No. I was saying that I rely heavily on intuition. I didn’t say it was more important than empiricism. But I’ve been trying to emphasize that on the bigger questions in life, sometimes we don’t have all the data and a decision is required.
An example would be like whether you propose marriage to a young lady who has a couple of other boyfriends. Are you going to wait and see…or are you going to rely on your intuition and act accordingly.
Also, personal revelation is important to a religious person. After checking the opinion of your pastor and community and re-reading the relevant portions of the Bible and praying, you listen to God and make the decision.
An “unwritten” or “unspoken” rule is still not a rule - period.
ALL military personnel have a combined duty to the mission at hand and their fellow soldiers - they still know to follow orders as they are handed down from the chain of command - if it is ‘clear’ that said orders are from a compromised individual or are clearly unlawful, they have options on and off the battlefield to deal with it -
You’re LT would likely be dead the moment he tried to use “modest force” against the Captain in such a situation - and the mission would go on without him - and even more lives would be lost, and quite possibly the mission itself .
You clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about and your hypothetical is ludicrous - and I cannot see where you are trying to take it - it has nothing to do with intuition, divine revelation or any other crap you keep trying to deflect the debate with.
You keep talking like ‘revelation’ is only important to religous people - or that intuition is somehow limited to them - its not.
‘Divine Revelation’ - as such - sure - but revelation in and of itself is not - creative and scientific minds alike all have stuff 'revealed" to them all the time- its the method of how they get to new ideas from past experiences and knowledge - also known as intuition.
Its when you claim its from “GOD” that it gets dicey - so, prove your ‘divine revelation’ came from ‘GOD’ or just admit that you 'read a bunch of stuff and made a decision".
Again, though, when expanding this from your specific hypothetical I’m still not quite sure what the takeaway is.
Let’s say you have time to consult the Bible – and speak to your pastor, and members of your parish – and, after some prayer, you come to a decision about whether to be a conscientious objector instead of going to war in the first place. Or whether to break what you see as an unjust law. Or how to vote on gay marriage. And et cetera for every contentious issue of the day: abortion, capital punishment, you name it; each time, it’s a personal revelation from God.
And you later tell someone else your story, and he replies: "What a coincidence! I, too had time to consult with the Bible – and speak with folks, and pray – and, by golly, I reached the opposite decision on every one of those issues! I thought it was a personal revelation from God each time!
Assuming that both people had the same factual constraints. This means they were the same age, belonged to the same religion etc.
They both made the right decision for themselves. Actually, the one factor that is different, there are two separate individuals. God recognizes individual differences.
After thousands of years, most religious people have figured out that God doesn’t answer all prayers. So as a substitute, for some people, including me. God has become a heavenly that watches me. So with a leap of faith I can almost visualize Him and he tells me what I need to do.
Also, even though you can point out examples of systems that develop intelligence from organized cells. That still doesn’t prove that man’s unique intelligence came about in that manner. As an intuitive response it is much more plausible, that our intelligence and our right hand came from an Intelligent Being.
Some people have questioned my use of Intelligent Being instead of God. The only reason I did this was because I thought some people would have a natural bias against another “God thread.”
You’ve never met a scientist in your whole life, have you? Since intuition is very important in science. Einstein began with intuition. The difference is that you don’t publish your intuition - you find a way of testing it. If it turns out to be wrong, which it often does, you shrug and turn to something else. If it turns out to be correct, despite your best attempts to show it is wrong, then you expose it to other people.
In religion, on the other hand, if your intuition about what God is supposed to do (like Jesus coming back) turns out to be false, you make up additional interpretations and excuses and say that God works in mysterious ways and that it is all just a metaphor.
AFAIK lefties also suffered by religion in the past because many used intuition to claim that using the left hand was a sinister thing to do, took hundreds of years and science for even secular schools to drop that nonsense.
No that’s not correct. I said intuition (informed with the Bible) is one of the senses I use. Just like an empiricist uses other senses.
Also, unfortunately for many major decisions we cannot run experiments to see if we would have gotten better results. For instance, the lieutenant who has probably been put behind bars, cannot say. Let’s turn back the clock and let me just run up the hill with others.
In a way, that’s why I say that religious people are bolder. If there’s only a 5% chance God exists…we say this is God’s word as it is written in… For many Christians today, God exists only as an ideal and not a physical entity. If science were to prove that God did not exist, I doubt that there would be much of a drop in attendance at the local church.
My wording might have been too vague: I think that no matter what your opinion is, you’re going to say that opinion is intuitive (and therefore it’s right).
Since you’ve had so much trouble understanding what atheists think, why should anyone take this comparison seriously? And are you going to explain this:
That’s why I gave the example of a basketball game. The intuition required for that is different from the intuition of a religious person. It is also different from the intuition from an atheist.
The post I was answering did not make this distinction. You said empirical evidence is not adequate and that intuition and revelation are just as valid - and that was it. You didn’t say only the intuition of a non-basketball playing religious person is as valid as the empiricism of a scientist (or something). I am sure you believe we can generalize about intuition and revelation because you have done plenty of it. All forms of intuition must have something in common or there wouldn’t be a common word for them.
Answer the question with a straightforward explanation, please.
No, it isn’t. You’re talking about skills and experience now, not intuition. All people have intuition, so we can talk about intuition in a general way. Or at least we can unless you’re engaged in some special pleading for religion because you don’t want revelation and intuition compared to other things.
