Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!laura From: laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion Subject: Re: Rosen on reason, etc. Message-ID: <5332@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Sun, 24-Mar-85 14:40:32 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.5332 Posted: Sun Mar 24 14:40:32 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 14:40:32 EST References: <1074@decwrl.UUCP> <5266@utzoo.UUCP>, <720@pyuxd.UUCP> <5303@utzoo.UUCP>, <749@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 98 From Rich Rosen: Gee, this is funny. Am I assuming that "all things are knowable" (I never said that) when I refer to things we don't have enough information about? No, when you are referring to those things, you are not (necessarily) assuming that. What I am assuming is that there are certain things which are not knowable. Why does the world exist? Why is Plank's constant *this* value and not *that* one? Why aren't there more stars? Why is there a force of gravity anyway? These are all examples of questions whose answers (ignoring direct revelation from God, say) are not knowable. There may be no reason for any of these. There may *be* a reason for all of these. But, whatever the answer is, it seems clear that we won't ever know it. Or are YOU assuming something when you *assert* that there ARE (!!!) some things that it IS simply IMPOSSIBLE to ever know? I don't know if that's true, so I keep seeking and learning. You assume that it is true, so what do you do? Ah, I get to stop wasting my time with a certain class of questions. Do you stop at a certain point and say "the rest I will picture the way I like because we can NEVER know this?" Sure I do. All the time. The thing to remember is that I have yet to meet a single person who does not do this. What I do not ever lose track of is that these things are things that I have modelled, rather than things that I know are true. So far I haven't needed to build a model of why there is gravity at all -- but I have had to build models of other things. It's funny because you're doing exactly what I've been accusing so many others of doing. Looks like you're not that different, and perhaps your belief systems should be classified with the same name. :-? Looks like you are back to being omniscient and knowing what I am doing again. Before you go out and claim this again, I think that you had better get a better understanding of what it is that I am doing. I am not claiming that any models I build are true in some absolute sense. I don't even have any firm opinions about the existence of ``absolute truth''. What I do claim is that my models are useful for getting something done. Almost all of the time this implies that my models have to be consistent with reality as I perceive it. There are times, though, when even that does not apply. If I am debugging circuit boards I catch myself thinking that ``the current goes along here, and then down there'' and so on and so forth. Thinking that ``the electrons vibrate'' is more consistent with reality as I perceive it, but even that is a model. Electrons aren't things. Shall I try to think of them as locuses for particular behaviour? Better, but shucks, it just isn't incredibly useful. I am willing to put up with inaccuracies for the sake of utility. This brings one back to Byron Howes on religion. Suppose you consider all religions as models of reality which people use to get things done. The question then is, why do people pick different religions? Presumably because they want to get different things done -- or the same thing done in different ways. Inherant in certain religions is the belief that ``This is the ONE and ONLY religion which is TRUE in the ABSOLUTE SENSE''. Other religions do not have this belief. I do not think that you have ever grasped the implications of this, or you would not be asking me if I go out and ``believe whatever I would like'' -- because in a very real sense I have been claiming that *everybody* does this *all* of the time. This is another aspect of the Christian/Materialist debates which others (including Christians such as Byron Howes) may find ludicrous. Certain Christians are claiming the absolute truth of the existence of God and the Bible. You deny the absolute truth of this (or at least, that they have demonstrated this to be the absolute truth). But you are *both* wedded to your idea of an absolute truth -- there is one, and it is important to know whether God is a part of it or not. Since this is one assumption that I do not make except when it suits me (rememeber your search for assumptions, Rich) I find the whole thing rather unusual. The answer does not only wash, it cleans and brightens and softens as well. I'm not seeking a justification or reason for the way the universe is, precisely because I don't assume that it was designed to be that way. We have no reason to speculate on design plans or reasons here. Unless we assume a designer. Rich, you lose. I can speculate on anything I like without assuming a designer. Why does my cat have blue eyes? Getting an answer to that does not necessarily assume a designer -- to understand that one requires knowledge of genetics. We have wonderful reasons to speculate reasons for why the universe is a certain way -- this is exactly how one goes about learning anything. What you are saying is ``unless oen assumes a designer, one is not likely to get any answer to such questions''. Right. The answers to such questions are unknowable. There may even *be* no answers to such a question. Now you have contradicted yourself. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura if you only believe in things that you understand, you'll *still* suffer -- and get killed by the first dangerous thing that you refuse to believe in becuse you don't understand it (yet).