Cognitive Penetration of Pentecostal Hermeneutics

8/12/2019 Cognitive Penetration of Pentecostal Hermeneutics

1/26


2/26

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1

So ho! does ognitive penetration relate to Penteostal hermeneutis# +$perienes of the

Spirit may result in speifi beliefs, memories of e$perienes, %no!ledge, and desires as !ell as

other inner states urrently being transformed by the Spirit &li%e harater, moods, et.' that may

then impat ho! a believer pereives the !orld, inluding the te$ts of sripture. We also have

our humanly derived meaning2ma%ing regarding spiritual e$perienes that may similarly result in

speifi beliefs, memories of e$perienes, %no!ledge, and other inner states. When the believer

later omes into ontat !ith passages of sripture, the earlier beliefs, memories of e$perienes,

%no!ledge, and other inner states may diretly hange the harater of the e$periene &ontat

!ith the sripture' so that their "ustifiation in further beliefs are affeted &benefiially or

illiitly'. o! an !e test to see if the resulting beliefs about the meaning of sripture are the

enlightenment of the Spirit &and are thus real %no!ledge', or are our o!n ognitive penetration

of the e$periene of the te$t, and ho! an !e test to see if our ognitive penetration is

epistemially illiit or benefiial#

(n this presentation, ( !ill desribe four options for testing for epistemially illiit

ognitive penetration of pereptions based on reent arguments in analyti philosophy &this !or%

an be seen as a foray into Penteostal analyti theology' reliabilism5 internal aess to

defeaters5 etiologies5 and truth mathing. )hese four approahes may help us to reassess

ognitive penetration of Penteostal hermeneuti2related pereptions and offer us further insight

into "ustifiations for beliefs about sriptural and theologial truths.

Pentecostal Hermeneutics

Penteostal hermeneutis is not merely interpretation of manusripts, but is /the al!ays

developing interpretive grid from !hih one omes to understand 6od, ourselves and our !orld

in light of !ho 6od is, the manner in !hih the !orld is strutured, and the nature of !hat it

7


3/26


means to be human1 &8liverio, 799:, p. 7;7'. (t is biblially as !ell as pneumatially founded,

and is said to be /the struture set in plae by one*s previous belief2forming mehanisms,

onsious and unonsious, !hih inform ne! understanding1 &8liverio, 799:, p. 7;7'.

(n Penteostal hermeneutis, e$periene plays a vital and dialogial role &


4/26


epistemologies of three historially prominent Penteostal theologians, argues that Penteostal

theologians of the past have fallen into the /pitfall of biblial foundationalism1 &Stephenson,

799:, p. 335 Arrington, ??72??45 Williams, ?=3', in !hih they fail to see the

inompatibility of the follo!ing premises, !hih they e$pliitly or taitly espouse

2 )he -ible is foundational for belief &interpreters must begin !ith sripture, not !ith

e$periene, to form beliefs'.

72 Previous e$perienes influene interpretation of sripture.

(n Stephenson*s !ords, /if understanding of sripture is based in part on e$periene@then

dotrine must be based in part on e$periene as !ell. )herefore, one annot literally begin !ith

sripture* in dotrinal pursuits5 at best, one an dra! on sripture, !hih is mediated in part by

one*s e$periene of the Spirit1 &799:, p. 33'. ote that here Stephenson*s use of the term

/e$periene1 is li%ely spea%ing of the role of the interpreter*s past e$perienes !ith the Spirit,

not their urrent e$periene of reading>interpreting sripture. /(t is impossible for one to begin

!ith sripture* as opposed to e$periene in the strit sense one one onedes that e$periene

influenes one*s interpretation of sripture1 &p. 33'. Stephenson here argues that it is an

untenable position to hold that e$periene plays an important role in interpretation, but that

sripture itself &outside of e$periene' ought to be the authority from !hih !e derive beliefs. (n

short, previous e$perienes of the Spirit mediate our urrent interpretation of sripture so that !e

annot ever have immediate "ustifiations in our beliefs regarding sripture &that are "ustified on

the basis of our pereptions of !hat !e read'. Previous e$perienes !ith the Spirit are here

imagined to always&at least partially' ognitively penetrate our urrent pereptions of reading

the sriptures, so that !e an never have a properly basi belief in sriptural truth that is

unmediated by previous beliefs and e$perienes.

