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
Message-ID: <664@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 21:50:35 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.664
Posted: Mon Mar 11 21:50:35 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 22:48:11 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP>, <4932@cbscc.UUCP> <4933@cbscc.UUCP>, <1079@utastro.UUCP> <1080@utastro.UUCP> <4959@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Huxley College
Lines: 53

> 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. [PAUL DUBUC]

Since you are analyzing after the fact, since you are referring to a world
in which you know there are screwdrivers because they were invented (to be
used with screws), it is bogus to say that "It's reasonable to assume that
there are screwdrivers---and look!  There's one over there!  My analogy is
correct!"  To use that same analogy regarding something you have no reason
to believe to exist based on evidence (such as the combination hammer and
screwdriver in my previous article) shows the erroneousness of the analogy.

> 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".

When you assume a designer and a purpose the way one might choose to assume
a hammer/screwdriver (and that is exactly what is being done), you are
engaging in faulty reasoning.  Any evidence presented SHOULD be skepticized.
That is the reasonable course to take in analysis.  There is no hard reason
to assume that the universe has some purpose/intent/controlling will behind
it---in fact, the evidence thus far accumulated shows that the universe
simply "runs" in a sort of automatic mode without external (whatever that
means) control.  Assuming the existence of a "will" as part of the "natural
flow" is irrational and unwarranted.

}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. :-)  [PADRAIG HOULAHAN]

> 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]

(Quite frankly, yes.)  Why do these notions of good and evil keep cropping up,
when I thought we had all agreed that notions of good and evil are just
human-made words describing phenomena that are beneficial/detrimental to
the person/people saying the word(s)?   My "biases" say that its the usage
of the terms themselves that result in biases.  There is thus no intrinsic
"nature" to good and evil.  If all people can agree on what things are
detrimental to all (like starvation, slavery, deprivation, eroding of
personal freedoms), then we have a basis for a common definition of evil (and
potentially good as well---though I think personal good may be easier to
define than common good, as long as neither encroaches on those things labelled
as evil).  But this is not a set of absolute good/evil dichotomies.