Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Logic based on different sets of assumptions
Message-ID: <1105@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 20:45:56 EST
Article-I.D.: utastro.1105
Posted: Wed Mar 13 20:45:56 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 03:02:55 EST
References: <589@pyuxd.UUCP>, <4932@cbscc.UUCP> <4933@cbscc.UUCP>, <1079@utastro.UUCP> <1080@utastro.UUCP> <4959@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 61



Paul Dubuc writes:

>A response to some of Padraig Houlahan's points:
>
>}[In response to my analogy of the screwdriver:]
>}
>}This is just the argument from design in a clever guise. It is easy
>}to cite the hammer and screw since we cannot remove from our minds
>}knowledge of the existence of screwdrivers. Why not, instead, try
>}to deduce the existence of bug-eyed-monsters in the Andromeda galaxy
>}from the hammer and screw?
>
>The analogy was not intended to provide evidence for the existence of
>screwdrivers as analogous to the existence of God. 

Perhaps, but you used it in that context when in the original article
you wrote:

>>                                    ...  You can explain evidence presented
>>for his existence in the same way you could explain the existence of screws
>>without positing the existence of a screwdriver (Occam's Razor).

>}>                                   ...  Atheists are just as likely
>}> to deny theistic claims in protest to the change in world view
>}> it would require. Why should I go along with your assumption that your
>}> view of the universe is correct "based on the evidence".  As I said before,
>}> evidence may support more than one conclusion.  Conclusions are not
>}> inherent in evidence, they are subject to the interpretation of such
>}> evidence.


>}Being an Athiest I must agree with you here also. My biases make
>}me say that the pot boils because it is on the stove, and that it will
>}probably do so to-morrow if I so desire. :-)
>
>What do your bias make you say about the nature of good and evil?  I would
>agree with you that the pot boils because it's on the stove.  Did you think
>I wouldn't?  :-)

I'm not sure what the nature of good and evil has got to do with
this discussion, but since you ask, the answer is "nothing", since
I have never encountered any evidence for, or arguments showing,
their existence in an absolute sense.

As far as the pot boiling on the stove is concerned, I'm not
sure how you would place the following in order of reliability

1) you see the pot boiling, (objective data)
2) a drunk tells you this is the case, (subjective - testamony)
3) a sincere citizen tells you that this is so, (subjective - testamony)
4) a sincere citizen tells you that this is not so, (subjective - testamony)

Obviously the second option comes last, but how about the others?
Suppose for arguments sake that you were to be boiled in oil :-)
for reaching the wrong conclusion, on the basis of options 2,3, and 4,
what would you conclude (i.e. the pot is boiling/not boiling/
must suspend judgement)?

Padraig Houlahan.