judgement, I mean that deciding certain object exists based upon certain sense data, a decision that arbitrary (and perhaps I should clarify here: I do not mean deciding that the sense data exclusively represents the object you've assumed exists, because it can represent anything).

It's possible that you can.  I suggest you try again.

While composing your reply, hover your cursor around the line of the text box.  At some places on or around the line, it will turn into a four-directional arrow, kind of like a compass rose.  When you see that, click on the text box (you'll know you've done that when you see little open boxes appear along the line of the box) and then copy it (Ctrl-C).  Then, you'll be able to paste (Ctrl-V) the text box into the body of your response whenever you need it.

Or at least, that's how it works for me.

OK, why did that just start working?  I tried what you suggested before this, and it failed.  Weird.

Do you see the part that Sqrl said that you really disagree with?  IMO, this is it:

(logic being a result of our experience with our sensory input)

In my opinion, logic, language, the whole kit-and-caboodle (whatever the hell that means) is "a result of our experience with our sensory input."  Which is why I find your skepticism to be self-contradictory.

And also, that's why I think it really does matter where you think your logic and language come from.  If not from sensory input, then what?

 

I disagree; language does not have to be a result of sensory data (a "god" could have put it there, again), and logic must work (otherwise, we'd both be right in this argument ;)  ).   And it doesn't matter if it came from anything; they're systems that have to work and be true.