So, Tom, this is a perception unlike other perceptions, because there is no material condition that prevents anyone from perceiving the same thing, like blindness or deafness. This is a moral/intentional/heart blindness (?). And yet, it is the crucial aspect of determining an objective reality (whether God exists).

Is there any other conclusion about objective reality that in which only those with the correct heart/intent can perceive the crucial perception that would lead one to the correct conclusion about objective reality? How curious that a subjective condition is necessary for an objective conclusion. The harder criticism would say that it is ad hoc, if not begging the question. I still contend that, by itself, this situation is absurd and argues against the existence of God.

But that’s a crucial qualifier, because, as Tom notes, this apparently absurd situation is buttressed nonetheless by everything else that believers believe. The claim is that it is reasonable to believe this otherwise absurd situation because other aspects of God are reasonable.

So, taking the best atheist and theist arguments, giving each side the benefit of the doubt, leads us to conclude that, at best, one side or the other is deluding itself only by supporting their unsupportable structure with many other arguments, but enough of those other arguments are not ultimately supportable and only are supported with other likewise unsupportable elements. But that side can’t tell that the whole thing is supportable because the resulting structure is too complex to easily see its lack of support.

So, now what? How do we try to argue that lack of complex, inter-related support or lack thereof?

Tom, I think I’m right and you think you’re right. In fact, we both *know* that we’re right (within human and reasonable limits). So I invite you to look at the situation from above, so to speak, the actual content of our disagreement. Let’s both suspend what we know to be true (which contradicts each other) for a moment and look at the disagreement not as partisans. I’m wondering if this view might lead us further down the road of our argument, if not actually start to push both of us one way or the other.

I see several views, I’m not sure they are mutually exclusive:

1. One of us is not only wrong but is seriously deluded through a combination of ignoring valid evidence or faulty logic. Not seeing how our position is wrong through the unsupported supporting the unsupportable because the resulting web of support is so complex is one way this can happen; there are others.

2. Regardless of what reality is and who’s right, we both have come to our positions not so much because the position is right, but because we have been enculturated in a paticular way. For myself, I remember reading an old book by the agnostic Ingersoll (who was a very popular orator, he died in 1899) that my father had when I was 12 or so and which made an impression on me; surely you, growing up in a Christian country, had your share of formative experiences about Christianity. We both support the unsupportable through the complexity of the web of support, even as one of us is (presumably) right. That is, we’re right for the wrong reasons, so to speak - we’ve lucked into the truth.

I think there are other perspectives that are valuable, I’ll return to them, perhaps.

Any comments, Tom?

Perhaps this is my ultimate point: how do we both check ourselves to make sure we’re not either deluded, or may have just stumbled onto the truth (which means that we’re not following the evidence or the logic, which means we might be wrong), not from the stance of a partisan, but from above the disagreement?

Paul

Perhaps this is my ultimate point: how do we both check ourselves to make sure we’re not either deluded, or may have just stumbled onto the truth

The same way you check for delusions when you perceive any other truth. Is it true that you exist as a human - complete with human personality and human nature - or are you being deluded into thinking you have a human personality and a human nature ?

I want to hear about how perceptions of the heart work, what they feel like, how do they seem, where do they take place, do you hear a voice that is God’s, do you see a visual form, etc. Or is it something you merely know? In which case it is really a perception?

Paul, thanks for that question. I’ll come back to it unless someone else beats me to it.

Jacob, yes, I’m treating your comments differently. The request for citations on moral norms, from someone who “supremely trusts the reveltaion of the Bible,” is unnecessary caviling, and I’m not going to participate in it. You accused me of imposing my view on the Bible when I said forgiveness is a major theme. I have no confidence that I can answer your current question without your saying the same to me again, and then it’s no longer a question of what the Bible says, it’s a question of who is imposing what. I’m not going to get started on that. That may be of interest to you, but I don’t share that interest.

Hi Jacob,
I supplied them. What’s wrong with the verses?

(Tom, this is just a re-post/minor edit of the comment I put into the prior thread; I think it’s relevant to post here because it speaks to the heart of what Paul and Tony are asking…no hard feelings if you’d rather cut it out.)

Paul, / Tony

Yes, the question of God is one that involves reality. Let’s be careful, though, since we’re starting anew, to note that the words “objective”, “logical”, “empirical”, and “real” are not mutually synonymous. They mean different things, and they imply different properties. (Quick example: one of the first things you learn about logic is that the conclusions of a logically valid argument are not necessarily real). One of the first hurdles that needs to be dealt with is this problem of pre-defining anything that is non-objective or non-empirical(material) as “non-real.” In a very direct sense, this just begs the question.

Yes, God is suggested by “observable evidence”; but “evidence” does not have to be limited to empirical quanta such as weight, temperature, and so forth. There are more things that we can observe than the empirical.

There is a good body of discussion about the validity of “the heart”, which is admittedly a poor term, if only because the nuances of it are much deeper than the words imply. “Emotion” is not a good replacement, nor is “instinct”, or “feeling”, or “conviction”. It’s somewhere in that ballpark, though. That’s why Lewis’ analogy is so important to this discussion.

We constantly apprehend logic using the intellect, and so we know that the intellect can tell us things about reality. We constantly apprehend empirical data through the senses, so we know that our senses can tell us things about reality. We constantly apprehend things like morality, beauty, and goodness – call it the “spirit” of things – through the “heart”, but for some reason skeptics want to reject that this faculty can tell us anything about reality. Yet, it’s the input of “the heart” that influences some of our most important judgments, and this we have no problem with.

I do recognize that there is a greater tendency towards subjectivity in “the heart”. That does not mean that it is useless in apprehending reality, or that those apprehensions are of purely subjective things. Remember, logic alone is worthless – you have to apply it to something. Empirical data is useless by itself, you have to interpret it with something. “The heart” alone is also useless. There is no sense in which I, or Tom, are suggesting that “the heart” ought to take precedence over the intellect or the senses, only that it should be given a place at the table. And, just as empirical data is always subject to perspective, so too can “the spirit” that is sensed by “the heart.”

Logic and empirical data, for instance, cannot tell you that an action is “moral” or “immoral.” The person who totally rejects “morality” in favor of heartless intellect/empiricism isn’t seen as a champion of virtue, but a monster. Even though we disagree on the particulars, there is a universal recognition in human beings that some kind of morality is necessary. That makes morals real, whether you think they are objective or subjective. Morality is something apprehended only by “the heart” – and there is nothing wrong with taking our view of them into consideration with our intellect and senses.

That’s just one example, but I don’t want to turn this into a ramble. The gist of what I’m saying is that, in all other categories other than “God”, there seems to be an agreement that “the heart” cannot be sensibly thrown completely aside. We want to apply ethical approaches to research, and moral applications of technology, and we want to generate compassion and happiness. Yet, when it comes to God, all of a sudden the heart isn’t just something to consider, or something to control, but something that can’t be considered at all.

Observations and reason strongly suggest that the combination of intellect and empirical data can neither confirm nor deny the existence of God. There are too many brilliant minds on both sides of the debate to seriously suggest that all it takes is more intelligence or more data to settle the question. And so, it’s eminently rational to assume that this is a reality that has to be apprehended (or the tie broken, if you will) though the third way, “the heart.” I think there’s enough evidence that we use “the heart” in discussing other aspects of reality to at least make that a reasonable assumption.

To put it another way, we know that any particular method of apprehension has limits, just like any measuring tool can only tell us what it’s able to tell us. Why assume that anything our tool can’t tell us simply doesn’t exist? Why assume that that tool’s scope must encompass all of reality? More to the point, if we have another tool available that we use all the time, why assume that we can’t use it , even indirectly, to help us learn more about one particular issue? This is the idea that the linked article is suggesting. “The heart” is a means that can be used in conjunction with the other two in order to increase our understanding.

Tony,

Please recognize that I have no problem with challenges in general. I think you and Paul have asked some great questions. My concern with Jacob is just what I said it was–not that he has raised objections, but the basis and context.

I just got home from the eye doctor, and my eyes are dilated, so I’m not going to try to say more than this right now–it’s too hard to read and write. But as I told Paul, if someone doesn’t beat me to it, I intend to come back and respond when possible.

SteveK,
 
Perceive what? I do believe that your first statement could be shown to not always be true. For instance, is someone with better eyesight than me better able to perceive a piece of music? Also, if the object to be perceived can only be binary, does heightened perception of the object make for clearer perception of its state? Lastly, what are the criteria used to establish the degree of perception? 
 
I’m not very well-versed in the laws of logic and I have not formed well-thought views on knowledge in general. With what little I know, however, I would agree with your second statement. 
 
 
 

1. To start, is this a moral condition that allows one to perceive God, or an intentional one, or the heart, or a spiritual sense, or what exactly? Several terms are getting thrown around like they’re synonyms, and they’re not. Perhaps this outlook/approach is rightly characterized by a combination of such factors, but if that’s the case, I’d like to hear about the details.

“Seriously, Paul, given the entire message of Jesus Christ, I fail to see what’s curious about it. I think if you gave it some thought you could think of lots of real things that people cannot see if they are not morally ready to see them.”

2. It is very curious that an objective conclusion must be founded on having a subjective viewpoint. As I went through with MM, it should be that a lack of bias, subjective view, etc., is necessary for an objective calculation. this should be apparent by the mutual exclusivity of subjective objective - they’re opposites.

It’s not a question of adopting a certain moral or subjective view in order to see a certain objective condition, it’s *the lack* or any moral or subjective view, which is a bias, that is necessary for objective conclusions. If you tell me that a lack of bias is impossible, as MM tried to, you might as well throw out objectivity as the postmodernists (hi Jacob) want to.

Paul, et al:

Perspective is not possible to remove; it can only be noted and dealt with, so this:

“If you tell me that a lack of bias is impossible, as MM tried to, you might as well throw out objectivity…”

…is a somewhat misleading analysis of what I said. Objectivity is not a binary quality – one can possess degrees of objectivity. No one is purely objective or subjective. Bias will arise, preferences will exist, such is inescapable. They can and must be noted and considered. Assuming you can obliterate your own biases any time you want is as delusional as the addict who says, “I can quit any time I want to.”

Example: I apprehend the size of the Washington Monument subjectively, based on my distance from it. From a mile away, it appears smaller than my hand. At ten feet, it appears gigantic. Its actual height is empirically objective, but my perception of it is subjective and affected by my own empirical status (how far away I am). In other words, my inescapably subjective perception of an empirical, objective reality is altered by my own empirical status. In the same way, it’s reasonable to note that our ability to perceive certain spiritual ideas is affected by our spiritual status (a la 1 Corinthians 2:14). I can choose to move closer to the Monument in order to get a clearer perception of it; the same can be done spiritually with respect to God.

Our apprehension of God is meant to be holistic; not fragmented. I’ve been using the term “the heart” in quotes for the very reason you’re discussing, which is that it’s a layered idea. I don’t really know a good term for it, though C.S. Lewis used the term tao to refer to it in broad terms.

So, when you say…

“It is very curious that an objective conclusion must be founded on having a subjective viewpoint.”

All I can say is that subjective viewpoints are all we have, if we’re going to be honest about it. We exist in a certain physical space, and all of our perceptions of physical information are subject to that perspective. We exist in a certain spiritual condition, and all of our perceptions of spiritual ideas are subject to that perspective. So what do we do? We note external, objective standards with which to compare those things. A meter may look larger or smaller, based on how far away the meter-long item is, but it’s still a meter. Subjectively perceived, objectively true. We spend our lives triangulating objective conclusions out of the intersection of subjective perceptions.

“…it’s *the lack* or any moral or subjective view, which is a bias, that is necessary for objective conclusions.”

I don’t think that you can really support this, in practice. We have a name for people who ignore or reject all morals: sociopaths. We consider such a person sick, and worthy of our sympathy (and maybe fear). Partly, because such a person is dangerous, and partly because we recognize that they’re denying reality. Whether you think they’re objective or subjective, everyone recognizes that “morals” are real. Human beings have a “sense” that some actions “should not” be done, others “should be”, in ways that don’t originate in either empirical data or logic. The attitude that “morals should have nothing to do with it” gives us aspirations like this:

“I want to raise a generation devoid of a conscience; imperious, relentless and cruel.”

That generation would be purely rational, objective, and lacking in a moral view. Hopefully, you know who said that and where you can find it written. It sounds cute on paper, but in practice it is disaster waiting to happen. You can’t actually be devoid of a moral view – you have some personal sense of right and wrong. Those who don’t are immediately recognized as mentally ill. Lacking a moral sense is as crippling, if not more so, than being blind, deaf, or paralyzed.

No one wants to throw out objectivity. What I want is to recognize the totality of what is real; not just the slices of it that are convenient to my preferences. It’s rational to say that denying that a “third way” exists, ipso facto, would pose a major obstacle to gleaning any meaning from it. If I refuse to acknowledge that there is such a thing as odor – worse, if I plug my nose – then it’s to be expected that I would reject the idea that scent can tell me anything about the real world. Not only do I not perceive it, but I know that different people have different perceptions of scent. Should I then ignore it completely?

Tony, I’ll try to clarify my statement (1) by giving an example we are all probably familiar with…..stereograms.

Some people can’t perceive them clearly or correctly because they lack the ability for one reason or another, yet the existence of the hidden images can’t be denied. This is what I meant when I said “Those with the ability to better perceive, perceive more and perceive more clearly than those that do not.”

Tony,
I remembered other examples of “those with the ability to better perceive, perceive more” — savant’s!

Savants are excellent examples of how a person can be so ‘disabled’ and yet so amazingly perceptive. Derek Paravicini is an amazing musical savant. This blind “disabled” man, accurately perceives things which the best musical minds cannot. He perceives (knows) the individual keys that are played on a piano within seconds after hearing a mish-mash of keys played as a single sound - even the sound from a full orchestra!! (see this video starting at about the 3 minute mark) Another example is this. Admittedly this one is proof by statistics, which science loves, but it’s an example nonetheless.

SteveK,
 
Perceive is a tricky word, because, among other things, it implies the sensual stimulus itself and also the processing of that information; one can both perceive notes of music through the ears, and a melody from those notes in the mind. There are layers to perception, and that’s why I am wary of vouching that “Those with the ability to better perceive, perceive more and perceive more clearly than those that do not?” For example, I have excellent hearing. Say that Beethoven, at the stage he was losing his hearing, and I heard a piece of music. I would perceive all the sounds better, but Beethoven would (I am terribly unmusical) even through his half-deaf ears better perceive the music of what was being played. So that, the division of senses and processing of those senses, makes your short definition problematic to me.

If all you are trying to assert is that there are disparities among people in their perceptions then of course that is true. Chuck Yeager the pilot, Ted Williams the baseball player, for instance, were both famous for the visual acumen; they could see and read things faster than all but a very few people.

So yes, I would say that some people have better senses than others, and that enables them to perceive the information from those senses in a way that is measurably better than other people. (Chuck Yeager could see airplanes on the horizon before anyone in his squadron. Ted Williams hit .400, and, according to an old family friend, could read all the words on a 78 record label as it spun.)

So, at this point, I have to say, Why do you ask?

