Q&A: Does the revelatory argument from the senses also apply to animals?
Does the revelatory argument from the senses also apply to animals?
Question
Hello and blessings,
First of all, thank you for the faith lectures you uploaded to the internet; the fact that I can listen to them at any time has enabled me to make better use of my time.
I have a thought / objection / question about what you present as a "revelatory" argument from the fact that we accept induction and rely on the senses.
Although I can’t point exactly to why, I have a feeling that this argument is "kosher but smells bad." Maybe it’s because it’s patronizing (and I know that doesn’t bother you).
But in any case, a somewhat indirect objection occurred to me, and I’d be glad to hear your opinion.
On the face of it, animals too rely on their senses and on induction (Pavlov, etc., etc.).
So either way:
Either animals rely on them even without faith in God (because I assume they don’t believe in Him, not even implicitly), and then we have to accept that there is some other factor behind trust in the senses and in induction; and then that factor could also be what causes us to rely on them as well (in the spirit of: evolution made the ape upright, but they sought out many schemes).
Or we assume that animals too implicitly believe in God. (That is of course possible, but then I’ll start thinking you’re a Hasid, not a Litvak.)
Thank you,
Jonathan
Answer
Animals place trust; they do not decide to place trust. In their case, that trust is justified, because God created them too, along with their senses. It could have been otherwise. Human beings, by contrast, decide to place trust in their senses. True, they are born with that trust, but now they must decide whether it is correct or not. The decision to trust reflects belief. If that trust is justified, it is only because God makes sure that it is. The same is true for animals as well, except that they are not aware of it.
In other words, of course there is another factor behind trust: the innate nature that causes us to trust. That is what happens with animals. The question is whether that trust is justified or not, and that is where God enters the picture. Animals do not ask themselves that question.
Discussion on Answer
I can’t correct the claim that in your eyes the inference is like that. The question is whether it really is. 🙂
The revelatory argument goes from a person’s assumption that there is a fit (which is subjective) to the conclusion that he probably implicitly believes there is a coordinating factor. The inferential argument goes from complexity (which is an objective fact) to a factor that created it.
From here on, I don’t understand what you’re writing. Follow my definitions.
As for Scotland, you missed the whole sting of the proof. There is a possibility (a very remote one, but for the sake of discussion let us accept it as viable) that geology rolled the stones into place; the question is how you know, or why you believe, that this did not happen (but rather that you really arrived in Scotland). You are forced to assume, even if only implicitly and unconsciously, the existence of a coordinating factor.
In my view (and the Rabbi can correct me if I’m wrong), the Rabbi’s inference is as follows –
Premise A – things that fit reality are produced by intelligent design (or perhaps: two matching things require a coordinating factor).
Premise B – our cognition fits reality.
Conclusion – our cognition was produced by design (or perhaps: there exists a factor that coordinated between our cognition and reality).
The revelatory argument says that one can abandon the conclusion if one abandons Premise B, except that in practice no normal person abandons it, and therefore everyone accepts the conclusion implicitly.
And it seems to me, in my humble opinion, that the place where it starts to smell is that in fact Premise A, and the very form of the inference itself, all stem from Premise B — except that from it one can also derive other propositions that could exempt us from the punishment of an intelligent designer.
Something like the following inference –
Premise A – our cognition fits reality (or more precisely, our cognition provides us with truths).
….(in a long chain of investigating reality through the senses and logic, whose truth follows from Premise A)….
Proposition A – evolution is true.
Conclusion – our cognition was produced by evolution.
If we take Taylor’s parable about the stones in Scotland — besides the options that the stones rolled into place by themselves (and then they do not testify to Scotland) or were placed by the local people (and then they do testify to Scotland), there is also the option that geological conditions in different places cause stones to arrange themselves in the shape of the place’s name.