Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jbernier · 07-06-2004, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool

1. Are you saying that, in general, issues of morality are more difficult to ascertain than issues of fact? If so, granted. But then I am not comparing issues of morality in general to issues of fact. I am comparing the intuitional understanding of the wrongfulness of baby-torture in particular to the intuitional sense of the divine in general.

However you have yet to demonstrate that our views on baby torture our intuitive. Is not the term "torture" itself a historically conditioned idea, one rooted in a particular history which has defined what are and are not acceptable ways to treat other human beings. However, we all know that these views are not universal - are people thus ignoring their intuition (which conveniently happens to line up with Western notions of civility and torture)?

Quote:

2. I do not say that I believe in biblical inerrancy from an intuitional basis alone and you offer no reason to construe my intuitional basis as identical to that which the Moslems and Mormons cite so your criticism here is apparently quite misguided.

No, it is not if we establish that there is a particular species of intuition that deals with knowledge of the divine. One can only suggest that there is a qualitative difference between Muslim and Christian intuitonal bases if one argues that (a) there is a qualitative difference between Muslim and Christian people at least insofar it applies to their ability to intuit the divine or (b) that there is a qualitative difference between the divine which is intuited by Muslim or Christian people.

The first position would seem to call into question the notion that all people - regardless of religion - are gifted with the same basic intellectual and sensual properties and is somewhat circular in that it argues that only when one becomes Christian can one intuit that God which one claims to believe in prior to entering into the Christian in which one can intuit said God (in other words the cart is hitched squarely before horse).

The second position, of course, is predicated upon the assumption that your intuition is correct and their's is not. If that is your assumption, very well; I probably cannot disprove such an assumption but neither can you disprove it. However, just be clear about it - and also recognize that your opinion about the merits of your intuition does not evidence make.

3. As I explained to Vorkosigan here, this is not an argument for the validity of intuition as an epistemological basis. Given the prior confusion citing intuition (as a basis, mind you) seemed to cause, it is simply intended as an explanation of what I mean by intuition and how I understand it to work. Since what I mean by intuition is apparently not what these others mean by it, their prior criticism is therefore towards an effigy.

If so many people are confused about your view of intuition perhaps the confusion has generated by a lack of clarity on the part of the sender of the message, not an inability to understand on the part of the receivers.

Quote:

6. Well, for example, those liberal scholars who try to construe apostolic belief in the resurrection in spiritualistic/gnostic/Hellenstic terms, divorcing this foundational belief from it's very Jewish context and very physicalist roots do so do so irresponsibly.

Wait a minute. That statement is problematic. Is it not a legitimate research question to ask whether or not the idea of the resurrection is derived from Greek thought in the first place? After all, we know that right from day one there was a significant Greek and Hellenistic element within Christian thought. Are you suggesting that these research questions themselves are irresponsible? I would suggest, in opposition, that not being open to such questions would be the height of irresponsibility as dogma would be substituting for scholarship.

Just because scholars come to conclusions you do not like does not mean that they are being irresponsible.

Cross Examiner · 07-06-2004, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Not convinced [1]. Most of us here can explain why they think torturing babies is wrong: That human life has some sort of inherent right to be respected [2]. Now we may this is a variety of ways but it will boil down to some sort of assumption like this. This, in turn, will be rooted in something else - for instance, in the Judeo-Christian tradition one may say "We are all created in the image of God so torturing babies is wrong as one is torturing a defenseless being who bears God's image" or something like that. This is turn is probably rooted in prior committments - such as belief in God and, moreover, God as understood in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Thus, an argument: In the Hebrew scriptures the human is described as bearing the image of God; thus this should be the basis for a Jewish or Christian understanding of the nature of humanity; just as God is to be respected so are those beings who bear his image; therefore it is wrong to to torture any human being, including babies.

Now, I am not saying that I buy this argument - and whether or not I do is irrelevant. It is merely enough to show that one can make an argument for why baby torture is wrong in order to refute the example of "intuitive knowledge" that you have offered [3].

Huh? I hold a B.A. in anthropology [4] and I have never heard this claim [5]. Indeed, the assumption is usually very different: That the human is social animal and that religion is (to quote Emile Durkheim) an "eminently social thing." [6, 7]

I think that Kant's a priori work much better is they are understood to be historically conditioned: That I, as a social and cultural being raised in a social and cultural context that has been conditioned by historical processes and events, have learned certain a priori that form the basis of my reasoning [8]. This is, of course, a somewhat modified version of Kant's thinking but I think it fits the data that has gathered and the work done by anthropologists over the last century (remembering, of course, the first American anthropologists were German immigrants trained in the Kantian tradition).

If you were to argue that that both "God is" and "God is not" (for instance) are essentially first principles that cannot be either proved or disproved through empirical study or rational analysis I would agree. However I do not see the warrant for leaping from that to say that there is an innate sense which causes one to sense God [9].

So atheists can't sense God because their sense of God has been destroyed [10]? They are God-blind, as it were? Convenient: "You don't agree with me because you are damaged [11]."