MM, if you’re saying that belief in God is not objective, I agree.

Are you really saying that different perspectives of the Washington monument make an objective measurement of its size impossible?

Scientists also reject all morals in their work. Tom has often blogged that scientists, as scientists, have nothing to say about morality. Are you calling scientists sociopaths?

“We constantly apprehend things like morality, beauty, and goodness – call it the “spirit” of things – through the “heart”, but for some reason skeptics want to reject that this faculty can tell us anything about reality. ”

Wrong, they just realize that those things aren’t objective.

SteveK,
 
Is it possible that Christians have a special ability to perceive more accurately and clearly? I doubt it, but I’m open to your argument. 
 
What are Christian able to perceive more accurately and clearly? Is it ESP (outside the senses)? Is it measurable? 
 
I agree that Savants, by the way, do have enhanced abilities, although I don’t think I’d qualify those abilities as perception. The ability to calculate complex numbers, play music, etc. are not outside the realm of other human abilities — they are simply better to a very high degree. 

Tony,

What are Christian able to perceive more accurately and clearly?

Generally speaking, a clearer perception of spiritual matters. Spiritual Lasik surgery, if you will. I’m not deluded enough (yet!) to think every Christian perceives clearly on these matters, just that, as Tom said above, our “eyes” have been opened to the reality of God. Whether or not we choose to “see” clearly with those eyes is another matter altogether. People with perfect vision still bump into walls.

Is it ESP (outside the senses)? Is it measurable?

Not ESP and not measurable.

I agree that Savants, by the way, do have enhanced abilities, although I don’t think I’d qualify those abilities as perception. The ability to calculate complex numbers, play music, etc. are not outside the realm of other human abilities — they are simply better to a very high degree.

 
These “enhanced abilities” *might* be what we’re talking about. I really don’t know. I think you are wrong about these not being enhanced perceptions. They are. Some of these people don’t just do things faster and better, they actually perceive things nobody else can. What you are saying is other people *could* do what the Savant does if only they had the time to develop their skills, and I don’t think that is correct. At least it hasn’t been shown to be the case.

MM, what I’m trying to do is to make sure we’re using the hammer to pound in nails, not to try to unscrew a screw.  That is, we certainly have subjective perceptions: I feel the chair I’m sitting on, for instance.  But, in that case of qualia, the qualia are not objective and must have a different ontological status: the feelings I have by sitting in this chair are not real in the same way that the chair (objectively) is.  

So we have to be careful not to bring in subjectivity into an objective task.  God’s presence or communication to you is a necessarily private experience that happens inside your head.  There’s nothing outside your head that we can point to that would let us share the experience.   It is as objective as qualia are, which is to say, not at all.  So we can’t use such perceptions to make an objective conclusion, one that is true for everyone.

MM, the relevant point about scientists and morals is that morals do not play a legitimate role in a scientific conclusion.  Mere mortals will live up to that ideal to a greater or lesser extent, but that’s irrelevant.  The point was that, for the purposes of making an objective conclusion, morals have no role to play, but scientists are not sociopaths for attempting such.

SteveK, let’s not conflate subjectivity with perception.  Any perception is subjective in a sense, but that sense won’t help us here.  Perceptions are objective when they are verifiable *by anyone in principle.*  The problem with Tom’s point about being open to perceive God is that it eliminates people in principle.  You’ll have to wait for a full-fledged argument about this, I don’t have the time right now and I have to think about how to lay this out.

Tony,

Steve, can you give me examples for: “Some of these people don’t just do things faster and better, they actually perceive things nobody else can.”

Derek, the musical savant is one example. You and I can perceive individual notes and sounds, but we cannot perceive what Derek can. Which leads me to my next comment….

I know that I would never be able to develop skills that are equal to those of a savant’s, but I would be able to have a degree of their skill. You seem to be saying that they have extra abilities, but I disagree; they have superior abilities.

 
Superior abilities certainly *can* be classified as extra abilities. Example: animals and humans both have conscious awareness. Animals perceive, they just don’t perceive what we can perceive. Mathematical concepts are just one example of this. This superior ability gives rise to an extra ability to perceive what others cannot.

Side question: if Christians have extra abilities commensurate with those of a savant’s, doesn’t this open up a problem whereby God is granting access to his reality to only those he’s predisposed to his reality? Doesn’t this speculation make God seem arbitrary and unjust?

 
Let me just say I’m not a Calvinist and I don’t wish to get into that whole can of worms. I think the biblical teaching is pretty clear that non-Christians can see the reality of God, but to a lesser extent than the Christian can.

Lastly, how can you assert that Christians have extra abilities to perceive God’s reality if you admit that this extra ability is not measurable? Doesn’t that sort of premise merely beg the question?

As I said above, both the believer and non-believer have the ability to perceive the reality of God. My understanding is the believer can perceive more of that reality and perceive it more clearly. Make sense?

SteveK,
 
I have to say your last entry doesn’t make sense — I believe you are making assertions, not arguments. 
 
You wrote: “Derek, the musical savant is one example. You and I can perceive individual notes and sounds, but we cannot perceive what Derek can.” You are both claiming to know what Derek can perceive and what I can perceive. I do not grant you that authority. Also, how would you differentiate Derek from other great musical performers? Is he even counted among the 100 greatest pianists of all time? Is there a quantum jump by which the accomplished pianist becomes qualified as a savant with extra powers of perception that the accomplished pianists cannot imagine? 

You wrote: “Example: animals and humans both have conscious awareness. Animals perceive, they just don’t perceive what we can perceive. Mathematical concepts are just one example of this.” How do you know what animals perceive? How can you say that animals don’t understand mathematical concepts? (There are biological studies that show that wasps can count eggs and their offspring. Bees remember dance steps that describe the location of pollen sources.) How do you intend to show what animals perceive (and by that I think you mean understand)?

You wrote: “ I think the biblical teaching is pretty clear that non-Christians can see the reality of God, but to a lesser extent than the Christian can.” Referring to the Bible begs the question.

You wrote: “As I said above, both the believer and non-believer have the ability to perceive the reality of God.” I understand that you are saying this. Do you understand that I contend you are failing to provide an argument — a logical structure, and evidence that supports a conclusion?

SteveK,
You wrote: “I didn’t say that [animals don’t understand mathematical concepts]“.
You wrote previously: “Animals perceive, they just don’t perceive what we can perceive. Mathematical concepts are just one example of this.”

The fact that you are denying the words that you write, and are making statements like “I’m watching Derek perceive music in a way I can’t…” (How can you know what he is perceiving by watching him?) inclines me to think you are not interested in composing an argument. 

You wrote: “Humanity throughout history claims to perceive God in different ways and this is not evidence?” Nope, it’s a logical fallacy called “Argumentum ad antiquitatem.”

You wrote: “What is evidence, then?” I’m not an expert on this but I’m starting to think you should look up some rules on logic and fallacies.

SteveK,
 
I think you should step back and try to look at what I’ve been responding to you about. You continue to make assertions that are not true and I’m running out of the energy to show you why they are deficient. 
 
You wrote: “I’m not denying the words I wrote.” How can you reconcile that with this: 
You wrote: “I didn’t say that [animals don’t understand mathematical concepts]“. 
You wrote previously: “Animals perceive, they just don’t perceive what we can perceive. Mathematical concepts are just one example of this.”
That is a clear cut case of you denying the words that you wrote. If you would like to amend them then do so — I mis-speak and state things poorly all the time, and argument should be a process, not a opportunity to bludgeon one another with our unchangeable views. But don’t deny what is there and expect me to nod my head in silent assent.

You wrote: “How do the biologists know the wasps percieve mathematical concepts like counting? Do they watch them?” Yes, under control and experiment conditions. The experiment is predictable and repeatable. The explanation is that the wasps must have some way of counting. In other words, the evidence suggests that insects count. You made a blanket assertion that animals do not perceive mathematical concepts. Not only is this an unprovable assertion, but evidence suggests otherwise. 

You wrote: “You don’t know what evidence is, but you know enough to say “that isn’t evidence”. Is that right?” Hmm. I said I’m not an expert on logic, but I am trying to become better. As part of my self-education I am learning about logic and fallacies. You asked me a straightforward question and I gave you a straightforward answer. Your “evidence” (”Humanity throughout history claims to perceive God in different ways…”) is a known fallacy. I do not see how you can deny that it is. If you’re not going to take the time to consider my responses as anything but empty words for you to put aside then we will indeed have trouble arguing with one another. 

Paul,

“…the feelings I have by sitting in this chair are not real in the same way that the chair (objectively) is.”

And yet those feelings are real, yes? Not in “the same way”, but real nonetheless? And they tell you something meaningful about reality, don’t they? I see where you’re approaching this from, but I don’t think it goes where you want it to. Taking that approach leads to solipsism – the idea that even our perceptions might not be real.

“God’s presence or communication to you is a necessarily private experience that happens inside your head.”

In part, but not in the whole, so this next line is false:

“There’s nothing outside your head that we can point to that would let us share the experience.”

There is a most definite concept of “general revelation”, as well as scripture. Those aspects of communication from God are not private, they are public. Each person who laughs at a joke has their own private experience of apprehending humor; that experience can’t be shared (anyone else who laughs when hearing the joke experiences their own apprehension of humor, not someone else’s). It is real, nonetheless. Just because I can’t make you share my experience doesn’t mean that you can’t have an experience of your own.

We can use those subjective perceptions to make objective conclusions, we just can’t use subjective perceptions alone. If you and I stood a hundred yards apart, next to a train track, and listened to an engine whistle as it passed between us, we’d perceive the pitch of that whistle differently. Our perception is inescapably subjective. It’s still possible to come to an objective conclusion about what the original pitch was, by combining our subjective and objective information.

“The point was that, for the purposes of making an objective conclusion, morals have no role to play, but scientists are not sociopaths for attempting such.”

When this is limited to the “whats”, then I agree, but then this is really just a rhetorical tautology (non-moral questions are non-moral) and not helpful in the discussion. It’s when this attitude is applied to the “how”, “who”, and “why” that it’s a problem. We don’t condone deliberately a-moral decision-making, when there actually are moral questions involved, whether we think that morals are subjective or objective.

I’d be interested in hearing how people are eliminated from Tom’s idea; I’m inclined to disagree based on that tidbit, but I’d rather wait to see how you form the thought.

Tony,

“Of what use is a sense that cannot be measured? Does it even qualify as a sense?”

A sense of logic, or intellect? A sense of morals? I know that we make attempts to “measure” intelligence, but every test that’s been developed is highly subjective in and of itself. Lewis’ analogy about “men without chests” comes up here, again. We want people to behave kindly, with charity, tolerance, love, etc. At the same time, there are those who deny that those idea have any legitimate source, or any legitimate apprehension. How do we objectively measure a person’s “moral sense”? That “the heart” cannot be measured does not make it useless.

“But when, by extension, you demand special treatment on account of these convictions you must demonstrate them as well, otherwise they are ungrounded demands for privilege.”

Forgive me for being a little short here, but for someone who is so sensitive to having his thoughts, motives, and lines of inquiry questioned, you’re in a big hurry to dish out that which you’re not willing to take. Who’s asking for “special treatment” or “privilege”?

