Atheism, Theism, Science & Philosophy

[The Reality Salesman01]

I have never claimed that God can be perceived rationally,

Then you agree God is an irrational concept

except in cases where we are theoretically...

Nope...it's irrational here too. The same could be said of Santa if I were talking to a child. Discussing it doesn't make it reasonable, you'd have to show a reason for that.

I used psychedelic drugs for mystical experience and consciousness expansion.

...I'll comment on this at another time.

IIs there anything in life that you just "know" based on pure intuition?

No. Neither do you. You may guess something accurately, but every decision or prediction you make (aside from this one) is based on some sort of verifiable data.
"A man that holds a true belief without knowledge is like a blind man that happens to find the right way"-Plato

I Or do you always require empirical evidence to gain knowledge about something?

Faith is a misleading concept. Don't conflate possibility with plausibility or probability. Faith is the first one and only because that which requires it, is inherently unfalsifiable. I don't classify unfalsifiable claims as knowledge and certainly wouldn't bet on them in any way shape or form. It's irrational.

[Ryantology]

Is there anything in life that you just "know" based on pure intuition? Or do you always require empirical evidence to gain knowledge about something?

Absolutely nothing I 'know'* comes from pure intuition or faith, because I understand that I have biases and a brain which does a lot of things without my explicit approval. Any purely subjective experience I have (and I'm sure I have as many as anyone else) I cannot trust until other people (the more, the merrier) can independently reproduce the experience and report the same results without any foreknowledge.

I demand empirical evidence before I accept anything as true because I know better than to think that any subjective experience I could possibly be trustworthy all by itself. That's just accepting human fallibility, which is one thing which confuses me about the Christian faith: it really stresses the hell out of the fact that humans are imperfect, yet it relies entirely on 100% subjective human experiences to subsist. That strikes me as entirely contradictory.

*might you say something "do you need someone to tell you that pain hurts?". No, but that's not knowledge, that is biological function. Do I need someone to tell me that sometimes inflicting pain on myself is necessary? Absolutely, otherwise I would probably die from an infection, because putting alcohol on a cut hurts like a motherfucker and I would never do that unless there was a damned good reason to. "Trust nothing which cannot be verified" would be my motto if I cared to have one. I consider it the height of folly to accept as truth an assertion designed specifically to avoid verification.

[Whateverist]

Is there anything in life that you just "know" based on pure intuition? Or do you always require empirical evidence to gain knowledge about something?

Yes but no. There is plenty in life that I act on which does not rise to the standard necessary to call it "knowledge". That doesn't mean I would never place my full confidence in a gut feeling, hunch or intuition. But knowledge isn't about confidence or actionability. And neither is a belief knowledge just in case it happens to be true. I don't think any private belief I might have for which I can't make a case that is convincing for the right reasons deserves to be called knowledge.

[Love]

Yes but no. There is plenty in life that I act on which does not rise to the standard necessary to call it "knowledge". That doesn't mean I would never place my full confidence in a gut feeling, hunch or intuition. But knowledge isn't about confidence or actionability. And neither is a belief knowledge just in case it happens to be true. I don't think any private belief I might have for which I can't make a case that is convincing for the right reasons deserves to be called knowledge.

Then inevitably we're heading towards another epistemological discussion. Is the scientific method really the only way to gain true knowledge? My answer is "obviously not". There are plenty of things that I just "know" based on pure intuition. It is important to note that I view "intuition" in an unconventional manner; I do not view it is a form of a priori knowledge based on reason and independent of experience. I believe people can gain intuitive knowledge purely from an immediate subjective experience; I view it as a modified form of a posteriori knowledge that can be attained within and beyond the sensory experience (without having to rely on reason to make sense of it).

