If our senses are designed by God to probe the world, then aside from a detrimental effect of the curse, we can trust that they will be basically reliable. If on the other hand our sensory organs are not designed at all, but just chemical accidents, then it makes no sense to trust that they would ever be reliable. It would make no more sense than trusting in a magic 8-ball.
30 comments
If our senses were designed by God, wouldn't we all be capable of sensing God?you (or anyone else) rely of them when you sense God? If they're not reliable, they could be tricking you when it comes to God.
not trusting our senses too much is a good idea. they're more reliable than guesswork, but they're far from perfectly reliable; they evolved to be reliable enough, perfection wasn't required.
they're still better than relying on our memory, though. now THERE'S a slapdash system no sensible designer would have ever deliberately made.
Trust our senses? Hmmm ... try searching for images of optical illusions, Mr Lisle, or look up pareidolia or tactile illusions or electronic voice phenomenon. Perhaps you should speak to someone who suffers from a "ghost limb" after undergoing an amputation.
If, however, the organs evolved, through trial and error, for life in this world, then it makes sense that we can trust that they will be basically reliable for this world. Evolution isn't chemical accidents, you uneducated fool, but testing, discarding what doesn't work, and building on what does work.
Evolution leaves a lot of little bits that once worked fine, but are now quite useless, but seldom dangerous, like a hip-bone in whales. Why would a perfect deity create us with these left-overs?
Your God is much more similar to the Magic 8-ball, silly. Have you even read the Bible, past Genesis 1? The parts that I've read makes God into a petulant and volatile toddler with a strong tendency for temper tantrums.
Basically what I'm getting is this: "Our senses are very reliable because they were made by God. But if they weren't made by God, these exact same senses aren't reliable at all like they were before."
False Dilemma in a nutshell.
Or, if our senses evolved over time and more reliable variants outproduced unreliable variants then they are mostly trustworthy but there will be some flaws, some of them advantageous. For example, people could see a shadow and think it's an animal and run away. This may seem like a bad flaw, but then you consider the alternative (not spotting a predator and being eaten) and suddenly seeing things in the shadows that aren't really there is a preferable alternative. However, we have a way around the flaws. It's called science and it relies on testing and independent corroboration under controlled conditions so that we aren't seeing what isn't there but rather what is.
If our senses were no better than a magic 8 ball we wouldn't be able to trust science and we wouldn't have technology. If our sense were designed by a perfect being, however, we could trust them 100% of the time and there wouldn't be illusion and false positives, by definition. But then again, the only way option 2 looks good is if you set up a false dilemma and force people to choose between only those two options. And that brings me to the biggest advantage of realizing that our sensory organs are reliable but flawed: you realize that there's always more than meets the eye ;)
Lord Ashley, with his Cochlear implant hardwired into the hearing centres of the brain, thus making him the first true cyborg politician.
CCD chips implanted into the eye, hardwired into the visual cortex of the brain.
Designed by humans .
Your argument is invalid , Jase. [/hyper-smartarse]
--EDIT--
@Dr. Shrinker
Good point, re. pacemakers (and what they're connected to), but Jason LIEsle is talking about our senses , thus Hearing & Sight, and how Cybernetics has advanced in these fields of replacing the organic parts when they are unreliable (particularly how they are hardwired into the nerves/brain), otherwise they'd never go wrong, if their existence were subject to an (un)'Intelligent Designer'/Creator, eh Jase...?! [/Borg Nanotechnology] [/Prof. Kevin Warwick]
Cybernetics. Your argument is invalid II, Mr LIEsle.
@ Anon-e-moose
"Lord Ashley, with his Cochlear implant hardwired into the hearing centres of the brain, thus making him the first true cyborg politician."
Wouldn't a pacemaker count? I know we've had a few politicians with pacemakers.
"but just chemical accidents, then it makes no sense to trust that they would ever be reliable."
That's true. Fortunately they are not chemical accidents, they are the products of evolution.
"It would make no more sense than trusting in a magic 8-ball."
Yes, a bronze age goddiddit is like that.
You CAN trust an 8-ball toy. There are a limited number of responses, and which one appears is totally due to the physics of the fluid inside the ball. If somebody wanted to, they could create a transparent 8-ball and develop a model for predicting which answer would come up, taking into consideration the direction and energy with which the ball was shaken.
If our senses are designed by God
Oooh... designed? That makes them reliable, right?
It would make no more sense than trusting in a magic 8-ball.
Given that is ALSO designed, I guess it must also be reliable.
Jason... I don't think you really understand what you've just argued there...
:edit: and rule number 1 of flying a plane... do not trust your senses, they are too easily fooled.
So if you follow that through to a rational conclusion and recognize things like, oh I don't know, people sometimes need to wear glasses, then you're actually arguing AGAINST design.
er, unreliable senses missed the big thing that wanted to eat you, so it did , and you died.
We accidents say the big thing, or heard it, or smelled it and we went somewhere else.
Actually, our senses (and mind) are known to be limited and less than 100% reliable. On the other hand, they've proved good enough that our species didn't get wiped out by predator with more reliable senses, so all in all they're working satisfactorily, despite a few known bugs.
David Laine Craig and Ray Comfort both pull this shit: That without God infused truth detection there's no way our senses can reveal the truth of reality.
It's an attack on observational science, a base point of the scientific method. It's a bullshit assertion that our senses couldn't have developed to the point of being analytical and creative. It's an attempt to suggest you wouldn't have the ability to breath or drink without baby Jesus paying attention to you every second.
It's BULLSHIT.
The blind spot in human vision. Judges 1:19 proving that Iron is stealth material to God, despite his supposed 'Omnipresence ' and 'Omniscience ' (thus the latter proves - via him not knowing of the construction of said Iron Chariots in advance - he doesn't know* everything). Superman can see Lead, even though he can't see through it.
*- Blu-Ray players. Why aren't they mentioned verbatim in the Bible, least of all what'll be the format that'll replace this in the future...?!
I am convinced that everything this idiot writes came from Jason Lisle's bog.
A bigger pile of crap it would be hard to find, he's right up there with the likes of Andy Shatfly.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