Argumentum ad antiquitatem means an appeal to tradition. If Steve had said that we should believe because our ancestors did, you’d be right to throw that term out there. He didn’t. Steve is rightly noting that there have been a massive number of people who claim to perceive God in some way. That should be considered as evidence that such a perception is possible – evidence which can be rejected on many grounds, of course. However, that’s not an appeal to tradition, it’s a reference to friendly witnesses. If I take your approach, then all of history is invalid; it’s nothing more than the claims of past generations, and therefore appeals to history are automatically fallacious.

That said, Steve, I think you need to explain how you’re differentiating between “understanding” something and “perceiving” it. That seems to be where you and Tony are missing each other.

Tony

If you would like to amend them then do so — I mis-speak and state things poorly all the time, and argument should be a process, not a opportunity to bludgeon one another with our unchangeable views.

I would like the opportunity to clarify further (as I have been attempting) and not get bludgeoned with statements like this: “That is a clear cut case of you denying the words that you wrote.”

Yes, under control and experiment conditions.

Then we agree that you can know, by inference, what someone is perceiving by watching them. That’s what I said but for some reason you objected to this and said “How can you know what he is perceiving by watching him?” ?

The experiment is predictable and repeatable.

The experiments done on Derek were as well.

You made a blanket assertion that animals do not perceive mathematical concepts.

Now comes the opportunity to clarify something that I thought was already clear. I’m not saying animals can’t perceive the mathematical concepts of ‘less than’ and ‘greater than’. I’m saying they can’t perceive higher mathematical concepts that humans can. Agreed?

Your “evidence” (”Humanity throughout history claims to perceive God in different ways…”) is a known fallacy.

I asked if my statement counts as evidence and you said “Nope”. I then asked you to tell me what counts as evidence. Do you have an answer?

There was a bit of cross-posting between Tom and me just now, on the private experience of our senses. But no collusion there, I assure you!
 
(I keed, I keed.)

Steve,
 
 
I think there might be some traction to the way you’re phrasing it. A creature can ‘perceive’, but not ‘know’. They can ‘know’ and not ‘understand’, and so forth. But none of the latter can occur without all of the former (you have to know to understand, etc.) That seems reasonable; how do you apply that to this question of apprehending God, specifically?

SteveK, by what means would you verify the perception of God by a person?  See my responses MM immediately below for more about this.
===============

And yet those feelings are real, yes? Not in “the same way”, but real nonetheless? And they tell you something meaningful about reality, don’t they?

When you say they are real, you’re ignoring a very important distinction that I had just made.  You can’t gloss it over.  To say it briefly, it’s only real to you.  That’s because it’s only happening in your head.  See below about qualia and solipsism.

 solipsism – the idea that even our perceptions might not be real.

Qualia are solipisitic: there’s no way for someone else to verify them.  They are only real to the individual.  But the length of a tree can be perceived *and* verified by another.  It’s objective.  

“There’s nothing outside your head that we can point to that would let us share the experience.”

There is a most definite concept of “general revelation”, as well as scripture.

Hold it right there.  I’m talking about the communication from God or the perception of his presence, not the concept of God communicating.  Anything that happens in your head can’t be verified by another, be it qualia, voices, the presence of God, etc.
Your humor example is just an example of qualia.

“The point was that, for the purposes of making an objective conclusion, morals have no role to play, but scientists are not sociopaths for attempting such.

When this is limited to the “whats”, then I agree, 

But that was the whole point - that science doesn’t use subjectivity validly to make its conclusions, and it’s not sociopathic.

Paul, I’m confused. Your points about qualia seem to support what I just wrote, and what all of us have been saying. It’s no refutation of one private sense experience to point out that all sense experiences are private.

Tom, there is a big difference between seeing the blue of the sky or the green of the tree and seeing God, one that you’re ignoring, and one that is crucial.  We can, in principle, publicly perceive the sky and the tree together.  We can both go to the tree and see if we can walk through it.  We we both can’t, we begin to make the objective conclusion that there is something actually there.

But we can’t do that with stuff that is solely in our heads, like the perception of God, dreams, voices, etc. That’s the difference.