Trusting one's senses
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-06-2016, 03:39 PM
Trusting one's senses
Here is part of a reply I received from my brother-in-law regarding the topic of reliability of trusting one's senses. This is continuum to my original (and first ever) forum post. I borrowed the helpful thoughts of You people on that thread to reply his original question, which can be read here: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...the-action

These are parts of his new claims I just received (translated from Finnish):
"You are ultimately unable to prove that your senses provide you with findings about the reality. You can, of course, make empirical findings outside of yourself and study the causal relationships of things. Still, it isn't an absolute proof that your senses are forwarding reliable information. The same way that I cannot in absolute terms show, that bible is god's revelation to people.

----

Both Christians and naturalists may of course practice scientific methods researching and studying the surrounding reality. I would argue, though, that from a christian perspective this is more plausible.

----

I would argue that god has given answers to questions that scientific methods - or pure naturalism - cannot, such as:

1) What is morally right or wrong?
2) Why are there universal laws of logic in the world?"


Because of my lack of philosophical intelligence I am not sure what to think about the first two chapters. How should I approach his claims about not being able to trust my senses without god's existence? Regarding questions 1) and 2) I'm thinking I should ask him to give answers himself before giving any thought about my view on them.

Thanks for your thoughts in advance!

"Smart people are good at reconciling what they believe in with what reality tells them." - Not Hodor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-06-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: Trusting one's senses
(08-06-2016 03:39 PM)packmax Wrote:  Here is part of a reply I received from my brother-in-law regarding the topic of reliability of trusting one's senses. This is continuum to my original (and first ever) forum post. I borrowed the helpful thoughts of You people on that thread to reply his original question, which can be read here: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...the-action

These are parts of his new claims I just received (translated from Finnish):
"You are ultimately unable to prove that your senses provide you with findings about the reality. You can, of course, make empirical findings outside of yourself and study the causal relationships of things. Still, it isn't an absolute proof that your senses are forwarding reliable information. The same way that I cannot in absolute terms show, that bible is god's revelation to people.

----

Both Christians and naturalists may of course practice scientific methods researching and studying the surrounding reality. I would argue, though, that from a christian perspective this is more plausible.

----

I would argue that god has given answers to questions that scientific methods - or pure naturalism - cannot, such as:

1) What is morally right or wrong?
2) Why are there universal laws of logic in the world?"


Because of my lack of philosophical intelligence I am not sure what to think about the first two chapters. How should I approach his claims about not being able to trust my senses without god's existence? Regarding questions 1) and 2) I'm thinking I should ask him to give answers himself before giving any thought about my view on them.

Thanks for your thoughts in advance!

This line of reasoning commits the fallacy of the stolen concept. The very idea that we must prove the reliability of the senses is ludicrous. Tell him to prove anything without sensory input. It can't be done. No.

What does reliability of the senses mean anyway? The senses work automatically so there is nothing we need do vollitionally to establish their reliability. Their purpose is to make us aware of things in reality. So if we are aware of anything at all then our senses are working just fine.

Lastly, the validity of the senses is axiomatic since the concept "consciousness" is axiomatic so are its means. To make use of concepts of consciousness such as in asking a question, while denying the validity of the senses commits the fallacy of the stolen concept and such questions or demands that we prove the reliability of the senses are invalid.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like true scotsman's post
08-06-2016, 04:44 PM
RE: Trusting one's senses
pffft .... don't need no argument for that. Just a couple of 4-way windowpane or purple people eaters. Tongue

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
08-06-2016, 06:06 PM
RE: Trusting one's senses
such a stupid argument. id say if youre a functioning human then your senses work just fine. if youre locked up in the looney bin then they probably need some work. by his reasoning how does he know his senses are trustworthy enough to determine if his concept of god is reliable?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Wanderer's post
08-06-2016, 07:03 PM
RE: Trusting one's senses
(08-06-2016 03:39 PM)packmax Wrote:  1) What is morally right or wrong?

Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


Also, drowning every person on the planet is within the biblical god's moral framework.

(08-06-2016 03:39 PM)packmax Wrote:  2) Why are there universal laws of logic in the world?"[/b]

Give me a specific example of these supposed laws.

You should nail them down on specifics and when they give an example, that's when you can find the weakness of the argument.

Christians can't use any moral argument for god because of the Noah myth.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
08-06-2016, 09:49 PM
RE: Trusting one's senses
(08-06-2016 03:39 PM)packmax Wrote:  Here is part of a reply I received from my brother-in-law regarding the topic of reliability of trusting one's senses. This is continuum to my original (and first ever) forum post. I borrowed the helpful thoughts of You people on that thread to reply his original question, which can be read here: http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...the-action

These are parts of his new claims I just received (translated from Finnish):
"You are ultimately unable to prove that your senses provide you with findings about the reality. You can, of course, make empirical findings outside of yourself and study the causal relationships of things. Still, it isn't an absolute proof that your senses are forwarding reliable information. The same way that I cannot in absolute terms show, that bible is god's revelation to people.

----

Both Christians and naturalists may of course practice scientific methods researching and studying the surrounding reality. I would argue, though, that from a christian perspective this is more plausible.

----

I would argue that god has given answers to questions that scientific methods - or pure naturalism - cannot, such as:

1) What is morally right or wrong?
2) Why are there universal laws of logic in the world?"


Because of my lack of philosophical intelligence I am not sure what to think about the first two chapters. How should I approach his claims about not being able to trust my senses without god's existence? Regarding questions 1) and 2) I'm thinking I should ask him to give answers himself before giving any thought about my view on them.

Thanks for your thoughts in advance!

Here are my answers to his two questions:

What is morally right is any chosen value which supports life and the enjoyment of life. what is morally wrong is that which harms or destroys life and the enjoyment of life. These values are discovered, just like any kind of knowledge, by means of reason. It is not a mystery. It is not outside the realm of reason. Since man has a certain kind of nature and his life requires certain values, these facts can be identified and integrated conceptually just like any facts.

There are universal laws of logic because men have discovered facts relevent to how man's mind works in identifying and integrating knowledge identified them in the form of general principles. This was done by means of inductive inference. Logic is universal in application because it treats the terms of an argument as variable just as a math equation does. Logic is a formal concern. These laws were discovered by Aristotle and he did it by means of inductive inference. For more on universality see here.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
08-06-2016, 09:52 PM (This post was last modified: 08-06-2016 10:06 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Trusting one's senses
(08-06-2016 04:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  pffft .... don't need no argument for that. Just a couple of 4-way windowpane or purple people eaters. Tongue

You fuckers are all just group fondling and tickling your fellas. Circle jerk. GirlyMan is not impressed. Your metaphysics and epistemology are weak. .... Not your fault. You just wasn't raised right.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-06-2016, 05:25 AM
RE: Trusting one's senses
You know, if they assert that these supposed universal laws of logic supposedly are evidence for a god (it doesn't specify which god), then wouldn't a basic fact of physics that contradict these rules be evidence against that god?

Wave–particle duality if they want to assert that this basic fact in physics proves god is real too, I would call foul. All they are doing is pointing to things and saying that's proof of god, that's proof of god, that's proof of god.

Might as well be pointing to clouds and saying every shape you see is god.

This is NOT-FALSIFIABLE

[Image: Yypsm7P.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
09-06-2016, 08:14 AM
RE: Trusting one's senses
And which is the one that actually relies or on needs to care about absolute truth? Oh, the one with the untrustable bent.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
09-06-2016, 11:21 PM
RE: Trusting one's senses
"I think, therefore I am."

One really cannot trust a rationalist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: