Religious People Are Less Intelligent, But We Win Anyway...

[Charles]

What? You can not assert that sense experience has direct access to reality until YOU first assume that reality actually exists! Reality exists and we have direct access to reality through sense experience. That would be completely circular!

Your statement is completely circular. You claim that assumption of the existence of reality is needed in order to sense it. The claim of some philosophers would be that you actually sense the world directly with no assumption needed. And that is not circular. That is what direct realism is about. Now, you may disagree with them, but to go for a circular objection is not a good idea.

Let's go for the following example slightly influenced by Descartes (who by the way neither needed to assume the existence of reality in order to sense it). I start to get in doubt whether i actually sense the real world or whether I am being betrayed. This leads me into thinking about different possible explanations of sensing and reality. I am not making any specific claim or assumption about reality. All I do is to look for something that would be a plausible and fair explanation of what I would usually call sensing but which I no longer assume has a direct correlation to reality. Then, going through all the different philosophical ideas (not making any assumptions) I come to the logical conclusion that direct realism is the truth and that other explanations are wrong. Thus I have come to the conclusion that my sensing of the world is a direct sensation. I have not had an assumption of the existence of reality beforehand. It was not needed. I was in doubt and I found proof. As long as this type of proof is based on philosophical thinking and it is not just the claim that "reality exists because reality exists" then it is not circular at all. And in order to prove it wrong you need to look at what they are actually saying.

Now that was just a short example. The world is full of interesting theories on this.

You seem to suppose that sensing is a layer between the observer and what is being observed. Thus you seem to think that one can only get to the layer of sensing and need to assume that the layer beyond (what is being observed) exists. However, if that theory of sensing is wrong, then direct realism seems even more plausible.

[Charles]

Perhaps you can explain to me how science can examine reality outside the creation.

You were asked to provide evidence of a supernatural world. I do not see how that would have to be science, and I do not see the wisdom in calling anyone asking for evidence of what you believe in an ignorant. I think you would be better of either giving evidence or giving a plausible explanation as to why there is no evidence.

[seer]

Then, going through all the different philosophical ideas (not making any assumptions) I come to the logical conclusion that direct realism is the truth and that other explanations are wrong. Thus I have come to the conclusion that my sensing of the world is a direct sensation. I have not had an assumption of the existence of reality beforehand. It was not needed. I was in doubt and I found proof. As long as this type of proof is based on philosophical thinking and it is not just the claim that "reality exists because reality exists" then it is not circular at all. And in order to prove it wrong you need to look at what they are actually saying.

Sheesh Charles, you are using inductive logic here, not deductive. That was exactly what Descartes said can not be reached - deductive justification. How on earth can you exclude all other possible explanations? Do you know all other possibilities? You are question begging in both cases. And how do you demonstrate logically that the other possibilities are wrong - that you are not living in the Matrix, or a brain in a vat for instance? Without deductive reasoning, which you have not offered, you remain open to the charge of circularity.

[Charles]

Sheesh Charles, you are using inductive logic here, not deductive. That was exactly what Descartes said can not be reached - deductive justification. How on earth can you exclude all other possible explanations? Do you know all other possibilities? You are question begging in both cases. And how do you demonstrate logically that the other possibilities are wrong - that you are not living in the Matrix, or a brain in a vat for instance? Without deductive reasoning, which you have not offered, you remain open to the charge of circularity.

All I wanted to show was that your claim of circularity had nothing to it which I did. Descartes did deliver deductive justification of reality by the way and his God was one he claimed to have proven the existence of. Was that circular? No, because he did not need to assume the existence of reality or presuppose it. Neither would others.

You initially claimed, Descartes had closed the door to reality. It was wrong since the entire point of his own book was to give failproof knowledge on this area as well as others. Now you seem to come up with a new premise that it needs to be deductive. His own method was and he was confident in the existence of reality.

By all other possibilities I of course think in the broader terms of logically possible positions to hold and not on each and every book written on the subject.

I have stated several times that the whole line of reasoning will need a couple of hundred pages. I will not deliever a simplified version for you to make a strawman off. There is tons of books on this.

Your statement that one needs to assume the existence of reality before sensing it is circular and based on a very specific understanding of what sensing is. That idea could very well be wrong.

[seer]

All I wanted to show was that your claim of circularity had nothing to it which I did. Descartes did deliver deductive justification of reality by the way and his God was one he claimed to have proven the existence of. Was that circular? No, because he did not need to assume the existence of reality or presuppose it. Neither would others.

Of course Charles you had to beg the question to make your point, and I showed you where.

You initially claimed, Descartes had closed the door to reality. It was wrong since the entire point of his own book was to give failproof knowledge on this area as well as others. How you seem to come up with a new premise that it need to be deductive. His own method was and he was confident in the existence of reality.

I did not say that Descartes closed the door on reality I said he closed the door on logical (read deductive) justification. His leap of faith was God, invoking God, your leaps were as I described.

By all other possibilities I of course think in the broader terms of logically possible positions to hold and not on each and every book written on the subject.

I have stated several times that the whole line of reasoning will need a couple of hundred pages. I will not deliever a simplified version for you to make a strawman off. There is tons of books on this.

