Yes, we're following the distinction between what you say and when you quote
Spufford.
My approach is that *if* something like Christianity is true then deep down we
must all really know it's true - even if we don't consciously recognise that
fact. (Yes, the idea of "unconsciously knowing" something is contradictory - so
be it.) We know it because we *are* it ("it" being the One Self, Christ
Consciousness, as-you-will). It's knowledge-by-identity. I may be vague or I
may be clear about what activities I did yesterday but one thing I do know for
sure is that it was *I* engaged in said activities.
It's that (unconscious) knowledge by identity that makes people on the one
hand suspicious of scientific materialism's claims and on the other hand open
to the religious viewpoint. To be sure, the religions they approach then baffle
them as they are riddled with superstition, irrationality, bigotry, literalism,
etc, and the cool rationality of science then draws them back.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Seraphita wrote:
> Re Judy and "I assent to the ideas because I have the feelings; I don't have
> the feelings
> because I've assented to the ideas,"
(I was quoting Spufford, in case that isn't clear.)
> and "Spufford refers to Christians making truth claims,"
> That contrast between ideas and feelings is misleading. I expect that when
> most people
> talk about "faith" they're really intending something more like "intuition".
> I realise
> that intuition is a hopelessly vague concept but I'm intending it in the
> hard sense of a
> direct apprehension of a truth - so, yes, "truth claims" is better.
FWIW, I suggested his phrase "truth claims" as more accurate than your
"literalism," not than "intuition" or "faith." Two different points.
> "Feelings" always imply emotions to me, which may or may not accompany the
> intuition.
I don't know if I'd go along with your assertion that the distinction Spufford
makes between ideas and emotions/feelings is misleading; it pretty much depends
on what he means by the terms. It's not impossible that he used those terms
rather than "intuition" because "intuition" is vague. But I don't think it's a
slam-dunk that using "intuition" in the very specific sense you give it of
"direct apprehension of truth" would have been more appropriate. In fact, I
seriously doubt it; that would run counter to his main point about the
uncertainty involved. Nor do I think most Christians would characterize their
faith as such. "Intuition" in this "hard" sense is a pretty mystical concept.
My guess is that by "feelings" he means something perhaps halfway between
"intuition" in your definition and the sort of sloppy emotional commitment one
might have to a sports team or a movie star--more like a deep sense of personal
resonance with the ideas in question. Might have to read the book to be sure...