4


5/26


0an !e as Pentenostals have our a%e and eat it too# 0an !e properly emphasiBe the

role of e$periene in interpretation &of sripture and of life' yet also laim to have diret

"ustifiation for beliefs from sripture itself &!ithout illiit ognitive penetration by past

e$perienes and beliefs'# 0an !e base our theologial beliefs on sripture, allo! our past

e$perienes to influene our interpretation, and yet not be guilty of merely listening to our

e$perienes &sine they are a mediator of truth for us in Stephenson*s aount'#

+pistemi dogmatism and the problem of ognitive penetration provide useful tools by

!hih !e may re2envision this state of affairs. Using epistemi dogmatism, !e may be able to

sho! that Penteostals an have immediate "ustifiations for beliefs in sriptural &and

theologial' truths regardless of previous e$perienes, !hih may thus provide room for a

biblial foundationalist, pneumati foundationalist, and>or pneumati biblial foundationalist

epistemology. Curther, through an analysis of the problem of ognitive penetration, !e may be

able to sho! ho! past e$perienes an positively, neutrally, or negatively affet our resulting

beliefs, !hile also sho!ing that !e may still have immediate "ustifiations for beliefs in

sriptural and theologial truths.

Epistemic Dogmatism

(n order to more fully address the problem of e$periene and pereption in Penteostal

hermeneutis, ( !ill here present an approah from analyti philosophy %no!n as dogmatism

&Pryor, 7999', also alled seemings internalism &Dyons, 79' and phenomenal onservatism

&uemer, 799;', !hih is an anti2s%eptial epistemologial stane onerning "ustifiation of

belief based on pereption>e$periene. Cirst e$pliated by Pryor &79995 799=', and founded in

part on Moore &?7=' and Pollo% &?:9', dogmatism is an intuition2foused philosophial

onservatism that ta%es pereptions>e$perienes as providing immediateprima facie&first blush'

=


6/26


"ustifiations for beliefs given the absene of defeaters &Pryor, 7999, p. =3E'. While pereptions

give us no absolute ertainty, and it is possible that all of our past and urrent e$perienes are

false, !e an still have "ustifiation for our beliefs, even if those "ustifiations do not guarantee

true beliefs. We an %no! &or have "ustifiations for belief that' some propositions are true

!ithout being able to prove them.

(n short, e$periene immediately, though defeasibly, "ustifies a belief. (f p seems to you

to be the ase, you are immediately &not based on other "ustifiations or beliefs' "ustified in

believing p. (f you seem to see a dollar bill in your hand &i.e., you have a pereption of seeing a

dollar bill in your hand' you are immediately "ustified in believing that you have a dollar bill in

your hand. A!areness of your e$periene is not neessary5 you "ust need to havethe e$periene.

(n dogmatism, your e$perienes are not evidene for believing p F the thought is that you do not

need evidene for pereptual beliefs, you "ust reGuire "ustifiation &for the dogmatist, "ustifiation

and evidene are t!o different things'. (ntrospetive a!areness about your e$perienes and

ba%ground beliefs might give you morereasons to believe, but there is an immediate

"ustifiation outside of this, and !e an have a "ustified belief &and sometimes also %no!ledge',

!ithout offering non2Guestion2begging evidene for that belief.

(n dogmatism, immediately "ustified beliefs are not al!ays self2evident, they are not self2

"ustified &they have atual "ustifiations', and they are not epistemially autonomous &your belief

ould reGuire many other additional "ustifiations and beliefs, but your "ustifiation reGuires none

F your "ustifiation is immediate, not neessarily your belief'. Hour "ustified pereptual beliefs

an be evidentially overdetermined &inluding both mediate and immediate "ustifiations', but do

not reGuire reasons or "ustifying arguments, and do not at as further "ustifiation for believing

that the belief is "ustified.

