Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which probably can be applied to over 90% of our experiences in life, and yet we say "experience is the greatest teacher".

My experience tells me that believing things on bad evidence, rarely if ever leads to accurate conclusions or beliefs.

What encouraged me to reconnect I posted a couple of years ago in three or so quite lengthy posts, followed a year or so later which another additional experience along the same line, but how can I confirm that these experiences were objectively real? I can't. And yet they took this agnostic guy who's been steeped for over five decades in science back to my extremely liberal theism, the base-line of which is found in "My Faith Statement" at the bottom of my posts.

Trust me, for almost three years I did tons of introspection to try and understand why these repeated experiences kept on happening, maybe coincidences or just a byproduct of my imagination, but the pattern kept on telling me that neither could explain them. And then the last one really blew my mind in a highly unexpected way.

Anyhow, it is what it is, but what it is shocked and changed some of my thinking.

Good for you. I can't comment on it because I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All knowledge begins when we sense an effect. Since we can't see, hear, taste or smell the difference between right and wrong morally, we must feel it.

Or we can reason to a conclusion, based on facts.
But once again... nobody here is talking about moral judgements.
Moral judgements aren't "accurate or inaccurate" like claims about objective reality are.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Everything we know, or think we know, about morality came from feeling the wrongness of some acts that we didn't feel about others.

It's called empathy. And it has no equivalent when it comes to pondering scientific questions about the world.

IMO, when you attempt to use your reasoning mind to improve upon your intuitive moral judgments (conscience), you are a student trying to improve upon the guidance of the Master.

It's kind of ironic then, that all the moral development of the last few centuries was a direct result of reasoning from facts.

 

[Polymath257]

The word reflex I associate with a kind of behavior. I'd call intuition inborn knowledge as opposed to knowledge acquired by the reasoning-learning function of our brains.

I don't see it as knowledge (justified true belief) at all. I see it more as reflexive response.

As for being less reliable, not in my opinion. An intuitive moral judgment, for example, has to be trusted because it's the only moral authority we have. So when one of our criminal laws clashes with the intuitive judgment (conscience) of an unbiased jury, the law is mistaken.

OK, I *strongly* disagree with this. For example, most people have a reflexive response, usually dislike, to outgroups. This is the underlying basis for most bigotry, I think. But this intuitive response is a very, very poor guide to morality.

And while out intuitive moral *responses* are often the basis of our moral *judgments*, the judgments can and *should* be tempered and modified by reasoning.

Give me an example, please.

Bigotry.

All knowledge begins when we sense an effect. Since we can't see, hear, taste or smell the difference between right and wrong morally, we must feel it. Everything we know, or think we know, about morality came from feeling the wrongness of some acts that we didn't feel about others.

OK, but we can then use our reasoning to determine if that intuition is consistent (it isn't) and fair (often not). I often have had an initial dislike of a person who I came to like later.

IMO, when you attempt to use your reasoning mind to improve upon your intuitive moral judgments (conscience), you are a student trying to improve upon the guidance of the Master.

OK, I very strongly disagree with that. The intuitive responses tend to be more motivated by basic, animal, fear than I think it good for morality. We should use our rationality to mediate that animal response.

 

[Polymath257]

This paragraph tells me that we need to define our terms.

When I use the word intuition, I'm referring to knowledge that emerges immediately from the unconscious mind, like a moral judgment or an immediate reaction to danger. Nothing is "counter-intuitive" in my understanding of intuition..

When you refer to "counter-intuitive," you are referring to something that functions in a way that you didn't reasonably expect. You say you can develop an intuition about them. I'd call that learning. As I define "intuition" it is inborn and cannot be developed.

I'm not quarreling with your use of the word. I'm simply pointing out that we aren't discussing the same thing.

And what happens when my intuition differs from yours? For example, your intuition is that some action is immoral and mine is that it is moral?

Or, for the point at hand, if your intuition is that God exists and mine is that there is no such entity?

