From: jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:30:10 GMT
Organization: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

acsormd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
: In article <1992Oct4.190643.29894@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes...
: >acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
: >: In article <1992Oct2.050949.12343@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes...
: >: > 
: >: >You can look this up in the dictionary as well as we can.  You can
: >: >tell if something is evidence by whether it fits the definition or
: >: >not.  
: >: 
: >: 	That's true.

Whoops.  I misread this.  For some reason I saw "*What's* true."
My response addressed that question instead of what you actually 
said.  Sorry.

: > 
: >"I think therefore I am".  Other than that, *nothing* is necessarily
: >true.  Ask any solipsist.  I personally am not a solipsist.  I am
: >willing to believe that what appears via my senses is a very rough
: >interpretation of something more tangible than solipsism.  If you
: >wish to challenge this 'faith', please explain why I should feel
: >compelled to justify it.
: 
: 	When I say, "That's true," I am relying on my perceptual 
: 	map of reality which dictates that you would
: 	form the same general understanding of said words.
: 	Any other meaning (or lack thereof) was a result of
: 	interpretation from another's perspective based upon
: 	an individualistic/specified group interpretation 
: 	(not that it is necessarily bad...just unique). 
: 
: 	One reason, which may not be the only reason, for you
: 	to feel compelled to justify/challenge this 'faith' 
: 	comes from the perception of having perceived 'reality'
: 	wrong before with your sensory receptors, and then
: 	realizing you could do this, and may do this, and may
: 	have done this.

I often find that my perception of reality is wrong.  This is
adequately explained by the physical limitations of our senses
and minds.  If there were an occurrence that couldn't be explained 
by these limitations, I would feel compelled to question my 
corporeal assumptions.  Until then, my worldview is consistent 
thus giving me confidence it may be correct.  Solipsism
isn't a useful worldview in my opinion because it can't 
adequately explain the source of our perceptual experience.
Another problem is its apparent unfalsifiability.  I therefore 
feel justified in discounting solipsism.

: 
: >If you aren't going to challenge the belief that my senses provide a
: >rough interpretation of reality, then these sensory observations provide 
: >a form of evidence.  
: 
: 	The rough interpretation I will not challenge. The unique/
: 	specifics, I may.

Are you agreeing that sensory observations are evidence?
Granted, there are varying interpretations of these observations,
but would you agree that some interpretations are better than
others?  I got the impression that you were preparing to challenge
the concept of evidence.  Maybe I was mistaken.

: >Atheism for me is the acknowledgement that evidence is lacking for
: >the existence of God.  
: 
: 	Is evidence lacking from your model of the world, or is
: 	it 'really' lacking?  Have _all_ sources been considered/
: 	perceived by your senses or is your 'reality' understanding
: 	lacking perceptual experience of evidence (I'm not talking
: 	about lacking a feeling of "ooo ooo", I'm talking about 
: 	lacking the experience of discovering general perceptual
: 	"truths" e.g. Shrimp are pink, Flammingos are born white,
: 	flammingos eat shrimp and turn pink because of it.)

It is impossible for me to tell at any given time whether I'm 
just missing the evidence or whether it doesn't exist.
The best I can do is to agree to reevaluate my understanding
when new evidence is presented.  Regarding flamingos, the
explaination is plausible, verifiable, and as far as I can
tell unquestioned.  On this basis I have granted *conditional* 
belief in spite of my lack of personal knowledge.

:
: 	Allright. Before deciding on what is actually sensory perceptual
: 	concerning God, a definition would be in order. There are many
: 	conceptions of what the term "God" denotes. Any Ideas? (I 
: 	prefer the most untouched version of that of what is called the
: 	world's youngest religion which would be the oldest because
: 	it's definition is based on things hard to perceieve; attributes.)

Your parenthetical didn't parse.  If you would like, go ahead
and propose your own definition for God to discuss.  If you
still want me to define it, please clarify the limitation you 
you are trying to impose here.

-- 
> Jeff Young <   "Why are we going in there again, daddy?"
> Personal   <   "Shut up," his father explained.
> opinions   <         Ring Lardner
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:18485 talk.religion.misc:17798