;


7/26


ot every proposition that ( believe on the basis of pereption is immediately "ustified,

but a great many propositions are. So !hih of our pereptual beliefs are immediately "ustified#

8nly pereptually basi propositions, /propositions that our e$perienes basially represent1

&Pryor, 7999, p. =3?'. We may not end up believing these propositions &for instane, !e may

pass on to more sophistiated beliefs, or !e may disover defeaters of these "ustifiations', but

they nonetheless offer "ustifiation that an be believed.

A dogmatist Penteostal hermeneuti might go something li%e so. A person reads

sripture, has a pereption of !hat has been read, and is immediately "ustified in believing !hat

!as pereived. Cor instane, Ri% reads 6enesis , !hih says /(n the beginning, 6od reated

the heavens and the earth1 and he has a pereption that /)he biblial te$t says that 6od reated

the heavens and the earth in the beginning.1 )hat is the pereption>e$periene that Ri% is having

!ith the te$t. Aording to dogmatism, regardless of Ri%*s other beliefs about the -ible, his

belief in 6od, his Penteostalism, his previous e$perienes, or even his onte$t in a real physial

!orld &as opposed to a dream !orld, or another s%eptial senario', Ri% is still immediately

"ustified to believe that /)he te$t says that 6od reated the heavens and the earth in the

beginning.1 )his is a sriptural and theologial truth that Ri% is immediatelyprima facie

"ustified in believing &as long as there are no defeaters'. -ut might Ri%*s pereption of the te$t

have been ognitively penetrated by his previous beliefs regarding theisti reationism, or even

his e$periene of %no!ing suh a 0reator first2hand# )his beomes even more problemati !hen

assessing rihly e$periential passages, suh as those Penteostals often highlight. (n short,

ognitive penetration seems to be a !renh in the !or%s of epistemi dogmatism, and of

foundationalist Penteostal hermeneutis based on dogmatism.

:


8/26


Cognitive Penetration

8ne of the problems !ith ognitive penetration is that of do$asti asent if a previous

un"ustified belief ognitively penetrates my pereption, and ( am immediately &though

defeasibly' "ustified in believing !hatever ( e$periene, then an my previously un"ustified belief

beome "ustified based on my ognitively penetrated e$periene &and beome further "ustified

through further ognitively penetrated e$perienes'# )he problem !ith epistemially illiit

ognitive penetration, aording to Siegel &797', is that it seems to introdue "ust suh a irular

belief struture.

)o borro! an e$ample from Siegel &797',


9/26


e$periene /(t seems that


10/26


trail, but ( believe any!ay, and this auses me to be more attentive to the presene of sna%es,

!hih helps me to see the sna%e that atually is there'#

)his is !here reliabilism omes in. (nstead, !e ould say that /the good %inds of

ognitive penetration are the %inds that inrease reliability1 &Dyons, 79, p. 399', !hile the bad

ones derease reliability. )he e$pert uses ognitive penetration to inform their later beliefs, but

the novie fails beause their proesses are not reliable.

Dyons here offers a refutation to dogmatism the possibility of ognitive penetration is

problemati beause the dogmatist has no !ay to tell !hih %inds are aeptable and !hih are

not. e thin%s this puts internalism itself in "eopardy. (n ases of bad ognitive penetration, a

person*s beliefs may perfetly math their pereptual e$perienes &they might seem to be

immediately "ustified in their beliefs', but the e$periential state is !here the problem ours it

does not math the e$ternal !orld, and ma%es a person insensitive to the surrounding

environment. )his insensitivity is to blame for the resulting bad ognitive state, and Dyons

argues that a purely internalist ans!er is not possible and reliabilism is the only !ay out of the

problem of ognitive penetration. )he penetrator or the lous of penetration does not matter

!hat matters is the mode of penetration &!hether or not it is a reliable proess, !ith true>"ustified

inputs'. So if the pereption>e$periene is influened by a reliable proess, "ustifiation of basi

beliefs an be formed. We must as% ourselves /(s this %ind of penetration usually reliable#1 &i.e.,

does it usually get at the truthIis it the result of a reliable ognitive proess#'.