Intuition is a *very* poor basis for any sort of knowledge precisely because people have very different intuitive responses, many of which we would all agree, after a bit of thought, are completely immoral.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't think of an example of intuition being used to generate hypotheses. Can you offer one?

I think both the generation and the testing are functions of reason.

I think moral questions like Is this act morally wrong? or Is this act fair? are answered intuitively by minds unbiased on the question and reasonable explanations of the judgment are not necessary.

1. moral evaluation is not what is being talked about here

2. moral evaluation is the result of reasoning in the 21st century

3. your argument is the equivalent of a jury not considering the evidence and just saying "GUILTY, because look at him... He looks SOOOOO guilty. My gut tells me he's guilty, he looks guilty to me. So, yea. GUILTY."

 

[joe1776]

OK, I *strongly* disagree with this. For example, most people have a reflexive response, usually dislike, to outgroups. This is the underlying basis for most bigotry, I think. But this intuitive response is a very, very poor guide to morality.

This exchange between us has no future. You are now attaching the label intuition to immoral motives.I don't associate intuition with motivation moral or immoral.

OK, but we can then use our reasoning to determine if that intuition is consistent (it isn't) and fair (often not). I often have had an initial dislike of a person who I came to like later.

Now you are labeling first impressions or perceptions as intuition.

OK, I very strongly disagree with that. The intuitive responses tend to be more motivated by basic, animal, fear than I think it good for morality. We should use our rationality to mediate that animal response.

Fear is just one of the many biases that can cause us humans to ignore the guidance of our conscience. Another, much more common is the reasoning bias. We arrogant humans are much too proud of our ability to reason. That's why we created commandments like You should not murder and massive laws on killings that, when they agree with the conscience of an unbiased jury, are coincidentally right, the way that stopped clocks are right twice a day. And when they do not agree, they are potential biases capable of creating injustice.

 

[Polymath257]

This exchange between us has no future. You are now attaching the label intuition to immoral motives.I don't associate intuition with motivation moral or immoral.

OK, that's what i was interpreting *you* as saying. if that isn't what you were saying, then I have to admit I don't understand what you mean by 'intuition'.

You specifically said you define intuition as 'immediately arising from the unconscious mind'. How is that anything other than what I said?

Now you are labeling first impressions or perceptions as intuition.

Yes. That was my understanding of what you said. See above.

Fear is just one of the many biases that can cause us humans to ignore the guidance of our conscience. Another, much more common is the reasoning bias. We arrogant humans are much too proud of our ability to reason. That's why we created commandments like You should not murder and massive laws on killings that, when they agree with the conscience of an unbiased jury, are coincidentally right, the way that stopped clocks are right twice a day. And when they do not agree, they are potential biases capable of creating injustice.

And so are differing intuitions, right?

 

[joe1776]

1. moral evaluation is not what is being talked about here.

It came up in the discussion between Polymath and me.

2. moral evaluation is the result of reasoning in the 21st century

Oh really?

3. your argument is the equivalent of a jury not considering the evidence and just saying "GUILTY, because look at him... He looks SOOOOO guilty. My gut tells me he's guilty, he looks guilty to me. So, yea. GUILTY."

You do love your false analogies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Oh really?

Yes.

Whenever moral development happened, it wasn't the result of "changing instinct".
It was the result of learning about new facts and changing reasoned conclusions accordingly.

You do love your false analogies

How is it a false analogy?

I think analogies are very powerful devices to shed light on certain positions by transposing it into another domain on which agreement can be found.

Hence I like analogies to make points.
Even if you are correct and my analogy is false, then explaining why it's false might shed extra light on the original position being challenged, so everybody still wins imo.

So I don't mind making false analogies in such context.
But I do mind them just being asserted as false without explaining how it's false. ;-)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't think of an example of intuition being used to generate hypotheses. Can you offer one?

Off the top of my head: evolution, at least initially.

It's not uncommon to look at a collection of data and have an "aha!" moment where some possible correlation pops into your head. That part is intuitive.

Now... analysis to confirm that the correlation is real and further analysis to isolate variables and figure out a mechanism is a different story, but intuition can be a good source of ideas to test.

I think both the generation and the testing are functions of reason.

They can't be irrational, but there can be quite a bit of contribution from intuition.

If you're really interested, Steven Jay Gould has a bunch of essays that talk about creativity in the sciences and dispelling the myths about it being nothing more than an exercise in reason.

 

[joe1776]

You specifically said you define intuition as 'immediately arising from the unconscious mind'. How is that anything other than what I said?

OK, I understand the confusion. We humans have unconscious needs that motivate behavior, both moral and immoral. However, the moral guidance we refer to as conscience ALSO emerges from the unconscious.

And so are differing intuitions, right?

If we take a specific act (Polymath's fairies comment) and give an unbiased jury of 33 people the facts, the conscience of the majority will reach the right conclusion. Obviously, finding 33 people unbiased on that question would be difficult. Biases explain what appear to be differences in intuitive moral judgments

.

 

[joe1776]

How is it a false analogy?

Your false analogy was so far off the mark it wasn't worthy of an explanation. It was just another of your attempts to ridicule the thoughts of your debate opponent.

 

[PureX]

Objective reality, is reality as it actually exists - as opposed to reality how any individual human merely perceives it.

Having said that, humans most definatly are able to learn about objective reality.

But what we can 'learn' is entirely subject to the limitations of our physical and intellectual capacities, which are clearly not sufficient, as we are constantly discovering that what we thought we 'knew to be right' turned out to be wrong (until we learn otherwise, yet again). So that what you are calling "objective reality", and imagining that you can "know", is really just a subjective intellectual creation existing in your own mind. And no matter how you try to argue otherwise, you cannot escape this simple fact. The very same fact that you are trying to condemn theists for ignoring.

No.
I'm talking about objective reality as an acknowledgement that there IS an objective reality. A reality that exists and in which we ourselves exists. No matter if we are able to fully discern it or not.

I understand that you BELIEVE this, lots of people do. But you keep trying to ignore the fact that you have no possible way of knowing it to be so, because YOU are the subject that's rendering your experience of reality "subjective". And you cannot escape from that, ever, to experience (to "know") this objective reality in which you believe so fully. There is no possible way for you to know that what you imagine to be "objective reality" isn't just a collectively held delusion.

So when I'm talking about a physical existing chair, then you can't comprehend what I'm talking about?
The chair, wich we all of us can independently of eachother observer, feel, sit on, etc, does not objectively exist in objective reality?

It's just a figmant of our collective imagination?
How does this make any sense?

How does anything "make sense" to us? ... Through our imaginations; creating relationships, and causes and effects in what we experience. Creating "evidences" to maintain them; convincing each other to agree on their truthfulness, and so on. What is, is what is. What we make of it is up to us ... is subject to us. And is therefor subjective, not objective, as you keep wanting to believe, and to insist we all believe, with you.

 

[joe1776]

If you're really interested, Steven Jay Gould has a bunch of essays that talk about creativity in the sciences and dispelling the myths about it being nothing more than an exercise in reason.

I'm using the dictionary definition of intuition: Here's how one dictionary has it:an ability to know or understand something through your feelings, instead of by considering facts or evidence

Intuition emerges immediately from the unconscious. The connection to evolution escapes me. And I don't associate creativity or "aha moments" with intuition unless it's clear that the insight was not the result of reasoning on the evidence.

 

[joe1776]

And what happens when my intuition differs from yours? For example, your intuition is that some action is immoral and mine is that it is moral?

That won't happen unless one of us is biased.

Or, for the point at hand, if your intuition is that God exists and mine is that there is no such entity?

That's a question of reason and not one of morality and intuition.

Intuition is a *very* poor basis for any sort of knowledge precisely because people have very different intuitive responses, many of which we would all agree, after a bit of thought, are completely immoral.

