Theistic Inclinations

[Whateverist]

I realize I've wakened the dead here, but have only come across this exchange and am now interested to see it continue and participate myself.  I wonder if the participants have any interest in returning to it now?

… I'm saying that each has their own domain and that the domain of internal experiences is the world of our shared psychology… The internal world of math and logic is mapped to the external world.  That's taking a piece of math or logic and using it to model the external world.  That is using math and logic as descriptors.  You won't find math or logic themselves in the external world…How do you know that math and logic aren't a part of our common psychology?

First there is a danger of falling into a semantic argument about the meaning and scope of psychology. If you mean a science that studies the qualities and characteristics of the human mind then we are in agreement at least as far as that goes. But the topic is deeper than mere psychology in the same way that the study of being-as-such is a more fundamental inquiry than the study of particular beings – not individual features of minds but the nature of mind itself. The attempt to reduce everything to psychology ignores the vital distinction between the essence of cognition, its intentionality (in the Brentano/Sartre sense), and the various contents of that intentionality.

Regarding my bolded, don't you think it useful to at least bear in mind that we carry our psychological limitations everywhere .. especially into our attempts to look beyond them?  I don't think it is reductionist to accept the provisional nature of any conclusions reached in such attempts.  It is merely prudent.

My rudimentary thinking on the matter is that logic and mathematics are indeed symbolic systems but that those symbols passively describe actual prescriptive principles that actively impose order. Such appear necessary to bridge the link between first-person conscious experience and third-person phenomena. For example, the Principle of Non-Contradiction is the antidote to solipsism since it is self-evidently true that whatever the PNC encodes linguistically would govern reality even in the absence of any finite minds to contemplate it. As such at least one immaterial object apparently exists apart from the mind that conceives it. My guess is that a radical skeptic could argue that what seems self-evident may not be so to which I would reply with respect to the PNC that position is self-defeating.

I can't help but wonder how you conceive the nature of these "actual prescriptive principles" and in what manner you think they exist in the passage I bolded.  What order we find is well described by these symbolic systems; but how do you infer agency in the establishment of that order, which you seem to be attributing to those principles?  Isn't that getting the cart ahead of the horse?  I suppose it is an expression of your theistic approach to the world to look for an order giver wherever order if found.  It is likewise an expression of my non-theistic world view to marvel at the inherent nature of things that they should interact as they do where I see order.  It is obviously a human trait -whether you see its inception as owing to God or evolution- to look for order and note exceptions.  It has mostly served us well.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...don't you think it useful to at least bear in mind that we carry our psychological limitations everywhere. especially into our attempts to look beyond them?  I don't think it is reductionist to accept the provisional nature of any conclusions reached in such attempts.  It is merely prudent.

Even within the Christian worldview there is the acknowledgement that our rationality has been corrupted by sin, so of course, a measure of humility is required. The question is how far does one extend this notion. There seem to be no lower limit to skepticism. Unless there is a counterbalancing trust in something beyond one's own cognitive abilities, local perspective, and immediate desires then skepticism devours every pretense of rationality and intelligibility.I feel like every time I press the issue someone will object that ultimately reason cannot be trusted, that our senses deceive us, and that objective knowledge cannot be attained. To my mind these are self-defeating position. When confronted with this, many skeptics just shrug their shoulders and appeal to pragmatism like "Meh, good is good enough. I don't need certainty." Perhaps that is true. Many people go through life without wrestling with the puzzles of philosophy and are none the worse for it. At the same time I take issue with those who will say that belief in God is irrational/illogical but base their objections on notions that undermine the ability to attain knowledge.

Next, my preemptive response to the objection that math and logic are merely descriptive was placed ahead of the part you quoted, which is this:

...the central mystery of mathematics which is how consistently abstract principles model external phenomena. If math and logic do in fact describe phenomena then what is it about reality  that they are describing?

I think your earlier response to this falls into the "they just do" category.

[Whateverist]

...don't you think it useful to at least bear in mind that we carry our psychological limitations everywhere. especially into our attempts to look beyond them?  I don't think it is reductionist to accept the provisional nature of any conclusions reached in such attempts.  It is merely prudent.

Even within the Christian worldview there is the acknowledgement that our rationality has been corrupted by sin, so of course, a measure of humility is required. The question is how far does one extend this notion. There seem to be no lower limit to skepticism. Unless there is a counterbalancing trust in something beyond one's own cognitive abilities, local perspective, and immediate desires then skepticism devours every pretense of rationality and intelligibility.I feel like every time I press the issue someone will object that ultimately reason cannot be trusted, that our senses deceive us, and that objective knowledge cannot be attained. To my mind these are self-defeating position. When confronted with this, many skeptics just shrug their shoulders and appeal to pragmatism like "Meh, good is good enough. I don't need certainty." Perhaps that is true. Many people go through life without wrestling with the puzzles of philosophy and are none the worse for it. At the same time I take issue with those who will say that belief in God is irrational/illogical but base their objections on notions that undermine the ability to attain knowledge.

And I've certainly witnessed what you complain of here. For what it's worth, I don't say belief in God is illogical because that would depend on one's premises. But surely it is to some degree non-rational. While you may cobble together the best justification possible with logical aplomb, from whence comes the apprehension of a god? The initial hunch that a non-detectable god is in play must benefit from something beyond mere reason. Of course the usual route by which the kernel of god apprehension arrives is direct teaching on the part of parents and the 'tribe'.

Next, my preemptive response to the objection that math and logic are merely descriptive was placed ahead of the part you quoted, which is this:

...the central mystery of mathematics which is how consistently abstract principles model external phenomena. If math and logic do in fact describe phenomena then what is it about reality  that they are describing?

I think your earlier response to this falls into the "they just do" category.

You're right about how I regard logic and math, that they are descriptive and as Jor would say map onto the world of objects. In this they are like everyday language, although they are much simpler. I had thought to respond to that point too but posted at first without doing so. I didn't want to rush it so I left it out. Let me think about it some more.

[Neo-Scholastic]

For what it's worth, I don't say belief in God is illogical because that would depend on one's premises.  But surely it is to some degree non-rational.  While you may cobble together the best justification possible with logical aplomb, from whence comes the apprehension of a god?  The initial hunch that a non-detectable god is in play must benefit from something beyond mere reason.  Of course the usual route by which the kernel of god apprehension arrives is direct teaching on the part of parents and the 'tribe'.

Is belief in God, as you say, at least non-rational? To some degree I would agree with you since many parts of cognition happen below the surface or come into our awareness before reflecting on how they make us feel or what we think about them. Memories are a prime example. People have memories before they decide whether or not they are accurate. And if fact, they believe memories to be true unless there is sufficient reason to suppose those memories are not. The same is true for perception. People assume that they see and hear correctly the objects around them unless there is reason to suppose otherwise. I say it is right and proper for them to do so. As such the rule I apply is that things are as they appear to be until shown otherwise. And showing otherwise is where rational reflection comes in to possibly introduce doubt and/or defeaters.

I say that just like memory and immediate perception there are other pre/non-rational beliefs that are initially justifiable and include things like trusting reason, moral realism, the sensus divinitatis, and the sublime. It takes a special effort to show that these things do not point towards facts about the world. People do not start from a position of doubt (witness any teenager). Incredulity and skepticism are cultivated. For example, people have to convince themselves that senseless killing is not in fact actually wrong but only a personal or social preference against such actions.

On the other hand, further consideration may bolster our initial beliefs, like a photo album can confirm memories. That is why I say that faith is something you reason from not something that is reasoned to. The holy scriptures do not tell us that God exists, that sense is already in place. Instead, they tell us about what God is. The role of apologetics is not to convince anyone that Christian belief is true; but rather, to address possible defeaters and show that those objections suppressing people’s apprehension of the divine are unsound.

[Whateverist]

For what it's worth, I don't say belief in God is illogical because that would depend on one's premises.  But surely it is to some degree non-rational.  While you may cobble together the best justification possible with logical aplomb, from whence comes the apprehension of a god?  The initial hunch that a non-detectable god is in play must benefit from something beyond mere reason.  Of course the usual route by which the kernel of god apprehension arrives is direct teaching on the part of parents and the 'tribe'.

Is belief in God, as you say, at least non-rational? To some degree I would agree with you since many parts of cognition happen below the surface or come into our awareness before reflecting on how they make us feel or what we think about them. Memories are a prime example. People have memories before they decide whether or not they are accurate. And if fact, they believe memories to be true unless there is sufficient reason to suppose those memories are not. The same is true for perception. People assume that they see and hear correctly the objects around them unless there is reason to suppose otherwise. I say it is right and proper for them to do so. As such the rule I apply is that things are as they appear to be until shown otherwise. And showing otherwise is where rational reflection comes in to possibly introduce doubt and/or defeaters.

I say that just like memory and immediate perception there are other pre/non-rational beliefs that are initially justifiable and include things like trusting reason, moral realism, the sensus divinitatis, and the sublime. It takes a special effort to show that these things do not point towards facts about the world. People do not start from a position of doubt (witness any teenager). Incredulity and skepticism are cultivated. For example, people have to convince themselves that senseless killing is not in fact actually wrong but only a personal or social preference against such actions.

On the other hand, further consideration may bolster our initial beliefs, like a photo album can confirm memories. That is why I say that faith is something you reason from not something that is reasoned to. The holy scriptures do not tell us that God exists, that sense is already in place. Instead, they tell us about what God is. The role of apologetics is not to convince anyone that Christian belief is true; but rather, to address possible defeaters and show that those objections suppressing people’s apprehension of the divine are unsound.

Well I very boringly completely agree with all of that, including my bolded.  My own predilection, if I were a theist, would not however square with that part.  My own bent is to seek experience which directly confirms what there may be beyond our human filters and rationality.  I would recoil from looking to a text to harmonize my interpretation with the broader xtian community.  Why aren't there more shamanic Christians, I wonder?

I do think you put your finger directly on the real use to which the bible and apologetics are put by nearly all Christians.  It has much more to do with maintaining in themselves the state they desire than in spreading it.  The attitude of wishing to spread their good stuff to others is probably itself an activity which bolsters the preferred state of faith.

[Neo-Scholastic]

My own bent is to seek experience which directly confirms what there may be beyond our human filters and rationality. I would recoil from looking to a text to harmonize my interpretation with the broader xtian community. Why aren't there more shamanic Christians, I wonder?

That is precisely why Christians study scriptures. The sensus divinitatis has two aspects. First, the Holy Spirit convicts by revealing to each person the fallen state of the world and him or her personally. Things are not as they should be. We are not as we should be. Something is missing. That is the meaning of Romans 1:18 where Paul writes about “…those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” The natural apprehension of the divine is downplayed or dismissed outright, not just because it offends our sense of moral autonomy, but also because our reasoning about it is corrupted and our intuition of it is dulled.

Secondly, the Holy Spirit (sensus divinitatus) offers a way to correct those deficiencies by reorienting each of us towards the truth, the truth beyond our human filters and natural reasoning. This is the meaning of Romans 12:2 where Paul writes “..do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”. General revelation is available to all but special revelation compensates for our limitations and supplements our understanding.

I do think you put your finger directly on the real use to which the bible and apologetics are put by nearly all Christians. It has much more to do with maintaining in themselves the state they desire than in spreading it

And why not? If the sensus divinitatus does in fact point to God, then it is only right and proper for people to attune themselves to and become more sensitive to it. If there is a God that loves us without measure then it only makes sense seeking to grow in our love for Him.

[drfuzzy]

Hello all,

I would like to inform all that I have theistic inclinations. When I apply rationalism, I am clearly an atheist. When I let go of rationalism and let my emotions run, I feel lightened up with thoughts about god.

Regardless whether god exists or not, it is good to live with imagination at times. These times, my imagination includes god.

Deliberate rationality leaves me depressed and feeling empty. Ideally, I'll limit use rationality to only times when I am handling scientific issues, addressing humanitarian issues and dealing with the reality.

I hope that this can spark a good discussion,

Regards

When I rationally look at my life and work I sometimes get depressed.  So I let my imagination go and fantasize that I have super-powers.  Then I feel all better and ready to tackle the real world again.  

Same thing.  Except that I'm quite sure that I don't have super powers.

[Whateverist]

My own bent is to seek experience which directly confirms what there may be beyond our human filters and rationality.  I would recoil from looking to a text to harmonize my interpretation with the broader xtian community.  Why aren't there more shamanic Christians, I wonder?

That is precisely why Christians study scriptures. The sensus divinitatis has two aspects. First, the Holy Spirit convicts by revealing to each person the fallen state of the world and him or her personally. Things are not as they should be. We are not as we should be. Something is missing.

Maybe I should make it clear that I'm not against reading or research. But I would never look to any text or system of practice with the intention of adopting its methodology carte blanche. Fine to sample from many sources but in the end I could never forget that everyone who has ever wished to know more has always stood exactly where I am with no more expertise or certainty than I myself possess.

While I'm more than happy to stand on the shoulders of giants where math, science and technology are concerned, when it comes to a search for meaning or an examination of values I would never sub that out to another. The primary reason is that too much is at stake where meaning and values are concerned. To delegate the decision to an expert of any stripe would feel like self abnegation. It would feel like shirking responsibility for something important. Even if I very much desired guidance and expertise, I would still have to make the choice of expert. If I'm qualified to make that choice, I might as well go the whole way.