[The Reality Salesman01]

Then inevitably we're heading towards another epistemological discussion. Is the scientific method really the only way to gain true knowledge? My answer is "obviously not". There are plenty of things that I just "know" based on pure intuition. It is important to note that I view "intuition" in an unconventional manner; I do not view it is a form of a priori knowledge based on reason and independent of experience. I believe people can gain intuitive knowledge purely from an immediate subjective experience; I view it as a modified form of a posteriori knowledge that can be attained within and beyond the sensory experience (without having to rely on reason to make sense of it).

I can appreciate what you are describing, and perhaps my issue with it is purely syntactic.

I have no issue with making an inductive inference using rational intuition. We agree here. I split ways when you call this knowledge. Inductive inference based on such intuition is an effective way to begin a hypothesis, but you have to be careful, not only to what you apply this useful tool to, but also how you qualify your assumption.

The beleif that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is an assumption that drives our sciences. But this assumption is not blind. It stands very firmly on years of sophisticated testing and consistant unrelenting results. It continues to be challenged, and the more it is challenged, the more it is confirmed. If you are attempting to assert God as a hypothesis for how the universe came into existance, you do this by a series of connecting inferences to an unvalidated entity and the first rule of supporting the God hypothesis is-NEVER CHALLENGE IT. The second rule of the God hypothesis is-IF CHALLENGED, CONFORM IT TO FIT. There is no reason to attribute anything to a God because there is no evidence that God even exists!

If I found some old artifacts in the ground during an excavation, say they were eating utensils (my first valid inductive inference) carved (second valid inductive inference) from wood. If I was going to begin to explain where they could have possibly came from, I would not need evidence to assert as a starting point that they were at the very least made by probably man. This would be a valid inductive inference, and an excellent starting point to my hypothesis of EXACTLY where they came from because of my knowledge of what sorts of things are common to creations of man. But all of this is only valid because of knowledge.

If this is applied to the universe, and God is the inference that is made as an explanation, it has no valid starting point. The universe we have without a God is precisely the universe we could expect to not have a God. There is no evidence of such things, and any attempt to logically assert such a capable being, cannot be validated inductively or deductively. There is absolutely no reason to assume it to be plausible because plausibility can NEVER BE ASSUMED.
A hypothesis must be falsifiable to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested or rationally accepted.

The subject of your hypothesis has no evididence to believe it is a real subject, you could replace God with any word you want that is equally indiscernible, and your inference would not be more or less likely. An unfalsifiable claim is not an inductive inference made by rational intuition. It is wishful thinking and blindly connecting dots to an object on a piece of paper that has been placed there by you for no other reason than-You really want it to be there.

[Love]

I have no issue with making an inductive inference using rational intuition. We agree here. I split ways when you call this knowledge. Inductive inference based on such intuition is an effective way to begin a hypothesis, but you have to be careful, not only to what you apply this useful tool to, but also how you qualify your assumption.

I think one of the main issues we are facing here is the limiting nature of human language (verbal or written articulation); I think there are some things that just cannot be communicated from one person another. Normal usage of the English language is purely rational. For instance, whilst writing this reply, I am attempting to use reasoned argument to explain something that I believe is beyond the scope of reason, which obviously comes across to you as unreasonable.

I also depart from you with the term "rational intuition" (which is the only form of intuition in which analytic philosophers are interested). As I have explained, I do not view intuition as a form of a priori knowledge, but rather a posteriori knowledge; knowledge that can be immediately experienced without relying on reasoned language to explain the experience.

What you're discussing as regards scientific knowledge is empiricism and empirical observation. I think empiricism and intuition can work well together, although to reiterate I believe knowledge can be attained beyond the sensory experience.

[Whateverist]

Then inevitably we're heading towards another epistemological discussion. Is the scientific method really the only way to gain true knowledge? My answer is "obviously not". There are plenty of things that I just "know" based on pure intuition. It is important to note that I view "intuition" in an unconventional manner; I do not view it is a form of a priori knowledge based on reason and independent of experience. I believe people can gain intuitive knowledge purely from an immediate subjective experience; I view it as a modified form of a posteriori knowledge that can be attained within and beyond the sensory experience (without having to rely on reason to make sense of it).