Let's make this simple, you have two cases:

1. Your sense experience corresponds to reality.

2. You sense experience corresponds to an illusion, a deception.

Make a deductive argument justifying one over the other.

[Charles]

Of course Charles you had to beg the question to make your point, and I showed you where.



I did not say that Descartes closed the door on reality I said he closed the door on logical (read deductive) justification. His leap of faith was God, invoking God, your leaps were as I described.



Let's make this simple, you have two cases:

1. Your sense experience corresponds to reality.

2. You sense experience corresponds to an illusion, a deception.

Make a deductive argument justifying one over the other.

Again I will not deliever a simple version for you to make a strawman off. The fact that you think it can be explained so shortly shows a limited understanding. You keep claiming wrongly that there is a circularity which need not be there. You can disagree but to simply claim it must be circular is to claim that you do not even understand the position and what it claims.

God was not a leap of faith for Descartes. He claimed to have proven his existence. Very important difference.

[seer]

Again I will not deliever a simple version for you to make a strawman off. The fact that you think it can be explained so shortly shows a limited understanding. You keep claiming wrongly that there is a circularity which need not be there. You can disagree but to simply claim it must be circular is to claim that you do not even understand the position and what it claims.

The simple fact Charles is that you can't make a deductive argument. And your previous argument relied on question begging. So you offer an inductive argument steeped in assumptions and claim victory?

God was not a leap of faith for Descartes. He claimed to have proven his existence. Very important difference.

But he didn't prove God, just as you did not prove your claims.

[Jedidiah]

You were asked to provide evidence of a supernatural world. I do not see how that would have to be science, and I do not see the wisdom in calling anyone asking for evidence of what you believe in an ignorant. I think you would be better of either giving evidence or giving a plausible explanation as to why there is no evidence.

I think you have failed to follow this exchange, which is understandable.

The discussion was of the failure of people to evaluate evidence against what they believe. Sparko said something to the effect that the only evidence against theism was the lack of evidence. Tassman responded;

That's all you need.

I responded;

That is all you need if you have already made up your mind.

Then;

Is demanding evidence before believing something too much to ask for?

My response was;

Demanding scientific evidence for something not subject to scientific investigation is simply ignorant.

I was never asked to provide evidence of a supernatural world. Tassman has in the past required scientifically verifiable evidence. So I simply responded to him as I have in the past. To the effect that you can not test what is not part of the world. Tassman then required evidence that "your deity is not a delusion." His comment was not in response to me, but my response was pertinent to the exchange we had.

Tassman has routinely, in the past, insisted that any evidence for God that would count would have to be scientifically verifiable. That is simply ignorant since the God postulated is not a part of His creation.

[Meh Gerbil]

Tassman has routinely, in the past, insisted that any evidence for God that would count would have to be scientifically verifiable. That is simply ignorant since the God postulated is not a part of His creation.

I'm not sure this falls in line with the Biblical answer.
Paul claims an internal witness and Creation as observable evidence of God.

I think something can be scientifically verifiable but still be unseen by some.

[Charles]

Descartes claimed he had several proves of God's existance.

All I have claimed is that the idea of direct realism is not queation begging in and of itself. That is very much different from proving the theory right which I never claimed to do. That would take hundreds of pages.

[seer]

Descartes claimed he had several proves of God's existance.

So did he prove God?

All I have claimed is that the idea of direct realism is not queation begging in and of itself. That is very much different from proving the theory right which I never claimed to do. That would take hundreds of pages.

Of course it is question begging. You say that you can not find any other plausible explanation therefore direct realism is true. Really Charles?

So let's try this again:

1. Your sense experience corresponds to reality.

2. You sense experience corresponds to an illusion, a deception.

Make a deductive argument justifying one over the other.

[Jedidiah]

I'm not sure this falls in line with the Biblical answer.
Paul claims an internal witness and Creation as observable evidence of God.

I think something can be scientifically verifiable but still be unseen by some.

Can you give me an example? An internal witness is not scientifically verifiable. I am a Christian, as you know, and firmly believe in the God of the Bible. I do not think science has anything to say on the subject.

[JimL]

Again, that is an assumption - that there is a world to directly connect with, using sense experience. I'm still waiting for deductive justification.

There is obviously, in the mind, a world to connect with in a way that there is not a god to connect with. Belief in the latter, since it only exists in the mind as an idea, would be a leap in faith in the way that beleif in the reality of the former is not. Stop equating the two as if they are the same, when you know they are not.

[Tassman]

Then Charles, make an actual deductive argument that what goes on in your head actually corresponds to reality. This should be easy for you, who relies on the rules of logic.

Playing your usual dishonest games seer in demanding of Charles what you can't provide yourself.

In any deductive argument the truth of the logical conclusion depends upon the truth, or otherwise, of the premise. So prove the existence of your omnipresent deity and make a deductive argument as to its correspondence to the reality of which we're all a part.

[Tassman]

Can you give me an example? An internal witness is not scientifically verifiable. I am a Christian, as you know, and firmly believe in the God of the Bible. I do not think science has anything to say on the subject.

You're right. There is no reason to believe what you claim to believe about the god of the bible other than as an article of personal faith. And no reason for anyone else to accept what you claim as true.