(f reliabilism is the only ans!er &as Dyons argues', dogmatism is no longer a !or%able

argument, !hih seems to ma%e a foundationalist Penteostal approah not possible. )he

possibility of ognitive penetration in Penteostal hermeneutis seems to suggest that one of the

t!o premises outlined above are false either the sriptures are the foundation of our beliefs, or

9


11/26


our e$perienes affet our interpretation, but not bothIat least not in this simplisti formulation.

o!ever, there may yet be room for other options. ( !ill e$plore three suh options, and assess

ho! it might be possible to address the issue of ognitive penetration as a dogmatist.

Option 2: Internal Access to Defeaters

Cirst, the option of the possibility of internal aess to defeaters. Pryor &7999' argues that

dogmatism is onerned only !ith transitions from e$periene to belief that result in "ustified

belief5 it is not onerned !ith ho! e$perienes ome about in the first plae &!hat aused

them'. So pre2pereptual beliefs do no harm to dogmatism aording to Pryor. Sunglasses that

pre2pereptually tint a sub"et*s vie! of the !orld might be analogous &Pryor, 7999, p. =49'.

Sunglasses do not "ustify the sub"et*s pereptual belief that /( seem to see a hand is tinted.1

Rather, the e$periene>pereption is !hat immediately "ustifies the sub"et in their pereptual

belief about the hand, not the sunglasses &or if ognitively penetrated by a prior belief, not the

prior belief'.

-ut !hat if t!o different people loo% at a sribble on a hal%board and their pereptions

&due to ognitive penetration' lead them to t!o mutually inompatible beliefs about !hat they

see# 8ne seems to see the letter /p1, !hile the other seems to see a side!ays mouth and tongue.

)hey both are immediately "ustified, but ho! an this be# Pryor argues that eah sub"et is

having different e$perienes, so of ourse they might both have different pereptual beliefs, and

still both be "ustified &based on their varied e$perienes' &7999, p. =4:'. And further, they might

both be !rong &their pereptions might not line up !ith the e$ternal truth', and yet they might

both still beprima facie"ustified in their disparate beliefs. -ut onlyprima facie"ustified, and this

"ustifiation might be defeated or undermined by evidene that prior beliefs &or moods,

%no!ledge, hypotheses, et.' played a role in s%e!ing their e$perienes in a bad !ay.


12/26


Where might that evidene arise# Must !e depend on reliabilism here# (t ould be argued

that possible soures of evidene for /s%e!ed1 e$perienes might arise from e$perienes of

interation !ith other people &and either you e$periene them telling you that their e$perienes

are different than yours, or you e$periene them presenting evidene that you are s%e!ing your

e$periene', through remembering other times !hen a person &you or someone else' has s%e!ed

their o!n e$perienes, and through introspetion to reassess the e$periene for traes of bias.

)hat sounds lose to reliability, sine these all seem to be !ays of getting at reliability, and seem

to be outside the sope of dogmatism. o!ever, dogmatism allo!s for other %inds of

"ustifiation and belief different thanprima facie!hih may offer defeaters, and eah of these

proposed soures of evidene are internal in sope. )hey eah reGuire internal aess to one*s

e$perienes as further "ustifiation for pereptual beliefs rather than fousing on reliable

proesses &so !e may not reGuire reliabilism'. We an thus distinguish bet!een good and bad

ases of ognitive penetration by fousing on defeaters that are potentially available internally to

the pereiver &through their pereptions'.

When !e apply this approah to one of Siegel*s &797' ases of bad ognitive

penetration, it beomes learer ho! this might !or%.


13/26



14/26


irrational etiologies>auses>origins that seem to resemble bad inferenes &M6rath alls these

/Guasi2inferenes1' and that these inferenes ta%e plae in the /basement of the mind,1 beneath

the sub"et*s reognition of them &M6rath, 793'. )hese irrational etiologies ma%e it so that

ases of bad ognitive penetration do!ngrade the "ustifiation of a belief. -eause Siegel &793'

argues that the problem is partially a result of a irular belief struture &bad beliefs being based

on bad beliefs', she maintains that the beliefs involved in bad ognitive penetration are later used

as bases of further /pereptual1 beliefs, and if the previous beliefs are un"ustified, the latter are as

!ell. M6rath &793' disagrees !ith this assessment, and finds the problem in the e$periene

itself &and its etiologies' rather than in the ausality of a previous un"ustified belief. So the

problem of ognitive penetration is re2envisioned as being an internal proess that an be

internally assessed.

At least one problem remains, though. (t seems that for both Siegel and M6rath,

e$perienes !ith illiit ognitive penetration do not "ustify a person in their pereptual beliefs.

)his leaves some forms of mentalism intat, but not dogmatism, !hih rises or falls !ith the

onept of immediate "ustifiation of pereptual beliefs by pereptions of !hatever varietyI

even in ases of bad ognitive penetration. o!ever, !e ould revise the distintion of !hat %ind

of "ustifiation is do!ngraded in order to spare dogmatism, yet %eep the argument regarding

etiologies. Jogmatists argue forprima facie"ustifiation of pereptual beliefs, and !e ould

posit that this %ind of immediate "ustifiation is still supplied even in ases of ognitive

penetration &note that this is not the vie! of either Siegel or M6rathIit is a potentially

heretial revision'. Ultima facie"ustifiation may or may not result from this &and the disovery

of Guasi2inferentials might provide defeaters against theprima facie"ustifiation'. )he basement

etiologies ould then be used as defeaters if they are unovered &as in the previously elaborated

4


15/26


option derived from Pryor' and the presene of Guasi2inferenes ould do!ngrade the

"ustifiation of the pereptual belief &but not erase theprima facie"ustifiation unless they at as

defeaters by being disovered'. While M6rath &793' argues that !hat is Guasi2inferred annot

be said to be foundational &or for Pryor, "ustifiation for basi pereptual beliefs', beause it is

not the /given1, dogmatists ould argue that the pereption, !hether ognitively penetrated or

not, and !hether onneted !ith the /given1 in the e$ternal !orld or not, doesprovide

"ustifiation, !hih is foundational and an lead to immediately "ustified beliefs. And using the

revised version of the etiology argument, dogmatists ould distinguish bet!een good and bad

ases of ognitive penetration &bad ognitive penetration involves irrational etiologies'. While

this proposal is a revision of Siegel and M6rath*s approahes, it might yet be used as an

additional option to reliabilism, as a %ind ofpro tantothesis to the extent thatthe etiologies in a

ase of ognitive penetration are irrational, the ognitive penetrations are also bad &and if these

etiologies are unovered, they may beome defeaters of the pereptual beliefs'.

So in Penteostal hermeneutis, to the e$tent that a ognitive penetration arises from an

irrational etiology &suh as being aused by an irrational desire to fall to the ground and

onvulse', it may be said to be an epistemially illiit ognitive penetration. ote that in all of

this, there is still room for neutral or even epistemially benefiial ognitive penetration

previous e$periene !ith an author may influene ho! a person reads their !riting. (n the same

!ay, intimate e$posure to the Spirit may influene -ible reading in a positive !ay &illumination

by the one !ho inspired the !riting !ould be li%ely to help an interpreter get at the truth in a

te$t'. Additionally, a Penteostal*s e$periene of reading 6enesis might be in part influened

by e$perienes !ith the Spirit of the 0reator, but this ognitive penetration may not lead to any

=


16/26


additional "ustifiations for beliefs regarding the te$t in this ase, the ognitive penetration may

be of the neutral variety.

Option : !rut" #atc"ing

Cinally, !e should e$plore ho! the nature of ognitive penetration, dogmatism and different

%inds of truth might offer us further interesting possibilities for reassessment of the problem.

