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. :-> :->