1. Not my aim.
2. You are making my case for me.
3. It is an invalid inference (i.e. non sequitur) from the fact that you can ground the wrongfulness of baby-torture in Judeo-Christian tradition that our comment assent that baby-torture is wrong is therefore not innate. If you feel otherwise, just list your premises formally and I'll show ya.
4. That's neat. I hold a B.A. in International Business.
5. Let me get this straight. In your studies, you've never heard the claim that man is a religious animal?
6. So man is a social animal. It does not follow from the given that man is a social animal that he is therefore not a religious animal.
7. What does it matter that Durkheim believes religious behavior is social behavior?
8. No. It is analytically true that synthetic a priori ideas are not caused by socio-historical factors since such are experiences of the world (i.e. a posteriori).
9. I do not imply from the problem of induction or first order logic or some combination thereof that man therefore has a sensus divinatus. Frankly, I have no idea where any of this is coming from.
10. You are confused. I am merely saying here that if, as I believe, the sensus divinatus can be damaged/destroyed then the fact that one cannot sense the divine does not mean that the sensus divinatus is nonexistent. Perhaps you should read the sentence I wrote that follows the one you quoted and responded to.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner · 07-06-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Perhaps because your argument is problematic [1].

Did you read what blt to go wrote [2]? Becauase, if you did, you would see that he was directly responding to what you wrote. He pointed out that the scripture talks about sacrificing animals in what he considers an ridiculously violent fashion. He pointed out that his intuition says this is wrong. This is, of course, equatable to your example of baby-torture, therefore if that is an example of your understanding of intuition than he is warranted in raising this objection; if it is not an example of your understanding of intuition than why did you give it as an example of your understanding of intuition [3]? Now, he pointed out that his intuitive assumption about animal sacrifice would, if taken as evidence, as you argue, would disprove Biblical inerrancy [4].

1. What are you talking about?
2. Yes.
3. I use the intuitional detection of the wrongfulness of baby-torture as a vehicle for explaining how the detection of the divine might work. The sensus divinatus, as I understand it, is a sort of intuition as moral intuition is a sort of intuition. Neither is identical to intuition itself.
4. How would blt to go's hypothetical intuitive revulsion against animal sacrifice 'disprove Biblical inerrancy'?

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner · 07-06-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Now, here is the rub: bgic, you appraisingly (and erronously) refer to anthropologists who affirm the inherent spirituality of the human species [1]. How is it that you can cite anthropology in support of your view on one hand and than almost completely dismiss it on the other [2]?

1. Just so I understand you here; you are saying that anthropologists do not consider man a religious animal, correct?
2. I do not dismiss anthropology.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner · 07-06-2004, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

For example, I was raised in an American Home, with Baptist parents. This has caused certain "intutions" [1] in me (capitalism = good, socialism = bad; god = good, satan = bad) that regardless of my education, current surroundings, etc., I still have those "gut" feelings. A person raised in a different culture (such as Taiwan, China, etc.) would have completely different intuitions. Not necessarily WRONG intuitions, just different.

BGic - I truly DID get your point (despite my brief response) I just think that intuitions, like presuppositions, like assumptions, are good STARTING points, but should ALWAYS be subject (and willing to be subject) to change, depending on other data [2].

It appears from your comments (since you did not want to elaborate beyond intuitions) that your intution is both the starting and the ending point, with no possiblity of change in between. This is not "intuition, presupposition or assumption." It is dogmatic belief, regardless of the facts. [3]

1. The sort of intuition I have been talking about is not 'caused' by experience of the world (e.g. your all-American, Baptist childhood). Synthetic a priori ideas, innate ideas, are not caused by experience of the world. Synthetic a posteriori ideas, however, are caused by experience of the world. How is this still unclear?
2. Noted.
3. Yes. If my intuitional basis was both the starting point and ending point, as you say, in deciding on the issue of Biblical inerrancy then this would be something like dogmatic belief on my part. But, as I've said many times, my intuitional basis is one of many contributing epistemological factors to my belief in Biblical inerrancy.

Regards,
BGic

blt to go · 07-06-2004, 01:35 PM

Once again, BGic, we play this game.

You use a word. Say, for example, "intuition." I attempt to apply this word, as is commonly used in every day language. When I do so, it becomes unworkable in your attempt to defend inerrancy.

You then inform me that my use of the word (as well as millions of others) is completely in error, I am "missing the point" and then you fail to distinguish why my use (as well as millions of others) is wrong.

I will try and let it out as clearly and succintly as possible. I will freely assume I am "missing the point" yet again. I rest quietly with the majority of the world, christian or otherwise.

I don't use "logic." I don't use "epistemological warrant." I simply take what you say and apply it to the words of the bible.

I oringinally dismissed "intuition" (and note you have failed to respond to the other three (3) points raised) as being wrong too often. I understood it was only one of your reasons, but since you have failed to respond to the other three (3) it is the only one I can deal with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BGic

Perhaps you do not understand what I mean by intuition and so you mock from misunderstanding? In that case, let me attempt to clarify the idea for you to some extent. When I say that I have an intuitional basis for holding the Bible inerrant I am not referring to some unsophisticated, cartoonish notion of the 'spidey-sense' or some such. Rather, I refer to that which is more along the lines of moral intuition (i.e. innate knowledge of right and wrong, perhaps distinct from the conscience). For example, you somehow know that baby-torture is wrong and ought not be done even though you cannot exhaustively and definitively explain why it is wrong and ought not be done (you can try me on this if you like).

