From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Faith
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:45:08 GMT

esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>}>  You seem top think that the unprovability of an axiom is the same as
>}>the unverifiability of an axiom.  Of course a fundamental axiom of a
>}>formal system cannot be proved within that system (that's why it's an
>}>axiom).  But you seem to think this implies that one set of axioms is
>}>just as good as another.  But this is simply false.  We can test a set
>}>of axioms by using the system as a model, and then seeing how well the
>}>model maps onto what we experience in the world.
Graham Matthews writes in response to me:
>}Eric the counter to this is completely obvious, namely how do you know
>}what the mapping between the real world is and your perceptions of the
>}real world? You assume that there is some near identity mapping, but this
>}is an axiom *in* your system, so Jarek's point still holds.
esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>  Fortunately, it is also an axiom of Jarek's (or, more broadly, the
>theist's) system, so it is not under dispute.

I think you will find that it is not an axiom of Jarek's system as
God can do things that your senses cannot detect.

esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>What is under dispute is
>whether certain theistic claims based on experiences that some people have
>had, i.e., experience of the existence of a god, are on equal footing with
>non-theistic claims about the nature of the world based on sense
>perception or measurement by instruments.  That is, both theists and
>non-theists take their sense experience to provide them with evidence
>about the nature and existence of an objective reality.  But theists
>claim that a transcendent being is part of the furniture of this
>objective reality, whereas non-theists either deny such a being or at
>least suspend judgment about it.

This is indeed under dispute. But the theists have the out here too as
they can claim that the senses do in some cases (namely when God says so)
give a perfectly accurate picture of reality even if they may not claim
this in general.

esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>  In the second place, even though I take as a fundamental axiom of my
>world-view that there is some sort of mapping of my experiences onto a
>mind-independent world, that in no way means that the denial of this
>axiom is "equally good". 

I am suggesting that the notion of "goodness" of an axiom is rubbish,
not that "the denial of an axiom is equally good".

esot@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Eric Sotnak) writes:
>I could, I suppose, take as a fundamental
>axiom of my world-view that all my experiences map (rather inaccurately)
>onto a piece of burnt toast which constitutes ultimate reality, but this
>would hardly be just as good as the axiom that my experiences somehow
>represent or correspond to a world about which my experiences give me
>information.  If nothing else, the latter axiom is more fecund and
>provides better ground for explanations and predictions than the
>burnt-toast axiom.

So what - who says that prediction and explanation are the mark of
a good axiom! Sounds like a guess on your part (or a hidden axiom!)

>  In sum, to say of two axioms that both are fundamental is not thereby
>to say that both are equally good.  If you want to be a die-hard
>epistemological skeptic and claim that the criteria for assessing goodness
>or fecundity of axioms are also axiomatic in just the same problematic
>sense, then obviously no dialogue is possible, and we will just have to
>throw up our hands and abandon any effort at resolving any question.  
>Theism, Burnt-toastism, etc. will all be on equal footing.

I am just suggesting that we be honest about it. Theism, burnt-toastism
etc are on an equal footing from a logical perspective. This does not
make dialogue impossible, since often people share some ideas and 
discussion can proceed with these.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc