I assume that you believe that Christianity is better than belief in Thor or Zeus, if so, why?
I don't, I'm not religious in the slightest. As I've already stated, I'm agnostic. I believe that Christianity, belief in Thor or Zeus, and science are all as poorly equipped as each other when it comes to telling us about the mind-independant world.
By mind independent I mean an event or set of events that are not influenced in any way by my thinking or for that matter my understanding.
OK, I mean perception of the world which does not require our minds to perform. Before you say anything, this is indeed impossible, hence my belief that you cannot know anything about a mind-independant world. By a mind independant world, I mean what Kant would term the noumenal world.
If I have read you correctly, you have argued doesn't exist, isn't coherrent and doesn't show how science coheres with an independent material/physical world.
Not quite-Berkeley's viewpoint is far stronger than mine. I believe that some form of external (what I term mind-independant) world must exist in some way to "trigger" our perceptions. However, I fail to see how we can ever know whether our perceptions match this external world exactly, or whether our mind has added to them in some way. For us to sense things, these perceptions must be comprehended by our minds before we can know them. As such, it is not possible for us to sense anything without the mind having some sort of input or at least the possibility to add something.
I therefore believe that there is very probably an external world. However, we can never know anything about this external world or how closely it matches our perceived (or phenomenal) world.
With solid objects or indeed any physical object at all, the hardness of a thing also has much to do with the way an object behaves in accordance with the number of forces acting upon it.
Fair enough, like I said I'm no science buff. However, I will say this: those forces acting on it are proposed by science. If we can't show science to match the external world, we cannot say whether our perceptions of the external world are illusory or not. Lets leave that point there though, I only added it as an afterthought and it's really just confused the issue.
I am totally opposed to the view that just because everything that is perceived by the senses, there cannot be any unhindered and direct perception of an outside world.
Yes, but
why-if you can convince me of this, then I will go along with the vast majority of your ideas and views. However, I fail to see how you can. As I have already said, there is simply no way of
knowing that we have unhindered perception of an external world, as to have this perception we could not use any of our mental faculties in any way. This, though, would simply be impossible. We cannot know something without using our brains or minds. Some fantastic philosophers have worked on this problem, and, frankly, failed-the best that Descartes himself could do was to posit an all loving and all powerful God which could not decieve us!
all scientific facts would be useless
Nope, they just wouldn't tell us anything about the mind independant world. The can still tell us, often in great detail and very effectively, about the world which we do perceive, and they are very very good predictive tools within that world. This makes science fantastically useful.
This is quite often used by "over-religious" types to protect the claims they make from scrutiny.
Like I've already said, I am anything but religious. However, if religous believers do use this "defense", it is wholly incorrect. They, no more than scientific believers, can know the external world.
I would be most happy to discuss this further should there be a wish to move this thread over to Speakers Corner as given the depth and total time needed to discuss it, the General Discussion forum simply will not allow.
If you want to move it over go for it! I love a good philosophical debate
