Why I'm not an Atheist and believe in what I believe.

[Jackalope]

You're going to have to pin down what you mean by "intuition" and "know(ledge)" first.

In epistemology, the Platonic view is that knowledge is justified, true belief. However, there is much disagreement as to what knowledge actually is.

Intuition can be viewed as the ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason, or as a priori knowledge/belief - and the definition is far from settled.

I'm not convinced that intuitive knowledge meets the Platonic criteria demanded of knowledge by epistemology, at least not universally. Without an agreement to what those two terms mean, any kind of statement regarding the possibility of intuitive knowledge is necessarily vague.

haha, this is would go way off topic though don't you think? I don't know how to define knowledge...maybe it's like religion, can't be defined but we all know what it means?

Perhaps, but consider this: If you don't know what knowledge is (i.e. you cannot define it), how can you know that you can know something intuitively? Are you able to articulate to another WHY you consider it knowledge (i.e. can you justify it)?

If you cannot, I think it can be reasonably argued that you in fact, do not know it at all.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Why is intuitive knowledge only fine if supported by credible evidence?

An assertion without proof is only proposition. Intuition as a source of knowledge is one of the oldest forms of superstition. Philosophically it falls under the heading of solipism. (look it up)


A skeptic,I am not asserting you are necessarily wrong,no matter how likely I think that may be. I assert only that I'm unable to believe your claims without credible evidence.

[Mystic]

haha, this is would go way off topic though don't you think? I don't know how to define knowledge...maybe it's like religion, can't be defined but we all know what it means?

Perhaps, but consider this: If you don't know what knowledge is (i.e. you cannot define it), how can you know that you can know something intuitively? Are you able to articulate to another WHY you consider it knowledge (i.e. can you justify it)?

If you cannot, I think it can be reasonably argued that you in fact, do not know it at all.

Wait a minute, you are saying because I can't define knowledge, I don't know what knowledge is. This is not fair. Knowledge is when I know something. I know what it means to know something. I just can't define it.

I can't define religion but I can still know what religion is.

---

This site would explain better than I could: http://www.endusmilitarism.org/ethicsandmorality.html
There is a section on the differences below the fold.

OK thanks. I disagree on their definition of morality.

[ScienceLovesGod]

Well, we learn morality through social cues, not intuition. Babies aren't born with morals, they are taught to them.

There is no moral compass we were born with? Prove it.

[Annik]

Well, we learn morality through social cues, not intuition. Babies aren't born with morals, they are taught to them.

There is no moral compass we were born with? Prove it.

Prove we are.

[Mystic]

Where do you get your principles in ethics from? You just decide them randomly?

[Annik]

I'm sure this has evolved along with our brains, but The Golden Rule is a pretty good way to decide. I can tell you the an infant's/child's brain is not formed enough to make moral choices without input from social cues. If you refer back to Kohlberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Ko...velopment_), it becomes more apparent how a child develops morally.

I believe ethics is more a question of philosophy, just like moral codes. But you're getting away from the core question, we don't have a moral intuition, we have a burning need to be accepted, thus (as children) we conform to moral norms until we are old enough to understand the implications of our actions, ect.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Well, we learn morality through social cues, not intuition. Babies aren't born with morals, they are taught to them.

There is no moral compass we were born with? Prove it.

A simple answer: If morality was fully innate, it would be consistent, universal and unchanging,but it isn't so it ain't.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Actually Annik, he's right; having made a positive claim, you have attracted the burden of proof. Lots of luck.

My position: Morality is a survival tool,based on pragmatism. Because its rudiments have been observed in chimps, some form of morality MAY be hardwired in us too.

So far, I have never seen any evidence of any external or transcendent moral authority. I recognise only conscience.


I cannot prove my position,which is only by default.IE failing proof of anything better.

[Annik]

There is no moral compass we were born with? Prove it.

A simple answer: If morality was fully innate, it would be consistent, universal and unchanging,but it isn't so it ain't.

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Actually Annik, he's right; having made a positive claim, you have attracted the burden of proof. Lots of luck.

What you said is what I would say. The every-changing river of moral acceptance is evidence that morality is not static and not something we are born with.

[Mystic]

I'm sure this has evolved along with our brains, but The Golden Rule is a pretty good way to decide. I can tell you the an infant's/child's brain is not formed enough to make moral choices without input from social cues. If you refer back to Kohlberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Ko...velopment_), it becomes more apparent how a child develops morally.

I believe ethics is more a question of philosophy, just like moral codes. But you're getting away from the core question, we don't have a moral intuition, we have a burning need to be accepted, thus (as children) we conform to moral norms until we are old enough to understand the implications of our actions, ect.

Why should a person follow the golden rule?