That is the meaning of Romans 1:18 where Paul writes about “…those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” The natural apprehension of the divine is downplayed or dismissed outright, not just because it offends our sense of moral autonomy, but also because our reasoning about it is corrupted and our intuition of it is dulled.

Secondly, the Holy Spirit (sensus divinitatus) offers a way to correct those deficiencies by reorienting each of us towards the truth, the truth beyond our human filters and natural reasoning. This is the meaning of Romans 12:2 where Paul writes “..do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”.  General revelation is available to all but special revelation compensates for our limitations and supplements our understanding.

Got to be honest. When the numbered scriptures come out, I glaze over.

I do think you put your finger directly on the real use to which the bible and apologetics are put by nearly all Christians.  It has much more to do with maintaining in themselves the state they desire than in spreading it

And why not? If the sensus divinitatus does in fact point to God, then it is only right and proper for people to attune themselves to and become more sensitive to it. If there is a God that loves us without measure then it only makes sense seeking to grow in our love for Him.

I acknowledge the internal consistency of it. Naturally that doesn't mean I want to play along. One thing I'd like to see more of from Christians is an acceptance that they live in multi-cultural world. Xtians need to learn ways to be true to their internal beliefs in a way that acknowledges and doesn't impose upon those who don't share them. In fact, I think christianity would benefit from an increased valuation of the world we live in here and now. I think they should dwell less on an afterlife. That may be part of 'the package' they signed on for but -from the outside- it seems weak. When I judge the values a group embraces I don't care one wit what they do for the sake of a better deal in the 'hereafter'. More important is what they do to lift up the world we live in now and add to quality of life not just for their xtian tribe but the human tribe generally and the entire web of life on this precious world we inhabit right here and now. The minding of P's and Q's for one's personal advantage in an imagined future world doesn't impress anyone outside your tribe.

[Amarok]

It looks like you responded quickly and perhaps oversimplified you point(s) in favor of expediency. Also, I do not understand what qualifies as either an “external experience” or an “internal” phenomenon; since those are unusual pairings. So pardon me if I misinterpret what you are trying to say.

You seem to be suggesting that knowledge of allthird-person phenomena is necessarily more reliable than all first-person conscious experience and also that these are parallel and distinct. Personally, I find both stances representative of a prior commitment to a picture of reality (physicalism?) that is not immediately obvious.

No, I'm saying that each has their own domain and that the domain of internal experiences is the world of our shared psychology.

What is obvious is that conscious experience is existentially primary and all knowledge of the phenomenal world is mediated by conscious experience.  As such, knowledge gained by reasoning from first principles is of the highest order (examples: mathematics and deductive reasoning) and that application of those principles to external phenomena produces second order knowledge (examples: inductive reasoning and the natural sciences). So going back to your critique, I agree that I am indeed using internal experience to verify external phenomena. It not only works; it is the only way it can work. The physical world and all its processes are ultimately inferred from conscious experience. Unlike our perceptions of physical objects, mathematical objects are immune to misattribution. Unlike natural laws, the laws of thought are self-evident and indispensable.

Math and logic do not verify the external world.   You've created a straw man.  

The internal world of math and logic is mapped to the external world.  That's taking a piece of math or logic and using it to model the external world.  That is using math and logic as descriptors.  You won't find math or logic themselves in the external world.  

People who say that math and logic are merely descriptions seem to have reversed that order. Someone can do math without physics but no one can do physics without math. I would not call first-principles, like the principle of non-contradiction or deductions like the Pythagorean theorem “wildly prone to error.” None of this first-order knowledge would fall under the category of “common psychology”.

By common psychology I am simply emphasizing that which we have in common.  How do you know that math and logic aren't a part of our common psychology?

Having said all that, my earlier comments concerned the empirical value of meditation and contemplative prayer. These practices are nothing short of a technology of consciousness refined by trial and error over centuries to separate individual “ego” psychology from direct apprehension of essential being, in which first-person and third-person collapse into one reality. To my mind, this rings true since human reason so readily corresponds with a rationally ordered phenomenal world.

And I feel that you're applying insight from one domain into a domain it has a track record of error within.  It may "ring true" to you, but the multiplicity of incompatible first person insights into the divine suggest that it is highly unreliable, as well as our knowledge of how error prone the mind is on its own.

Indeed logic and math are a map not the territory

[Neo-Scholastic]

Indeed logic and math are a map not the territory

And what is it about the territory that makes it mappable?