Anyway, it is my perspective that it is a bit short sighted to ignore the reality that nothing can be proven outside our own senses.

If you believe in an objective reality, that is just as much faith as the belief in anything else that can’t be proven. To become too attached to the idea that anything matters outside of one’s own experience as vast as that can certainly be, seems like somewhat of a con.

I think people only adopt beliefs of any sort because either they don’t bother to think for themselves, or because these beliefs serve some function for them. I think we should all be aware of this. What purpose do your beliefs hold for you? It is my perspective that the biggest reason people choose their belief in anything from causality to angels is a matter of aesthetic preference. And then of course you get people who enjoy consensus, and you get people who like being “correct”. Sometimes I even meet people who’s beliefs seem to support their need to be miserable all the time for whatever reason. (Maybe guilt or maybe attention).

With a complete lack of the possibility of knowing anything outside ones own experience, it is important to understand how important personal volition is in what we believe. Evidence is one thing, but a lot of people think they have evidence for all kinds of things. Even science can’t answer the central questions like “why something instead of nothing”. Our priorities and values as a society or as individuals can never be determined scientifically. Solipsism teaches us that it really comes down to what we want to believe.

Realistically, anyone with sentient thought must at some point in their lives question the notion of existence itself. Many a science-fiction story has been written on the subject. Most philosophers at some point deal with the question directly. In college, I occasionally drove my friends nuts wondering whether or not anything was “real” [and frequently became infuriated when trying to argue with religios types, they simply wouldn't respond to such questions as "can you show me evidence?"]. And the question itself would drive me insane. So I need to disagree with your point “The idea that the universe needs us-that nothing exists without our own thoughts and experience-is tempting”. For me, it’s not tempting, it’s downright terrifying. What if existence itself is merely an illusion?

Over the years, the question has remained unanswered (the question cannot, by its very nature, ever be answered unless we live in a Matrix-type world of intentional delusion which can be escaped and demonstrated). However, as you put it, the question is “…irrelevant because the universe requires that you operate as if it were untrue”. And frankly, since leaving college, rarely have I heard the question even raised – until I began to read the BA site. And lo/behold, Creationist/IDiots actually use this notion to “prove” their argument! It never occurred to me that someone could or would try to scam you by saying “nothing can be proven, so I’m as right as you are!”. To me, this represents a total bastardization of philosophy — or more aptly put, it is a complete abuse of a philosophical concept which is supposed to be a mark of sentience, not as a lame end-all argument and an excuse to promote garbage as gold!

Thank you for putting yet another of my fundie frustrations in physical form [yes, irony intended]!

And while we are at philosophy and religion, and since I have envoked the “fundie” label, isn’t the word “fundamentalism” itself a contradiction of itself? The fundamentals of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, even Athiesm are in complete opposition of “fundamentalist” views. Therefore, I propose a new label: “fandie”, for “fanatic”. Maybe it’s already a term. Nobody can prove otherwise in the grand scheme of things, right?

I used to debate a lot with creationist types, and it drove me out of my mind with frustration, sometimes. But the minute we start getting too frustrated by their delusions, it seems to me that we are taking them far too seriously than they deserve.

After all, when someone does decide to toss out the very foundations of reason in debate, then what can we possibly accomplish? Like my first year Philosophy prof liked to say, when you encounter *that* sort of relativist, there are only two reasonable things to do:

1. Walk away.

2. Hit them, and then walk away.

Of course, I tend to think that there’s also a third option: to play for them a bit before walking away. New age types are welcome to play in their curious little worlds, but that doesn’t mean that we need to join them, and, in a way, we *do* join them whenever we engage them too deeply.

Sorry for rambling – I’m just a little bored.

-V

My frustration comes from seeing these ideas used as a lazy way to defend an argument/claim. For example, when I have conversations with astrology proponents they never have any arguments to counter the points I bring up about the laws of physics, the origins of astrology, our heliocentric solar system, the inconsistencies in its ‘rules’, or the Forer effect; when they finally realize they have nothing to defend against what science reveals, they resort to saying something like ‘science can’t deal with everything’–since their belief can’t stand up to even the most basic standards of critical thinking, they make a special exception for themselves or attack the scientific method itself.

New age bunk like astrology, dowsing, psychics, etc. all make claims about nature that are very much in the realm of scientific inquiry; however, because these claims are so easily refuted when tested, true believers seem to often use solipsist-type ideas to make up a little world for themselves where nothing they believe can ever be disproved.

I hope that’s clearer

“‘Relativism’ is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good. The philosophers who get called ‘relativists’ are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought.”

I’m a Skeptic myself, in the technical sense, and don’t believe that we can objectively know things nearly as often as we think (in fact, I generally don’t think we ever do, or, if we do, it’s at least not with anything resembling certainty). So, in that sense, I believe that all of our truth claims are subjective – but more or less for the reasons outlined above by Rage.

People holding positions like mine often get confused with the vapid sort of relativists we all encounter on a day to day basis. – but I would certainly never claim that there’s no such thing as objective truth out there, or that it’s pointless to try and find it through rational means.

-V, your friendly local Pragmatist

P.S. How does one through out the “concept of knowledge itself,” when epistemologists still can’t come to agreement on a common definition of what it is in the first place?

To consider any scientific theory or theoretical framework as wholly unassailable, absolute truth is fundamentally no better than any other blind faith.

Solipsism, and subjective truth for that matter, simply forwards the concept of a fundamentally agnostic universe, and that any physical laws that we may discover are more shorthands for conceptualization than they are unquestionable truth.