And intuitions seem to qualify in that.
As you define intuition, maybe. But not by mine.
How does faith differ from intuition?
Faith is a choice one makes. Intuition is a feeling of knowing the truth.
it is clear that the question of God's existence isn't one of reason: none of the standard 'proofs' of God using reason hold much water.
Questions of facts,
whether they are true or false -- are questions of reason.
Does God exist? is a question of reason because it questions a claimed fact.
Isn't it more clear that people really do differ in their moral consciences? That is isn't simply 'preconcieved notions sending judgment off course', but actually fundamentally different intuitions about how the world 'should be'?
We don't have moral intuitions about how the world should be. Those thoughts are the product of the reasoning function of our brains.
In your quote about studies of babies and their desire to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior, I am not too surprised. many of the higher primates have a similar response and I think it follows to some extent from being a social species (and thereby evolving to work with others constructively).
You seem to have missed the fact that, without ample life experience, these babies didn't reason their way to moral judgments. which denies the rationalist theory of moral judgment you proposed earlier.
But *which* behaviors are good and which are bad is not nearly as set in stone as you seem to think. A baby that grows up in a different society will develop different intuitions of what is right and wrong. Are these 'biases'? Well, it depends on whether you share those intuitions or not. if you do, they won't be considered as biases. Otherwise, they will.
Which seems more likely to you? (A)The experience of growing up in a society causes the child's hard-wired moral intuition to change or -- (B) the experience of growing up in a society causes the child to develop biases which might conflict with his hard-wired moral intuition?
Have you ever been on a jury?
Yes.
While to prove it false only requires finding people without a 'bias' in a particular case that also have different intuitions about that case. From studies of moral judgements (thought experiments involving trains and pushing people are common), it is clear that such differing intuitions are common.
Moral dilemmas, like the Trolley Problem don't test moral intuition. They test the reasoning function of our brains in dealing with the moral dilemmas.
There are two options:
Option A immediately feels wrong because an innocent person will be harmed.
Option B also immediately feels wrong because more innocent people will be harmed.
Conscience can only signal that an act is wrong. It can't weigh the consequences and decide which of the two options will cause the least harm. This is a function of the reasoning mind.
When considering moral dilemmas two parts of the brain light up under fMRI..
The vast majority of moral judgments are made by conscience alone. Moral dilemmas are exceptions.
