Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions (part 2 of 2)
Message-ID: <3878@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 20:38:03 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.3878
Posted: Thu Mar  7 20:38:03 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 05:41:44 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <4898@cbscc.UUCP> <4899@cbscc.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 30
Keywords: Occam, natural flow, objective
Summary: Occam's Razor is out but no free license for assumptions


	My disposal of Occam's Razor was not intended as a denial
that the Occam fans are onto something about the need for evidence.
Paul Dubuc suggests that God is the best explanation of certain
metaphysical questions (and perhaps he would also include subjective
experiences as indicating God as explanation, too).  I think that
is an interesting suggestion, but there is only metaphysical question
I see him discussing, and it won't do the job.
	I have jotted down a few passages from his article and hope
I'm not taking them out of context.  Dubuc says 
	"perceptions ... are ... [in Rich Rosen's world-view] 
	'caused' in the natural flow ... But to be caused is not
	to be proven. ... Cause does not imply proof...
	...Objective judgements require some measure of transcendance
	over what is being judged ..."
The point seems to be that if Naturalism is[were] true, all our
perceptions and judgements about reality are *caused* -- sound
familiar?  It should, since C.S. Lewis tried to make a *reductio
ad absurdum* out of this point.  Lewis stated, and Dubuc is hinting,
that if our perceptions/judgements are caused then they can't be
trusted.  WRONG.  Cause does not imply proof, *but it doesn't rule
it out either*.  Yes, our perceptions are caused, but they are
accurate anyway (at least most of the time).  Furthermore, there is
a good Naturalistic explanation (based on the evolutionary advantage
of accurate perceivers) of this fact -- *of course* our perceptions
are mostly trustworthy: if not, we wouldn't have survived.
--
Agnostic: One who doesn't know, and admits it.
Atheist:  One who doesn't know, but won't admit it.  :->
Believer: One who doesn't know that he doesn't know. :-> :->