In an unexpected leap forward, Scott has professed a belief not just in God but also in Jesus, and presumably Christian morality. With a twist at the end he retains his propensity for skepticism, again presumably of all his professed beliefs. If I have that wrong, then let me know, and ignore the following. At any rate, he did not refer to any evidence which compelled his belief, but admitted the inability to prove, another interesting departure. Scott accepts both ends of our spectrum here, (from methodological materialism to metaphysical realities), so what we are doing at this point is mapping the supposed breach between them, and traversing (slowly) that breach.
We have already established a few stones to step forward on, and I will recap them here:
In our prior conversation we have established that there is logically no possibility of disproving the existence of a deity; that metaphysics exists outside the auspices of materialist testing capabilities; and that there exists a human faculty that allows access to metaphysical abstractions: intuition.
We have also discussed various types of evidence, including non-physical evidence, known to us via intuition, revelation, and eyewitnesses, although we haven’t elaborated on the last two types. And, there is another type which will come up at some juncture, but needn’t be discussed right now: circumstantial evidence.
Is it even possible to use any of these types of evidence to prove conclusively and with no room for doubt that no power exists outside of our paltry four dimensions, especially no power which has massive creative power and thus intelligence? How can that be proved? Can it be assumed, if intuition proves to be unreliable ( a familiar charge)?
Discernment
Intuition is a powerful tool, but how reliable is it? Is there a way to validate the accuracy of one’s intuition? Well, if we follow Locke’s lead, and we will, then there is another human faculty that exists for just that purpose. This faculty is innate, and it is the inborn tool of rationality: the faculty of discernment. According to Locke, discernment consists of several layers: apprehension, comparison, differentiation, judgment, comprehension. Taken together these phases form cognition. And they are innate, as opposed to information, which is not innate (Locke).When we intuit something, we can compare our intuited information against other, previous, related inputs, and then conclude whether the intuition is correct. This exercises our ability to discern probabilities as well as entities.
For example, how valid is the faculty of intuition itself? We discern that there are objects which we find to be credible, probabilistically, which are not physical. (Think of math, logic, first principles, etc). So we have discerned that intuition can be accurate.
Errors in Intuition
How would we define and discover errors in our intuition? First, what would be the source of error in intuition?
Here some examples of error generators:
a) Faithful adherence to a worldview despite contrary evidence, which is rationalized and forced to fit the preconception.
b) Outright denial of the faculties of intuition and discernment. (w/o proof).
c) Suppression of faculties, as with materialism.
d) Improper calculation of probabilities, or weighting given to arguments.
Can we intuit that human wisdom can exist? Human agency? Human intelligence, communicable via speech, invention, written symbols?Scott has taken the big leap forward and could answer these questions based on his metaphysical beliefs, but my intent is to plod methodically out of materialism and ever deeper into the intuited reality beyond the material realm. Will we arrive at the same place in which Scott has professed faith?
If we intuit that humans do, or should, have individual rights, by what mechanism are those rights generated? If this is an absolute standard, what is the source of its absoluteness? Even totalitarians believe these things, although the rights are only for themselves. And the rights might be conferred by nature on the one hand, or a deity on the other; either way the rights for the particular individual are absolute. So if a person is not a totalitarian or in fear of a totalitarian, then individual human rights can be intuited to be conferred metaphysically, presumably from a deity.
If we do not intuit this, is it false or is it a failure of our intuition?
Suppression and Failure of Intuition
I personally believe that it is possible to suppress one’s intuition when in the pursuit of a personal worldview that is contradictory. I also believe that it is possible to have a complete organic failure of the faculty of intuition, just as it is possible to have a failure of the faculty of discernment, which robs one of common sense. These failures can be voluntary, as in self-deception, or involuntary as in permanent confusion and delusion. If these faculties exist, then their possible failure also exists. If we have a failure, the one sure way to know is to compare our intuitions to the most commonly generally-held intuitions, and look for external congruence and internal coherence.
Next round, Calibrating our Intution: the most commonly held intuitions....which is most easily believed? Why… or why not?
Also coming soon, What possible evidence falsifies God?
3 comments:
In an unexpected leap forward, Scott has professed a belief not just in God but also in Jesus, and presumably Christian morality. With a twist at the end he retains his propensity for skepticism, again presumably of all his professed beliefs. If I have that wrong, then let me know, and ignore the following. At any rate, he did not refer to any evidence which compelled his belief, but admitted the inability to prove, another interesting departure. Scott accepts both ends of our spectrum here, (from methodological materialism to metaphysical realities), so what we are doing at this point is mapping the supposed breach between them, and traversing (slowly) that breach.
This is a fair statement of where I'm at, Stan. However, I must cry out, 'Whoa!' I'm still digesting your previous post. I've got some questions about materialism as you've described it and I'd like to bat that around first. I know you must be chomping at the bit to go forward, inasmuch as you seem to have worked out this line of reasoning over the course of some time past. I'm just not smart enough to absorb it at the rate you're giving it, thanks.
OK, that's fine. take your time. Also, you have my prayers for your dad-in-law.
Stan
Might it be that part of the problem (perhaps all of it??) with "intuition" is that is that the word is so frequently misapplied?
Intuitional knowledge is non-rational (I specifically did not say "irrational," which is generally used with the sense of "anti-rational") ... we might call it "I know it because I know it" knowledge. To be more precise, if we do indeed know (or claim to know) some proposition intuitionally, we know (or claim to know) that it is true because it is true. That is, intuitional knowledge is non-rational precisely because it is not derived via ratiocination, as in "I know 'B' because 'A'." Intuitional knowledge is known (and asserted) on the basis of no ontologically prior propositions: it is what it is, one might say.
And, in fact, *all* our knowledge ultimately rests upon intuitional knowledge. We start with intuitional knowledge as our basis, and from there we reason to further knowledge.
For instance, my knowledge that I exist is intuitional knowledge: I know that I exist because I know that I exist. I can assert that I exist, but I cannot prove the assertion true on the basis of anything other than myself -- any attempt to prove it must involve self-reference. Though at the same time, I can perhaps prove the denial of the assertion false due to the incoherence of denying that I myself exist; this seems to amount to an indirect proof of the assertion that I exist (though, it's still self-referential).
On the other hand, my knowledge that *you* exist is not intuitional knowledge. My knowledge that you exist is built up via various logical inferences.
BUT, people frequently appply the term "intuition" to beliefs which properly speaking are not intuitional knowledge, but rather are inferences (and generally, badly reasoned inferences).
Post a Comment