The specific example you have used to describe your definition of "intuition" is that humans know that baby-torture is wrong. As I stated I would agree.

I would also state that humans know that cutting your only child into little bits simply because an authority requested it is ALSO wrong. (i.e. Abraham and Isaac)

Yet apprently YOUR god, in YOUR inerrant bible felt it was not only appropriate but commendable to go 100% against one's own intuition.

Now, you dismiss this by simply questioning whether I felt this story had to do with child sacrifice? No, I think this is a perfectly horrid story in which god, to test Abraham, ORDERED him to commit the equivalent of child torture. Something you apparently, BY YOUR INTUITION feel is wrong.

But I obviously have "intuition" all wrong. Just like god.....

jbernier · 07-06-2004, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool

1. Just so I understand you here; you are saying that anthropologists do not consider man a religious animal, correct?

Most anthropologists would argue that humans are by definition cultural and social. Part of the cultural and social life of humans is what we typically refer to as "religious" behaviour, practices and beliefs. However, most would, I think be likely to say that the category "religion", as something distinct from politics, economics, etc., is a particularly Western concept and thus is not applicable cross-culturally (same deal with the category "spiritual" as opposed to "material"). For instance, I am currently reading a volume which contains a series of different positions on whether or not the term "supernatural" is anthropologically justifiable given that many worldviews do not distinguish between "natural" and other than natural. Let us consider Hallowell's description of a conversation he had with an Ojibwe friend about whether or not a particular rock was alive: The friend said "Not all rocks are alive but that one might be." The meaning - for that Ojibwe some rocks are living beings. Now this is located within the Ojibwe person's understanding of what is "natural" - that it is "natural" for some rocks to be alive. He would not locate the "aliveness" of the rock outside of the "natural" world. Can we call this "supernatural" simply because we do not think that rocks are alive?

"Religion" is a category that we have come to attach to particular forms of social behaviour; nothing more.

Quote:

2. I do not dismiss anthropology.

Granted: I misread something you read.

funinspace · 07-06-2004, 01:48 PM

Referring to BGiC, jbernier said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

If so many people are confused about your view of intuition perhaps the confusion has generated by a lack of clarity on the part of the sender of the message, not an inability to understand on the part of the receivers.

Add my name to this list... Of course having watched BGiC in action for several months, I have already come to the conclusion that philosophical sophistry within the midst of verbal psychobabble is the preferred modus operandi. Challenges to step down to the nitty gritty of reality, and concrete examples are widely ignored. I acknowledge that he generally does admit to doing this. So I generally agree with BGiC, in that I won't waist time debating someone who is so diametrically divergent in views, combined with the insistence of staying within his ethereal landscape.

DK

jbernier · 07-06-2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool

3. I use the intuitional detection of the wrongfulness of baby-torture as a vehicle for explaining how the detection of the divine might work. The sensus divinatus, as I understand it, is a sort of intuition as moral intuition is a sort of intuition. Neither is identical to intuition itself.

If each is a sort of intuition then a critique of one is a critique of the other as each is a critique of the species called "intuition." Thus my critiques of the baby-torture example must be taken seriously if you hope to defend your position.

Quote:

4. How would blt to go's hypothetical intuitive revulsion against animal sacrifice 'disprove Biblical inerrancy'?

To repeat his argument (again):
1) You start with the position that we all believe that baby-torture is wrong.
2) You claim that we have no experiential reason for this belief.
3) You thus argue that this view of baby-torture is intuitive.
4) You then suggest that such intuition is sufficient reason to believe that baby-torture is wrong.
5) blt to go notes that he believes that the willingness to commit child sacrifice because a higher authority told one to do so is wrong.
6) He notes that, if there is no experiential reason for the belief that baby-torture is wrong, there can be no experiential reason for believing that the willingness to commit child sacrifice because a higher authority told one to do so is wrong.
7) Applying your argument we must maintain that the willingness to commit child sacrifice because a higher authority told one to do so must be intuitive.
8) Still applying your argument we must assume that such intuition is sufficient to believe that the willingness to commit child sacrifice because a higher authority told one to do so is wrong.
9) However, the scriptures offers a story in which Abraham is considered faithful because he displayed a willingness to commit child sacrifice because a higher authority told one to do so.
10) However, if 8 is valid then there is sufficient reason to believe that Abraham's willingness to commit child sacrifice because a higher authority told one to do so was wrong.
11) If 10 is valid then there the scriptures cannot be inerrant.

Cross Examiner · 07-06-2004, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLK

BillyGiC, I've come to respect you as a sincere and informed person. You used the term "epistemological warrant" a few days ago, I knew instantly you were relying on Plantingan concepts [1]. ...

As a lark, try googling up evolutionary epistemology and evo ethics [2].

1. Good call.
2. I found a variety of things. What would you like me to look at in particular?

Regards,
BGic

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.