Pastor AIO:


If the likes of Russell and Frege are too mathematical for you you might like to check out instead the works of Hume and Locke. Hume laid out the Problem of Induction.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

I love that quote: "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy"

thehomer:

I think you are. Let me see if I can make this more explicit by using my previous example of pain.



My point is that your senses are personal to you in a way that people aren't. Thus, you can be having a pain without an external reference e.g phantom limb. This doesn't mean that the pain isn't there just that the reference isn't there.

Here's another example from Pastor AIO



Here, you're perceiving a white horse. While your perception doesn't match the reference of the pig, you're still perceiving what you're perceiving due to how direct it is to you.

Mr_Anony:

Now this is where I am sure that you missed his premise. What I believe he is on about isn't about your perception as much as it is about the trust and reliance on your perceptions and whether they are accurate enough to be deserving of that reliance and trust.

So to properly prove him wrong, you have to show that the trust in your perceptions differ from other kinds of trust by proving that either your perceptions are absolute and infallible hence total trust in them or that you do not trust and rely your perceptions at all.
Other than these, if you in any way rely on your perceptions, then it falls into the category of authorities that Pastor AIO is proposing.

Saying you trust them in a different personal way is totally besides the point

thehomer:

And that is why I said reliance would be a better concept to use than authority in that context when he suggested it.

Mr_Anony:

So your problem is with the word "authority" abi? Have it your way then, "reliance" it is.

Thank God we are now in the clear

thehomer:

I know about the problem of induction and I can see the problem with in philosophical thought but I don't see it as a practical problem. What would be a practical problem is for someone to consistently act as though induction was unreasonable.

thehomer:

My point is that your senses are personal to you in a way that people aren't. Thus, you can be having a pain without an external reference e.g phantom limb. This doesn't mean that the pain isn't there just that the reference isn't there.

Here, you're perceiving a white horse. While your perception doesn't match the reference of the pig, you're still perceiving what you're perceiving due to how direct it is to you.

Pastor AIO:

What would be a problem would be if you were to confer absolute reliability on Induction. For the most part it works. That is fortuitous.

Pastor AIO:

When someone tells you that pigs fly in mongolia that probably isn't true but that doesn't mean that they aren't telling you, it's just that it isn't true.

Pastor AIO:
And when you friends tell you that there's a dirty pig there, it doesn't match your perception of the white horse, but you are still hearing what they are telling you.

thehomer: I really don't see a problem here.


My point is that regardless of what they say, you still see what you see.

thehomer:
Now, if the question is how reliable is what you're seeing or how reliable is what your friends are telling you, that will be a different question.

thehomer:

No one is doing that. It is simply accepted with good practical reasons.
Induction is fortuitous? Would you describe releasing a ball in your hand and it drops to the ground 100 out of a 100 times as being fortuitous?

thehomer: I really don't see a problem here.

thehomer: I really don't see a problem here.



Pigs fly in Mongolia. False
Someone else tells you that they do. True
You heard the person say this. True



There is a dirty pig in front of you. True
What you see is a white horse. True
You heard your friends say that there is a dirty pig in front of you. True

My point is that regardless of what they say, you still see what you see.

Now, if the question is how reliable is what you're seeing or how reliable is what your friends are telling you, that will be a different question.

Pastor AIO:

And for good reason too. dropping a ball by releasing it is not the entirety of Induction.



Great! Why is that a problem? Don't make a problem out of not seeing a problem. Where there is no problem there is no problem.

Mr_Anony:

Do you agree that the truth can be independent of your perceptions?

InesQor: Sorry to be the party-p[i]o[/i]oper in this Kumbaya, but Authoritativeness and Reliability equally defer to the same connotative meaning i.e. that which we depend upon for assessment.

Carry on, though. Mr_Anony is asking thehomer a [i]really [/i]interesting question.

Mr_Anony:
Do you agree that the truth can be independent of your perceptions?

thehomer:
Yes I do.

