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