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

[appolose]

donathos said:

appolose said:

I'd love to say a simple yes to the but I always feel their some ambiguity to avoid.

No, no--I'll take accuracy over simplicity every time. :)

Although that third one you posed seems more clear on that than the others: "Sense data does not 'argue' for any particular interpretation". 

Clarifying further: Sense data is certainly knowledge but we can admit it comes in distinct separate little bits to us (various areas of colors, sounds, etc.) which we attempt to interpret to be, say, a whole object. As I also am able to confess an array of possible interpretations for any moment of sense data it follows to say that, yes, those bits of sense data don't 'argue' for any interpretation. They just... "stare me in the face" and leave me with all my equally possible interpretations.

We'll need a different method of truth if we want to know anything more about the world than the sense data received. Sense data doesn't offer anything more than itself (a blaze of colors and sounds with no inherent objects/relationships).

Okay.  If we grant all of that, then how do you propose we come to the specific interpretations that we do?  Also, why does there seem to be such wide agreement in basic interpretations?  (Examples like the "piano" pic you'd posted are crafted to ellicit specific interpretations; that craft suggests that the form is purposeful, don't you think?)

I'll understand if your feeling is that, you don't have to determine these things for your general skepticism to stand, but I'm still interested as to what you think about them, given your more fundamental position.

   I appreciate noting that the 'skepticism' would stand regardless of whether or not a solution was known. *phew* avoids a common complaint. You're a coherent fellow.

   As annoying as it may be, it must be pointed out that the belief that there is a wide agreement on basic interpretations is only an interpretation as well. It must be admitted that epistemology is taking place in... our head. Common sense, obviousness, and the like is in our head and epistemology isolates it, making all belief on the external world and it's nature equal.

   As for a method of truth... I'm afraid I must claim a seemingly fatuous method to the mind of most, but, to be fair, (if you believe some history on epistemology) a method that has also been acknowledged by equally 'great minds' in regards to epistemology as well. Merely that of revelation. It holds no process or application, only the reception of knowledge from that which imputes knowledge. And what I mean by that is, one is at the mercy of that which holds knowledge (although it may be called the act of presupposition from a certain perspective). Hate to sound all mystical. It just works as an answer to epistemology and the only one that doesn't hold a problem as far as I have understood.

   In short, how do we know? By receiving it from that which has knowledge. Any other belief, from anywhere, I don't give the same confidence (I 'step lightly').

   Although uniqueness isn't an indication of truth, I think this method of truth is unique to biblical christianity. Opponents share an attempt to reach truth "by the power of man" in rationalism, empiricism, or subjectivist doctrines (e.g. Atheism, Islam, Hinduism). All of which I find either contradictory or based on false statements exposed by recognizing possibilities in the mind.