Q&A: Intuition
Intuition
Question
Hello and blessings.
In your book The First Foundational Principle, you explained that there are two ways to arrive at belief in God: (a) empirical-scientific, and (b) logical-philosophical. And if so, there is no way to arrive at belief, as explained there, and therefore you explained that there is a third faculty called intuition, which understands the deeper layer of things; and just as we rely on it regarding science, so too we rely on it regarding belief that God exists—that was the gist of your words.
Two comments:
A. There is no reason to maintain that intuition is a deeper understanding. In my opinion it is a reservoir of stored data, meaning that there are many things I know over the course of my life, and the conclusions are stored there, and every time a question about the world or a fact about the world comes before me, I know precisely the answer or the fact that will come to me. I think this is expressed a lot among people who know how to learn Talmudic text, when his friend says an incorrect reasoning and he immediately tells him, “That’s nonsense,” and the friend asks for an explanation, and then he has to think for a few minutes, etc. But the initial answer comes from the fact that this person, who already knows the style of the Talmudic text and the boundaries of the discourse, knows which things must immediately be rejected and about which one should remain uncertain. If so, how can one rely on intuition, all of whose learning comes from the world, regarding things that are outside the world?
B. Even if we grant your view about intuition, still, regarding science we have an indication from the world, since we propose a theory and then something moves. But regarding God, everything remains exactly the same. And if you say that we have an indication regarding intuition because it worked on the world, then perhaps also for other things, like belief that God exists, one cannot say so. For intuition regarding the world is more applicable, since there is trial and error, and that is how one forms a theory with intuition. Intuition is not everything; it is only one component. Which is not the case regarding God, where we have no possibility at all of forming a theory by trial and error; rather it is only intuition. How can one rely on our ideas regarding facts such as that God exists?
Thank you
Answer
You are describing my point only partially. My claim is that the way to arrive at belief is philosophy (not science), that is, thought rather than observation. There is a way to reach it. Intuition is not a third way; rather, it is what underlies the philosophical route.
I also explained that, contrary to what is commonly accepted, intuition is not merely a collection of insights accumulated from experience—I reject that. It is an alternative way of observing the world (including ideas). If everything were derived from observation, we would know nothing today, because there are many possible ways to generalize from the data we have.
Discussion on Answer
A. I explained why not. Why should I repeat it again and again? If you disagree—then you disagree.
B. First, one does not learn from intuition about science; rather, one uses intuition in scientific research. There is no obstacle to drawing conclusions by means of intuition about what is outside the world, since it does not begin with our experience but with a priori insights.
Notice that here too you are repeating yourself. If you assume that intuition is only a collection of insights from experience, then perhaps there is room for the claim that it cannot be applied outside the world. But I wrote that in my view intuition is not that; rather, it is a priori insights (non-sensory observation, including of ideas, and not only of our world), and then your question does not arise in the first place.
I take it back—you did write in point A at the beginning of the question that everything comes from observation and logic, and the way to decide is apparently subjective, but it is still difficult even according to your view, as explained in point B.
I assume this was written before my last reply. That’s it, I think we’re done.
That itself is what I do not understand: how can one learn from intuition about a fact if I have no indication whatsoever? It is just a theory. How is that different from any Hasidic theory?
And that is exactly what I answered. If one cannot learn facts from intuitions, then you have to throw out everything you know about the world—not only religious belief. For example, science too is based on intuition.
And to that exactly I also [in my humble way] replied that this is true regarding things for which we have some indication, where that serves as a complement to intuition. But regarding God there is no such indication at all, as explained above at the beginning where I asked in point B; see there carefully, and analyze it well.
You keep moving from one question to another and back again, when I already answered both of them explicitly earlier. We’ve exhausted it.
As usual
A. Seemingly it is a third way, because it is not empirical-scientific and it is not logical alone, but rather intuition-logical.
B. I did not write that we learn everything from observation, but rather even according to your view, that we learn from intuition about science, I asked: how can we learn from the way we learn about the world that we should learn that God exists? In the world we have ourselves and the world, and there is some indication from it; but regarding God there is no indication at all—it is only us and nothing more. So how can it make sense to learn from our own minds about facts outside the world?