Jogmatism is about immediate "ustifiation of pereptual beliefs, and finds suh "ustifiation in

e$perienes of pereptions. 0ognitive penetration involves penetration of these e$perienes, and

some of those penetrations might be illiit &as in the ase of


17/26


beliefs, even though these pereptions seem to be !holly &or very nearly !holly' aused by

Cred*s o!n beliefs, moods, desires, and %no!ledge &rather than the outside !orld'.

8ne day, Cred is !athing


18/26


19/26


omments in this regard'. Da%ing defeaters, that previous belief might also affet a pereption in

!a%ing life, and this ne! pereption !ould "ustify Cred in a further belief &that he is floating'.

ere Cred*s !a%ing pereption is ognitively penetrated by a belief that is "ustified by his

dreaming pereptions. When he remembers these e$perienes later that night, perhaps he

additionally forgets all of the defeaters, and in his memory pereives the dreaming and !a%ing

e$perienes of floating in mid2air, and thin%s one again /( seem to have floated1 and gains

further "ustifiation in his belief that he floated that day. So Cred might ome aross defeaters

throughout his day and night, but might also fail to use or remember them to defeat his false

belief, or the "ustifiation that gave rise to the belief.

ere is !here the reassessment begins. Det us say that !hile Cred !as in the dream

!orld, he !as "ustified in his belief that he ould float. (t !as true, he ould float in that !orld &at

least, as long as he pereived that he ould' that is the nature of dreamsItheir realities onsist

of a person*s pereptions, regardless of ho! they line up !ith e$ternal reality. o!ever, !hen

Cred !o%e up, it !as no longer true that he !as dreaming, and it !as no longer true that he !as

floating. -ut as far as he had "ustifiations from his pereptions, it seemed true that he !as

floating &he ould be "ustified in a belief in as muh'. Without defeaters, he ould remember this

later, and it ould still seem true to him that he ould float, and he !ould have "ustifiation to

believe as muh.

(n this reassessment, !hat ma%es ognitive penetration illiit# When the "ustifiation is

not based on the truth &!here the proposition does not obtain in reality'. -ut for the dogmatist,

e$ternal truth is not immediatelyin fousIonly "ustifiation is, and "ustifiation an arise from

pereptions of !hat is true e$ternally orinternally. (mmediate "ustifiation does not al!ays lead

Cred to beliefs that are true about the e$ternal !orld, but it does often lead Cred to believe !hat

?


20/26


he seems to see. Cor the dogmatist, all of the truth may not be immediateItruths about the

e$ternal !orld or Cred*s o!n internal states that relate to the e$ternal !orld are mediated by his

pereptions, !hile Cred*s pereptions an immediately "ustify his pereptual beliefs.

)his reassessment may ome do!n to ho! "ustifiation, pereption, and the truth !or%

together. Det us say that the truth is merely /!hat obtains.1 ot "ust in the e$ternal !orld, !hih

!e !ill all /e$ternal !orld truths1 &+W)' &li%e it is the truth that Paul used a speifi 6ree%

!ord', but also in internal mental states, !hih !e !ill all /internal !orld truths1 &(W)' &li%e it

is the truth that ( believe that Paul !as the author of that speifi epistle'. (W) may or may not

onsist of true beliefs, moods, or desires &i.e., they may not math +W)', but may still be truly

believed, felt, and desired &and thus may still be (W)'. (f /( believe ( am floating1 is a truth

about an internal state for Cred, then !hen that belief penetrates his pereptions, !e ould say

that no! both a truth about the e$ternal !orld &Cred has a body or there is suh a thing as

floating, et.' and a truth about his internal states &Cred believes he is floating' are

influening>ausing his e$periene &or if in a dream, Cred*s e$perienes might be purely

ognitively penetrated by his (W)'. -oth Cred*s (W) and the +W) are mediated by the

pereption /( seem to be floating,1 but this may not ultima facie"ustify Cred*s beliefs about the

e$ternal !orld. o!ever, both an ome together in pereption to immediately "ustify Cred*s

belief about his pereptions, andprima facie"ustify Cred*s beliefs about either his internal states

or the e$ternal !orld &depending upon the ontent of the proposition that is pereived'. (n

addition, there is a possible third %ind of truth !e might identify here I /pereptual !orld

truths1 &PW)'. PW) are !hat dogmatists are immediately "ustified in believing &(W) and +W)

are mediated by pereption in their "ourney to!ard pereptual beliefs, and ome together to ma%e

79


21/26


up in some !ay PW) that may or may not be ognitively penetrated in an illiit, benefiial or

neutral !ay'.

Several larifiations are in order. Cirst, ho! an a mood or desire or other possible

ognitive penetrator be said to be true# (t an be true in my urrent mental state that /( have a

mood of depressed1 or /( am in a depressed mood.1 (t an also be true in my urrent mental state

that /( have a desire for seeing and tasting andy.1 All ognitive penetrators ould be dealt !ith

in this manner as (W) ating on PW), !hih ould immediately "ustify a person to have a true

or false pereptual belief about +W) or (W). Seond, you !ill notie that dogmatism in this

sheme still has a problem &as does internalism' !ith tra%ing !ith the e$ternal !orld. (W) may

not math !ith +W). An immediately "ustified belief might be dead !rong about the e$ternal

fats and yet still be internally onsistent. )hird, ognitive penetration is still problemati &and in

need of identifiation' beause immediately "ustified beliefs may not math up !ith +W) as a

result of the influene of a speifi %ind of (W) &those that do not math !ith +W)'. Courth,

immediate "ustifiation of pereptual beliefs is still possible. So dogmatism an still !or%, still

have a problem !ith ognitive penetration and tra%ing of the e$ternal !orld, and yet be able to

distinguish bet!een good and bad ases of ognitive penetration !ithout the help of reliabilism.

-ad ognitive penetration is !here the ontent of (W) do not obtain in +W) &there is a

mismath', but still unduly influene or ause PW). 6ood ognitive penetration is !here the

ontent of (W) do obtain in +W), and influene or ause PW). eutral ognitive penetration is

!here the ontent of (W) do or do not obtain in +W), and influene or ause PW), but do not

lead to "ustifiation that is different from the "ustifiation that !ould e$ist had no ognitive

penetration ourred. Cred*s pereptions are ognitively penetrated in a bad !ay !hen his

penetrating beliefs about the e$ternal !orld do not obtain, or !hen his penetrating moods do not

7


22/26


obtain in the e$ternal !orld &the !orld is not grey even though he is depressed', or !hen his

desires do not obtain in the e$ternal !orld &the !orld is not atually meeting Cred*s desire for

baon'. Cred*s pereptions are ognitively penetrated in a good or helpful !ay !hen his previous

beliefs about the e$ternal !orld do obtain, or !hen his moods do obtain in the !orld &his !ife

really is depressed, and is !earing grey', or !hen his desires do obtain in the e$ternal !orld &his

desire for baon and eggs is met by a !orld !here baon and eggs obtain for him'. (f Cred*s

belief about the e$ternal !orld &suh as that he is Superman' "ust happens to obtain in the

e$ternal !orld &for instane, if he really is Superman, but has forgotten his true identity, and has

no additional "ustifiation other than his immediate "ustifiation provided by his ognitively

penetrated pereption of floating in the air', this is still a ase of good ognitive penetration

&beause his (W) obtain in +W)'.

Peter Mar%ie*s &799;' gold prospetor ounter2e$ample might be !orth e$amining here.

)here are t!o gold prospetors panning for gold, one an e$pert, one a novie. As one is panning,

they find a gold nugget, and both loo% at the nugget. )o the e$pert, it seems li%e it is a gold

nugget &and she is penetrating her e$periene !ith beliefs derived from previous e$periene in

order to reogniBe it'. )o the novie it also seems li%e a gold nugget &and he is penetrating his

e$periene !ith a desire for gold'. Are the resulting beliefs of both prospetors idential in

epistemi status# Perhaps not. -ut in the reassessment ( have presented here, a dogmatist ould

say that both prospetors are ognitively penetrating their e$perienes in a good !ay &the (W) of

both math the +W)'. While both may have slightly different PW) &i.e., different e$perienes',

they are both still immediately "ustified in their pereptual beliefs, though the epistemi status of

those beliefs may vary bet!een the t!oIone person*s pereptual belief may be more "ustified

beause it has additional oherent previous beliefs and %no!ledge by its side &but it is not more

77


23/26


immediately "ustified'. (f the nugget turns out to not be gold after all, both are having pereptions

that have ognitive penetration of the illiit variety &the (W) of both fail to math the +W)', but

both are still immediately &though defeasibly' "ustified in their beliefs.

(n Penteostal hermeneutis, if (W) and +W) do not math, and the pereption of a

biblial te$t is ognitively penetrated by the (W), the pereption has had a ognitive penetration

of the illiit variety. )he resulting belief may still beprima facie"ustified if no defeater presents

itself. )he belief may be false, but it is still properly basi. Attention should be paid to assessing

our o!n ognitive penetration of pereptions !hen interpreting biblial te$ts, but !e may still be

immediately "ustified in our sriptural and theologial beliefs.

We might also synthesiBe these last three options &aess to internal defeaters, etiologies,

and truth mathing' to say that !e may have internal aess to defeaters for our "ustifiations

!hih !ould allo! us to unover our o!n ognitive penetration, illiit ognitive penetrators have

irrational auses, and parsing of %inds of ognitive penetration &i.e., neutral, good, or bad' an be

understood as assessment of truth mathing. We are thus immediatelyprima facie"ustified in

believing !hat !e basially pereive biblial te$ts to say &in the absene of defeaters'. )he -ible

and>or the Spirit may thus be the foundation for our true sriptural or theologial beliefs, !e may

have problems !ith ognitive penetration &!e may influene our pereption of the te$t !ith our

previous e$perienes, moods, and desires in a good, bad, or neutral !ay', and !e may also be

able to disern !hether !e have ognitively penetrated our e$periene !ith the te$t &and if it !as

good or bad'.

Conclusions

Using epistemi dogmatism, !e have argued that a foundationalist epistemologial aount is

possible even in e$periential Penteostal hermeneutis. Penteostals an have immediate

73


24/26


"ustifiations for beliefs in sriptural and theologial truths regardless of previous e$perienes,

and an at the same time value the role of e$periene in interpretation. Past e$perienes an

positively, neutrally, or negatively affet our beliefs, but !e may still have immediate

"ustifiations for beliefs in sriptural and theologial truths. Where !e are &in our internal mental

state' before !e interpret may affet our interpretation &in a positive, neutral, or negative !ay',

but !e may nevertheless have immediateprima facie"ustifiations for basi pereptual beliefs.

74


25/26


References

Arrington, Crenh D. &??72??4'. Christian doctrine: A Pentecostal perspective, 3 vols.

0leveland, ) Path!ay Press.

uemer, Mihael. &799;'. Phenomenal onservatism and the internalist intuition.American

Philosophical Quarterly, 43&7', 4:2=E.


26/26


Siegel, Susanna. &797'. 0ognitive penetrability and pereptual "ustifiation.'o(s, 4*&7', 792

777.

Siegel, Susanna. &793'. )he epistemi impat of the etiology of e$periene. #ymposium in

Philosophical #tudies, &*%&3', ;?:2:77.

Stephenson, 0hristopher A. &799:'. +pistemology in Penteostal systemati theology Myer

Peralman, +. S. Williams, and Crenh Arrington. (nProceedin"s of the 3*thAnnual

.eetin" of the #ociety for Pentecostal #tudies, 0leveland, ) 39:233.

Wadholm, Robert R. &799:'. )he role of e$periene in the interpretation of mirale narratives in

Duan literature. (nProceedin"s of the 3*thAnnual .eetin" of the #ociety for Pentecostal

#tudies, 0leveland, ) 3732339.

Williams, +. S. &?=3'. #ystematic theolo"y, 3 vols. Springfield, M8 6ospel Publishing ouse.

Documents

Cognitive Penetration of Pentecostal Hermeneutics