I don't agree because I think you are blaming the intuition of conscience when the culprit is bias.

For example, imagine a set of facts in a killing that clearly indicate a justifiable case of self-defense. However, some Christians will declare that the killer sinned. They ignore their conscience because they interpret the Bible's commandment You should not kill as an absolute rule. Their reasoned interpretation of the Bible has created a bias sending moral judgment off course.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm using the dictionary definition of intuition: Here's how one dictionary has it:an ability to know or understand something through your feelings, instead of by considering facts or evidence

Intuition emerges immediately from the unconscious. The connection to evolution escapes me. And I don't associate creativity or "aha moments" with intuition unless it's clear that the insight was not the result of reasoning on the evidence.

Sounds like you're using the word "intuition" differently from how I am. I really don't care enough about this to debate semantics with you.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I understand the confusion. We humans have unconscious needs that motivate behavior, both moral and immoral. However, the moral guidance we refer to as conscience ALSO emerges from the unconscious.

OK, I think I disagree with that. Our moral *impulses* arise from the unconscious, but I think our moral *judgments* require conscious thought and rational discussion.

If we take a specific act (Polymath's fairies comment) and give an unbiased jury of 33 people the facts, the conscience of the majority will reach the right conclusion. Obviously, finding 33 people unbiased on that question would be difficult. Biases explain what appear to be differences in intuitive moral judgments

.

OK, I don't see a major difference between intuitive moral judgments and biases. And your claim to only allow unbiased jury members is *exactly* the point. If their moral intuitions differ from what we consider to be 'good', then we want to exclude them from the jury.

The actual moral judgments are what arise from discussion and reason applied to the evidence and may well be far better than the intuitions that all too often *are* biased.

 

[joe1776]

Sounds like you're using the word "intuition" differently from how I am. I really don't care enough about this to debate semantics with you.

No problem. I don't debate definitions.

 

[Polymath257]

That won't happen unless one of us is biased.

OK, I disagree with that statement. To be biased simply means having a different moral intuition.

That's a question of reason and not one of morality and intuition.

OK, then I don't understand how we got here. I thought the reason we went off on intuition is that it is what is required to know God exists. But I am claiming that intuition is a very, very poor way to get at truth.

I don't agree because I think you are blaming the intuition of conscience when the culprit is bias.

I really don't see the difference. The only difference I see is that you label something as bias if it is an intuition that disagrees with yours.

For example, imagine a set of facts in a killing that clearly indicate a justifiable case of self-defense. However, some Christians will declare that the killer sinned. They ignore their conscience because they interpret the Bible's commandment You should not kill as an absolute rule. Their reasoned interpretation of the Bible has created a bias sending moral judgment off course.

And what of those whose actual, internal intuition is that this was NOT justified?

You seem to be claiming two people cannot have differences of intuition. That, to me, seems to be obviously false. (not just intuitively false).

 

[joe1776]

OK, I think I disagree with that. Our moral *impulses* arise from the unconscious, but I think our moral *judgments* require conscious thought and rational discussion.

You are expressing the rationalist explanation on moral judgments but, over the last 20-30 years, the research is favoring the intuitionist explanation. This isn't the best research available but it's the most interesting:

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

OK, I don't see a major difference between intuitive moral judgments and biases. And your claim to only allow unbiased jury members is *exactly* the point. If their moral intuitions differ from what we consider to be 'good', then we want to exclude them from the jury.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. In the sentencing of a convicted rapist, we don't trust the judgment of the mother of the rapist or the father of the victim. We know that if we want fairness, then we need to rely on the intuition for fairness of unbiased minds to render judgment.

The actual moral judgments are what arise from discussion and reason applied to the evidence and may well be far better than the intuitions that all too often *are* biased.

In a criminal case, What are the facts? is a question decided by reason. Was the act immoral? is a question of conscience, to be decided by the moral intuition of the jury.