Sounds like the big difference has to do with whether you are claiming your belief counts as knowledge for you or for everyone. If you wish to classify certain of your intuition-based beliefs as knowledge for your own personal consumption, go for it. Hell, what goes on inside your own cranium is up to you. But if you wish to bring that private 'knowledge' to the interpersonal marketplace of ideas, you surely recognize the problem. Shall we make a list of what can agree that "we know" under one heading and then make another for all the knowledge claims vouchsafed by a single individual? Those items under the first heading are what we generally refer to as knowledge. Those items under the second heading are things of no general use to others. They can guide our own actions and be shared with friends but why blur the distinction?

[The Reality Salesman01]

I am attempting to use reasoned argument to explain something that I believe is beyond the scope of reason

YES! It is unreasonalbe and therefore irrational, and so....

which obviously comes across to you as unreasonable.

You have a firm grasp of our disagreement. You are making unreasonable and therein irrational inferences and even after clearly describing why such a thing fails you say...

I also depart from you with the term "rational intuition" (which is the only form of intuition in which analytic philosophers are interested).

But, why? You've already explained to yourself that this is unreasonable...

I think empiricism and intuition can work well together

You and I agree on this as I've specified in the earlier post. It is a very useful tool if applied rationally, but then you said...

I am attempting to use reasoned argument to explain something that I believe is beyond the scope of reason

and so our disagreement begins at the starting point. The thing that is begging the question is...

I believe knowledge can be attained beyond the sensory experience.

Why? Any attempt to justify this claim will stem from an irrational argument which will be inherently illogical. So, attempting to justify it with rational intuition will be a failed effort, and I will be perfectly justified to circurlarly reject your claims.

[Love]

YES! It is unreasonalbe and therefore irrational, and so....

It seems as though you are using the word "irrational" in the pejorative sense as opposed to its philosophical meaning. Correct me if I am wrong.

You have a firm grasp of our disagreement. You are making unreasonable and therein irrational inferences.

These are all extremely complex philosophical issues.

In terms of the typical use of English language, with which we're communicating right now, I was simply stating that it is fundamentally inadequate in a number areas. One such example is: expressing real love to another person; music or other forms of art are much more appropriate. You could pejoratively label this as "irrational" or "unreasonable", but from my perspective this does not add any credibility to your argument. The British philosopher of language John Stuart Mill shared a similar opinion about the limits of reasoned language.

My basic point is this: I am certain that rationalism has limits in terms of accounting for the entirety of the human experience; supplementation is required in a number of areas. I have provided some examples in earlier replies.

[The Reality Salesman01]

YES! It is unreasonalbe and therefore irrational, and so....

It seems as though you are using the word "irrational" in the pejorative sense as opposed to its philosophical meaning. Correct me if I am wrong.

You have a firm grasp of our disagreement. You are making unreasonable and therein irrational inferences.

These are all extremely complex philosophical issues.

In terms of the typical use of English language, with which we're communicating right now, I was simply stating that it is fundamentally inadequate in a number areas. One such example is: expressing real love to another person; music or other forms of art are much more appropriate. You could pejoratively label this as "irrational" or "unreasonable", but from my perspective this does not add any credibility to your argument. The British philosopher of language John Stuart Mill shared a similar opinion about the limits of reasoned language.

My basic point is this: I am certain that rationalism and the scientific method have limits in terms of accounting for the entirety of the human experience. Supplementation is required in a number of areas; I have provided some examples in some earlier replies.

rea·son-
1)To use the faculty of reason; think logically
2)The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence
3)Good judgment; sound sense
4)Logic A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument
5)To determine or conclude by logical thinking
un·rea·son·a·ble- Not governed by reason
ir·ra·tion·al-Not endowed with reason