Turretinfan has a post in which he proposes to present some objections to what he calls evidentialism. He points at a post over at Jimmy Akin's site, concerning a story of a man who posed as a priest, heard confessions, pretended to celebrate the Mass, and married a couple. It's a horrible story, and Mr. Akin's post is worth reading.
Turretinfan's reaction: "Our senses are generally reliable, but they do not always provide true information."
Unfortunately, this observation is not only not correct, it has nothing to do with the case of the couple who falsely believed themselves to have been married.
If the liar told them that he was not a priest, but their ears contrarily reported the opposite, then it could be said that their hearing did not provide true information. But that is not what happened. If he said he was a priest, that is what they heard.
If the liar was dressed as a policeman, but their eyes contrarily reported that he was dressed as a priest, then it could be said that their sight did not provide true information. But that is not what happened. If he was dressed as a priest, then that is what they saw.
The error in this case had nothing to do with the senses. It had to do with the interpretation of sensory input, which is something else entirely. These people apparently had no reason based upon his words, appearance, or behavior to suppose that he was anything other than what he said. And so they believed him. This is not a sensory failure.
It should be said, too, that people who suggest that the senses are only "generally reliable" or that they do not always provide true information do not really believe it. They simply don't. Why? Because they do not live that way. They live in complete reliance upon their senses just like the rest of us. When they see a red light, they do not hesitate, wondering whether it might in fact be green. They stop, just like the rest of us. When they are given a juicy steak to eat, they do not hesitate, wondering whether it might actually be a plate full of mud. They just eat it, and when they enjoy the flavor, they do not hesitate, wondering whether it's actually a noxious substance. They really enjoy it.
The confusion that seems to exist in Turretinfan's mind about this has less to do with the actual sensory input and more to do with what the individual does with that input. But that is something else entirely. The couple in question interpreted what they saw and heard in a manner consistent with their previous experience. That is a reasonable thing to do, absent any compelling reason not to do so.
If there is any real moral to the story in Mr. Akin's post, it is that civilization depends upon honesty and truthfulness. Society is impossible when people cannot be trusted. It's not the senses that were the problem here at all. It was the wickedness of the deceiver.
3 comments:
RdP,
The senses do not operate themselves. The mind is ultimately what sees, hears, etc. There is obviously a difference between the deception produced by a liar, and the deception produced by an illusionist, but the bottom line is that the senses themselves provided data - not truth.
It's surprising you would disagree. Our (everyone's) senses tell us that it is just bread and wine you're eating, and not human flesh and blood.
It's not inconsistent to generally rely on senses that are generally reliable, so your steak/mud critique fails.
-Turretinfan
I disagree when you say that "the senses do not operate themselves," although I'm not sure that I would put it quite that way, depending upon what exactly you mean by "the mind." If you mean the rational or intellectual power, then I certainly disagree: I do not have to perform a rational or intellective act in order for my senses to register things. I just see. I just feel. I just smell.
Perhaps you are conflating the interpretation of sensory input with the reception of it; I don't know. I do know that my eyes report what is before me, and that my brain interprets that data as best it can. But the senses themselves are mere reporters, and they do not lie. That is why it seems irrational to me to blame them either for a man's lie about being a priest going undetected: the problem
I'm not sure why it would be surprising that I would disagree, considering the role that the philosophy of Aquinas has played in the Catholic Church. :-) However, it is entirely likely that I am an ill-equipped spokesman, and for that I do apologize.
With respect to the Eucharist, we believe by faith something that the senses cannot tell us. As it says here (Q885), the senses identify the appearances of bread and wine, but we know (again, by faith) that this is not the case.
Sorry - that got a little unintelligible there in the middle! :-(
At the end of the second paragraph, the last sentence should read:
"That is why it seems irrational to me to blame them for a man's lie about being a priest going undetected."
Obviously I'm too tired for this tonight :-)
Post a Comment