Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions
Message-ID: <4959@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 12:18:09 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4959
Posted: Mon Mar 11 12:18:09 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 10:01:53 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP>, <4932@cbscc.UUCP> <4933@cbscc.UUCP>, <1079@utastro.UUCP> <1080@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 66


A response to some of Padraig Houlahan's points:

}[In response to my analogy of the screwdriver:]
}
}This is just the argument from design in a clever guise. It is easy
}to cite the hammer and screw since we cannot remove from our minds
}knowledge of the existence of screwdrivers. Why not, instead, try
}to deduce the existence of bug-eyed-monsters in the Andromeda galaxy
}from the hammer and screw?

The analogy was not intended to provide evidence for the existence of
screwdrivers as analogous to the existence of God.  I was only meant
to show that, given a particular set of evidence, different 
conclusions are possible.  The feature of our not being able to remove
from our minds the existence of screwdrivers is significant.  It serves
as an example of a fact we already know to be true (i.e. screwdrivers
exist).  But, given that we had never seen a screwdriver, there is no
reason to infer from the evidence that one does exist.  The whole point
of the analogy is that argument from design doesn't work, even for
things that we already know exist (like screwdrivers)!  Of course it
can't be expected to work for the existence of God.  Yet Rich seems
to be demanding evidence of design ("hard evidence") that is conclusive
of God's existence.  I'm trying to tell him that it won't work,
that any evidence he could propose could be "scepticized".

}> The conflict and repression does not go away when you remove the existence
}> of God assumption.  It exists with or without it.  Anyone who is in a
}> position
}> of earthly authority will have the same temptations to repress (directly
}> or inderectly) opposing views whether they believe in God or not.  The
}> Soviet repression of challenges to Lamarckism and Trofim Lysenko's jealous
}> guarding of his "vernalization" technique (claimed to boost the Soviet
}> winter wheat crop) are good examples.  (See "Betrayers of the Truth" by
}> Broad and Wade, Ch. 10).
}> 
} 
}I agree with this. But when talking about repression of challanges,
}let's include the crusades, the inquisition, and
}let's not forget about the problems encountered when Geocentrism was
}first challanged.

I think Rich was implying examples like these in the paragraph to
which I was responding.  The point of my response was that this sort
of repression does not go away when "religious" motiviation for repression
is removed.  You are simply restating Rich's point with examples.

}> In any case the conflict works both ways.  Atheists are just as likely
}> to deny theistic claims in protest to the change in world view
}> it would require.  Why should I go along with your assumption that your
}> view of the universe is correct "based on the evidence".  As I said before,
}> evidence may support more than one conclusion.  Conclusions are not
}> inherent in evidence, they are subject to the interpretation of such
}> evidence.
}> 
}
}Being an Athiest I must agree with you here also. My biases make
}me say that the pot boils because it is on the stove, and that it will
}probably do so to-morrow if I so desire. :-)

What do your bias make you say about the nature of good and evil?  I would
agree with you that the pot boils because it's on the stove.  Did you think
I wouldn't?  :-)
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd