@ Kasz: But IIRC he was very closely associated with that Thule Society weirdo crap. In any case I think it's pretty unlikely he was atheist. More likely he had his own weird ideas. I heard in Mein Kampf he talked about Aryans being created specially by God, while everyone else (or just Jews?) evolved from apes.

I disagree.  Mostly because I don't think there has ever been an Atheist head of state... until possible very recently in some very very small very liberal country like Iceland or something.

Mein Kampf was just another political play and his message to the people.   I mean the US has had one or two atheist presidents.... but if you asked them.  They would say they were christian or would dodge it. 

Hell Abe Lincoln learend to cover up the fact that he was a Deist even though a lot of presidents were... including are first.  A good sign to find an atheist US president.  Find one who in the early days went to church... but irregularly and different denominations.  As far as i can tell there are something like 4 presidents who were probably atheist.

The Thule society while it was started as an occultist society was in fact a politcal orginzation.  I believe it actually became the Nazi party.

Similar to for example... the Skull and Bones or Masons or whatever.

These orginzations are more about political clout, and goofing off more then any sort of actual belief in it.  You join for the connections.

Hitler basically was the world's most "successful" cult leader.

So it basically depends on what you think about Cult Leaders.  Whether

A) They are crazy people who believe they are predestined to be the messiah or some such, and through charm gather a cult following.

B) They are con men, who say they are predestined to be the messiah or some such, to get together a bunch of people to amass political and monetary power.

I tend to believe B is more often the case then A.  Hitler seems to be a clear cut B with as much as he was willing to throw in a bit of everything just so long it helped him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Private_statements

"The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." - Goebbels, private diary, 1939

So you are right that he wore a face at odds with his actual beliefs, but I don't think we can take that so far as to say he was even likely atheist.

I bet Obama is an atheist. He just can't say it, or he wouldn't be elected. Same justa bout everywhere. Many intelligent people who's power depends on public opinion pretend to be religious, while really being atheist, or somewhere in between.

Careful now, that is dangerous ground. To say what ANYONE else believes (or doesn't believe) is faulty. While I can say that politically Obama and I have little to no common ground, I don't know his personal beliefs. Something I DO know, Obama's pastor, Wright, would be no pastor of mine.

^ ex-pastor, right?

^says who.

Hmm... I don't want to bog us down too much into language if there's not a compelling reason to do so--and I'm not 100% sure that I understand what you're suggesting here--but doesn't it seem, at least, that people acquire language through a process of education?  Like a Hooked on Phonics, or the Spanish classes I took in high school, or some such?

Now, perhaps this wouldn't eliminate the possibility of God's playing a role in the acquisition of language.  Maybe the earth's orbiting the sun, too, has God's hand in it; perhaps God plays a part in all "natural processes"...

But, unless we have some evidence for a phenomenon not explainable without God's intervention (e.g. a child knows a language that he's never been in a position to learn by normally understood means)... then wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that there's no good reason to add God to our explanation, if God isn't needed?

Now, Occam's Razor is an epistemological tool, not a metaphysical one--even if we dismiss God from our explanation of language acquisition, that doesn't mean that God doesn't actually play a role.  It just means that we don't have any good reason for suspecting that God does play a role.

Unless you do have a good reason for believing that language comes directly from God?

Er, besides all this, I can't help but feel that we've really gotten off track somehow.  I think that originally you were questioning the validity of sensory data... but here, really what it seems to me is that you're not attacking the five senses, per se, but suggesting a sixth (superior?) means of getting information--direct data from God, as it were.

I'm doing my best to get what you're saying, I swear, so please help me out if I'm still off-base. :)

Both.

I'm saying that the meanings that we ascribe to words are based on how we interpret (judgements) the information that we've gathered in the world (sensory data).

The concept of "cat" (to refer back to my earlier example) is based on judgements we make about the hard sensory data we've recieved--what we've seen, heard, and touched (and maybe smelled, but hopefully not tasted).

It's true that we can make errors!  Maybe, initially, a person doesn't differentiate properly between a cat and a dog and calls them all cat--maybe a young child thinks that everything on four legs is a cat.

But just because we can make errors, I don't believe that all of these judgements are arbitrary or "cannot be trusted."  I think that there is good reason to interpret our sense data in some particular ways.  Where cats are concerned, I suspect that people in different cultures, at different places, at different times will all have developed a concept for the cat (though, of course, the linguistic symbol would be different in each case); they all will have separated out cats from dogs.

No, I don't think so.  I admit to errors, but I don't think that these errors destroy empiricism.  Instead, we test the judgements that we make, and then witness results, and refine our judgements accordingly.  This is different from making unfounded assumptions about one's own correctness.

If I see a thing and judge that it is a physical object that I can hold, and move to pick it up, this constitutes a form of a test.  My picking it up leads me to believe that my prior judgement was correct.  If, however, I'm unable to pick it up, I have to revise my initial judgement.

I believe that the theist's mindset, however, is often to discount the necessity of testing one's judgements or the need to revise initial judgements should tests go awry.  In fact, I rather believe "faith" to be a specific declaration that a particular judgement stands independent of evidence, and will not be changed even should any tests show that it ought to be changed.

***

Yeesh.  I'm no philosopher, and we're in some fairly deep verbiage here! :)  I don't want my attempts to get specific to dull what I'd like to say overall, which is:

I believe that we ought to believe according to the best evidence.  That evidence (the possibility of the sixth/God-sense notwithstanding) comes from our senses--we make judgements based on primary (axiomatic) sensory data, and any of those judgements may be errant, but those errors can be challenged and corrected.

And that is the entire point!  If there's an error, we try to determine what it is and address it.  While we have what we feel to be the best evidence, we're always open to better.  If God exists--if atheism is an "errant judgement"--then I hope to learn the fact, but it will have to be based on evidence, either new sensory data, or a better way of interpreting that data that I already have.

But it is a bad argument for God to say that we cannot trust our senses, or cannot trust our judgement, so an arbitrary belief in God is just as good (or, actually, bad) as any other.  Right now, I feel it makes much more sense (if you will) to believe in cats than it does to believe in God.  But if you have evidence to the contrary (actual evidence, not just a general skepticism), I would love to hear it.

You simply don't have to; sure, one can argue that you'll suffer for that (which can't be known), or simply doesn't have to do anything at all.  Further still, one can pick something other than empiricism.

2nd part; empiricism doesn't produce the same answer consistently; you've probably made mistakes in what you thought you've perceived before.  Although you could say that you assume empiricism generally provides correct answers, but you could say the same for the coin (as it probably won't be exactly 50/50).  And yes, you would have to assume, at least, that you could sense the coin, but that's all the empiricism you'd have to assume.  Alternatively, you could assume "Everything I currently think is true" or "Every 5th statement I make is true"  and so forth (and you could add the word "generally" to each of those), and these two have nothing to do with sense data.

For your last part; While I do not think it would qualify as sense, you're right when you say non-sensory input isn't more likely to be true than sensory input; however, my point was to show that there was an alternative, and, as such, the the first option wasn't inevitable.

appolose said: Final-Fan said: Perhaps my question should have been:  why do you think that "judgments made on sensory data are not necessary and are avoidable"?  I just don't see how that's true at all, at least when you're talking about a judgment as basic as "the universe is at least vaguely similar in actuality to how I perceive it".  Also, to respond to the part I reinserted into the above quote: Not a better idea than anything else?  I presume this is connected to the statements you made which are substantially the same as "flipping a coin to decide what is true is just as good and likely to be true as empiricism".  But that's not true at all!  The most obvious thing that comes to mind for me is that flipping a coin will not produce the same answer to the same question consistently, which empiricism will.  This leaves alone the question of how you'd even flip the coin, let alone tell the result, without empiricism.    Again, if you don't trust your senses at all, I don't see how that leaves you with anything more than cogito ergo sum.  Secondly, I don't think that the possibility you mentioned is a valid counterpoint.  Any sort of input into your mind could IMO be considered to be "sensed" and even if that's not the case, non-sensory input isn't inherently any more likely to be true than sensory input. You simply don't have to; sure, one can argue that you'll suffer for that (which can't be known), or simply doesn't have to do anything at all.  Further still, one can pick something other than empiricism. 2nd part; empiricism doesn't produce the same answer consistently; you've probably made mistakes in what you thought you've perceived before.  Although you could say that you assume empiricism generally provides correct answers, but you could say the same for the coin (as it probably won't be exactly 50/50).  And yes, you would have to assume, at least, that you could sense the coin, but that's all the empiricism you'd have to assume.  Alternatively, you could assume "Everything I currently think is true" or "Every 5th statement I make is true"  and so forth (and you could add the word "generally" to each of those), and these two have nothing to do with sense data. For your last part; While I do not think it would qualify as sense, you're right when you say non-sensory input isn't more likely to be true than sensory input; however, my point was to show that there was an alternative, and, as such, the the first option wasn't inevitable.

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. 

3.  Fair enough, as long as you remember you're speaking hypothetically.