Mr_Anony: I asked,


and you answered,


thehomer, I perceive that your contention over "authority" as used in this thread is because our physical senses and perceptions are geared towards survival and not towards philosophy.
If this is the case then, it would be inappropriate to demand that existential truth be subject to man's physical senses.

Now, that being said, I asked Pastor AIO how we can know truth for sure but then he gave me an answer that that in a sense questions the notion of 'sureness' itself (I agree with his answer by the way or at least what I think he is saying)

To simplify things a bit I'll state that what is truth to us is the best logical explanation available to us for any given phenomenon. As logic itself is the method by which we classify whether a thing is true or it is false.

Mr_Anony:
For instance, the existential question "Why am I?" is a question theology attempts to answer and the best explanation I have come across so far is God.

Mr_Anony:
Now to require that God must satisfy the dictates of physical senses i.e. must be seen, felt, heard etc is irrelevant since the existential truth is not within the jurisdiction of physical senses.

Mr_Anony:
In the same way, to require an explanation for God by asking questions like "who created the creator?" is also irrelevant as one need not ask for the explanation of an explanation (as this leads to infinite regress) but rather if the explanation sufficiently answers the question.

Mr_Anony:
When a question has been answered sufficiently for us, then we trust that answer as truth and accept this truth as an authority when judging matters of that nature.
To properly refute a said 'truth', one must provide another explanation that better explains the phenomenon. Until such a falsification occurs, the said 'truth' retains it's authority.

Mr_Anony:
This is my understanding for the interplay of faith and reason.

Coming to the topic: Religion and Authority, I'll say this: The reason for religion, science and philosophy is because people want the answer to the question What is the meaning of my existence?
The answer to that question lies in a perfect and eternal God. That's the Truth I know.

Mr_Anony:
To deny this would require that a better explanation for the meaning of existence be proffered.

thehomer:

Okay. One thing you need to consider too is that when it comes to functioning in the universe, logic doesn't work alone but works with some external input from the universe.
Hmm

You would first need to expand on the question because as it stands, it is too vague for someone to answer unless they can read your mind. Also, how does your particular God answer the question?
The question simply means "why do I exist?" the answer is "because I am created for God's pleasure" (this is the simplified soundbite version)


Even if he isn't directly detectable by our senses, surely a God that wants something from us should be willing to manifest himself in some way.
Well, God is manifest in His creation, some people just refuse to see it

That's just it. God isn't an explanation. People used to say God caused the lightning. Would you consider that an explanation for lightning?
There is a difference between how lightning happens and why lightning happens.

What you're saying there sounds like a certain conception of what a scientific theory is.
What I was talking about is logic, science is a method of applying logic

I don't think that is what science is for. How did you come to know this truth?
By faith, the same way you came to know that you could trust your senses

I think there are multiple reasons for denying your answer. e.g the multitude of Gods, an ignorance of what this God wants, even an absence of this God.
Did you understand my whole argument at all? The best way to falsify a theory is to provide a better explanation for what the theory explains, the examples you gave do not satisfy this criteria

Okay. One thing you need to consider too is that when it comes to functioning in the universe, logic doesn't work alone but works with some external input from the universe.

Mr_Anony:
Well, God is manifest in His creation, some people just refuse to see it

Mr_Anony:
There is a difference between how lightning happens and why lightning happens.

Mr_Anony:
What I was talking about is logic, science is a method of applying logic

Mr_Anony:
By faith, the same way you came to know that you could trust your senses

Mr_Anony:
Did you understand my whole argument at all? The best way to falsify a theory is to provide a better explanation for what the theory explains, the examples you gave do not satisfy this criteria

Mr_Anony:
Without delving too deeply into your reply, I have given some short answers for which I don't want to go in depth for fear of throwing our argument into many different tangents. one of your answers interests me though and I think we should focus on it first then work our way down.


I don't think I quite understand this statement from you. Are you saying that logic alone cannot tell us the truth of the universe, but requires something external? because this sounds almost like the kind of view I'd hold and to hear it coming from you makes me wonder and gives me some hope.