Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions (part 2 of 2)
Message-ID: <649@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 10:51:28 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.649
Posted: Mon Mar 11 10:51:28 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 09:09:32 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP> <4898@cbscc.UUCP> <4899@cbscc.UUCP> <3878@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 35
Keywords: Occam, natural flow, objective

> 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. [TOREK]

Exactly.  (What?  Rosen agreeing with Torek?)  Faulty perceptive abilities
would have resulted in starvation/failure/death.  The more elaborate our
perceptive (AND interpretive) systems become, the more the interpretation
may be prone to error.  Our perceptive abilities, through our senses, would
seem to offer us a fair picture of reality.  (Will those who deny this
please step forward and explain 1) why they feel this way and 2) why they're
typing a terminal if they don't believe it.)  It is only when our more complex
brains engage in high-speed analysis (another reason we survived so well)
about very complex things (like the nature of the universe), rather than
rigorous analysis and acknowledgment that our interpretation may be based on
wishful thinking, that we see a problem.

> 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. :-> :->

Or:
When asked the question "WHY?"
The determinist says "BECAUSE".
The free-will advocate says "WHY NOT?"
And the chicken says "TO GET TO THE OTHER SIDE".
-- 
"It's a lot like life..."			 Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr