Cognitive Penetration of Pentecostal Hermeneutics Philosophy Robert R.

Wadholm, Missouri University Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the So iety for Pente ostal Studies

Are !e as Pente ostals immediately "ustified in our per eptual beliefs regarding meanings in s ripture# While the Spirit may enlighten our minds to per eive the meaning of a te$t, and the spiritual e$perien es !e have might be used to help us understand e$periential aspe ts of the te$t, might !e also be in danger of ma%ing laims of meaning in the te$t that are unsubstantiated and aused by our o!n fla!ed per eptions &!hi h !e might falsely attribute to the !or% of the Spirit'# (n short, might our relian e on the Spirit and on per eptions of spiritual e$perien es potentially undermine our %no!ledge of s ripture# )he issue here addressed is that of the ognitive penetration of per eption, !hi h is said to o ur !hen a person*s moods, beliefs, hypotheses, %no!ledge, desires, or traits penetrate &influen e in some !ay' their per eptions or e$perien es. +verything in the gro ery store may loo% deli ious !hen you are hungry. )he !orld may loo% grey !hen you are depressed. When you have a belief in a spe ifi s ientifi hypothesis, you may fail to observe ountereviden e or you may even have a per eption of onfirmatory eviden e that is aused by your previous hypothesis. ,ot all ognitive penetration, ho!ever, is epistemi ally illi it. Sometimes ognitive penetration an be epistemi ally benefi ial, as !hen an e$pert*s previous %no!ledge informs or adds to her e$perien e. -ut there are very real possibilities for epistemi ally illi it ognitive penetration, the %ind that unduly influen es the ontent of one*s e$perien e, reating an insensitivity to e$ternal stimuli in the form of indifferen e or sele tion bias.

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 So ho! does ognitive penetration relate to Pente ostal hermeneuti s# +$perien es of the Spirit may result in spe ifi beliefs, memories of e$perien es, %no!ledge, and desires as !ell as other inner states urrently being transformed by the Spirit &li%e hara ter, moods, et .' that may then impa t ho! a believer per eives the !orld, in luding the te$ts of s ripture. We also have our humanly derived meaning2ma%ing regarding spiritual e$perien es that may similarly result in spe ifi beliefs, memories of e$perien es, %no!ledge, and other inner states. When the believer later omes into onta t !ith passages of s ripture, the earlier beliefs, memories of e$perien es, %no!ledge, and other inner states may dire tly hange the hara ter of the e$perien e & onta t !ith the s ripture' so that their "ustifi ation in further beliefs are affe ted &benefi ially or illi itly'. 3o! an !e test to see if the resulting beliefs about the meaning of s ripture are the enlightenment of the Spirit &and are thus real %no!ledge', or are our o!n ognitive penetration of the e$perien e of the te$t, and ho! an !e test to see if our ognitive penetration is epistemi ally illi it or benefi ial# (n this presentation, ( !ill des ribe four options for testing for epistemi ally illi it ognitive penetration of per eptions based on re ent arguments in analyti philosophy &this !or% an be seen as a foray into Pente ostal analyti theology'4 reliabilism5 internal a ess to defeaters5 etiologies5 and truth mat hing. )hese four approa hes may help us to reassess ognitive penetration of Pente ostal hermeneuti 2related per eptions and offer us further insight into "ustifi ations for beliefs about s riptural and theologi al truths. Pentecostal Hermeneutics Pente ostal hermeneuti s is not merely interpretation of manus ripts, but is /the al!ays developing interpretive grid from !hi h one omes to understand 6od, ourselves and our !orld in light of !ho 6od is, the manner in !hi h the !orld is stru tured, and the nature of !hat it

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 means to be human1 &8liverio, 799:, p. 7;7'. (t is bibli ally as !ell as pneumati ally founded, and is said to be /the stru ture set in pla e by one*s previous belief2forming me hanisms, ons ious and un ons ious, !hi h inform ne! understanding1 &8liverio, 799:, p. 7;7'. (n Pente ostal hermeneuti s, e$perien e plays a vital and dialogi al role &<a obsen, 7993, pp. 72=', a ting as a ommon language, onte$t, infrastru ture, and verifier bet!een the interpreter and the !orld of the original author and audien e &Wadholm, 799:, p. 374'. ( have else!here proposed a holisti four2fold approa h to Pente ostal hermeneuti s, in !hi h the interpreter attends to the follo!ing4 .2 Assessment of original presuppositions and personal presuppositions &!hi h in lude previous e$perien es and beliefs of the interpreter', 72 3istori al2grammati al e$egesis and literary e$pli ation &!hi h often highlight the e$perien es of the authors and audien es, as !ell as often involving the reader in simulated ognitive reena tments of the e$perien es of hara ters and a tions in stories', 32 -ibli al theologi al and systemati theologi al analysis &!hi h sometimes tou h on e$periential aspe ts of theologi al meaning2ma%ing', and 42 Appli ation and verifi ation &in !hi h urrent e$perien es validate one*s interpretations through appli ation' &Wadholm, 799:, pp. 374237:'. )his hermeneuti al approa h values the role of e$perien e &both of the interpreter and the author>audien e', !hile giving ultimate authority to the original intent of the author and the Spirit &in revelation, inspiration and illumination'. Su h an e$periential and foundationalist a ount of Pente ostal hermeneuti s, ho!ever, may have underlying problems. 0hristopher Stephenson &799:', in a dis ussion of the

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 epistemologies of three histori ally prominent Pente ostal theologians, argues that Pente ostal theologians of the past have fallen into the /pitfall of bibli al foundationalism1 &Stephenson, 799:, p. 3.35 Arrington, .??72.??45 Williams, .?=3', in !hi h they fail to see the in ompatibility of the follo!ing premises, !hi h they e$pli itly or ta itly espouse4 .2 )he -ible is foundational for belief &interpreters must begin !ith s ripture, not !ith e$perien e, to form beliefs'. 72 Previous e$perien es influen e interpretation of s ripture. (n Stephenson*s !ords, /if understanding of s ripture is based in part on e$perien e@then do trine must be based in part on e$perien e as !ell. )herefore, one annot literally Abegin !ith s ripture* in do trinal pursuits5 at best, one an dra! on s ripture, !hi h is mediated in part by one*s e$perien e of the Spirit1 &799:, p. 3.3'. ,ote that here Stephenson*s use of the term /e$perien e1 is li%ely spea%ing of the role of the interpreter*s past e$perien es !ith the Spirit, not their urrent e$perien e of reading>interpreting s ripture. /(t is impossible for one to Abegin !ith s ripture* as opposed to e$perien e in the stri t sense on e one on edes that e$perien e influen es one*s interpretation of s ripture1 &p. 3.3'. Stephenson here argues that it is an untenable position to hold that e$perien e plays an important role in interpretation, but that s ripture itself &outside of e$perien e' ought to be the authority from !hi h !e derive beliefs. (n short, previous e$perien es of the Spirit mediate our urrent interpretation of s ripture so that !e annot ever have immediate "ustifi ations in our beliefs regarding s ripture &that are "ustified on the basis of our per eptions of !hat !e read'. Previous e$perien es !ith the Spirit are here imagined to always &at least partially' ognitively penetrate our urrent per eptions of reading the s riptures, so that !e an never have a properly basi belief in s riptural truth that is unmediated by previous beliefs and e$perien es.

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 0an !e as Penten ostals have our a%e and eat it too# 0an !e properly emphasiBe the role of e$perien e in interpretation &of s ripture and of life' yet also laim to have dire t "ustifi ation for beliefs from s ripture itself &!ithout illi it ognitive penetration by past e$perien es and beliefs'# 0an !e base our theologi al beliefs on s ripture, allo! our past e$perien es to influen e our interpretation, and yet not be guilty of merely listening to our e$perien es &sin e they are a mediator of truth for us in Stephenson*s a ount'# +pistemi dogmatism and the problem of ognitive penetration provide useful tools by !hi h !e may re2envision this state of affairs. Using epistemi dogmatism, !e may be able to sho! that Pente ostals an have immediate "ustifi ations for beliefs in s riptural &and theologi al' truths regardless of previous e$perien es, !hi h may thus provide room for a bibli al foundationalist, pneumati foundationalist, and>or pneumati bibli al foundationalist epistemology. Curther, through an analysis of the problem of ognitive penetration, !e may be able to sho! ho! past e$perien es an positively, neutrally, or negatively affe t our resulting beliefs, !hile also sho!ing that !e may still have immediate "ustifi ations for beliefs in s riptural and theologi al truths. Epistemic Dogmatism (n order to more fully address the problem of e$perien e and per eption in Pente ostal hermeneuti s, ( !ill here present an approa h from analyti philosophy %no!n as dogmatism &Pryor, 7999', also alled seemings internalism &Dyons, 79..' and phenomenal onservatism &3uemer, 799;', !hi h is an anti2s%epti al epistemologi al stan e on erning "ustifi ation of belief based on per eption>e$perien e. Cirst e$pli ated by Pryor &79995 799=', and founded in part on Moore &.?7=' and Pollo % &.?:9', dogmatism is an intuition2fo used philosophi al onservatism that ta%es per eptions>e$perien es as providing immediate prima facie &first blush'

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 "ustifi ations for beliefs given the absen e of defeaters &Pryor, 7999, p. =3E'. While per eptions give us no absolute ertainty, and it is possible that all of our past and urrent e$perien es are false, !e an still have "ustifi ation for our beliefs, even if those "ustifi ations do not guarantee true beliefs. We an %no! &or have "ustifi ations for belief that' some propositions are true !ithout being able to prove them. (n short, e$perien e immediately, though defeasibly, "ustifies a belief. (f p seems to you to be the ase, you are immediately &not based on other "ustifi ations or beliefs' "ustified in believing p. (f you seem to see a dollar bill in your hand &i.e., you have a per eption 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$perien e is not ne essary5 you "ust need to have the e$perien e. (n dogmatism, your e$perien es are not eviden e for believing p F the thought is that you do not need eviden e for per eptual beliefs, you "ust reGuire "ustifi ation &for the dogmatist, "ustifi ation and eviden e are t!o different things'. (ntrospe tive a!areness about your e$perien es and ba %ground beliefs might give you more reasons to believe, but there is an immediate "ustifi ation outside of this, and !e an have a "ustified belief &and sometimes also %no!ledge', !ithout offering non2Guestion2begging eviden e for that belief. (n dogmatism, immediately "ustified beliefs are not al!ays self2evident, they are not self2 "ustified &they have a tual "ustifi ations', and they are not epistemi ally autonomous &your belief ould reGuire many other additional "ustifi ations and beliefs, but your "ustifi ation reGuires none F your "ustifi ation is immediate, not ne essarily your belief'. Hour "ustified per eptual beliefs an be evidentially overdetermined &in luding both mediate and immediate "ustifi ations', but do not reGuire reasons or "ustifying arguments, and do not a t as further "ustifi ation for believing that the belief is "ustified.

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 ,ot every proposition that ( believe on the basis of per eption is immediately "ustified, but a great many propositions are. So !hi h of our per eptual beliefs are immediately "ustified# 8nly per eptually basi propositions, /propositions that our e$perien es basi ally represent1 &Pryor, 7999, p. =3?'. We may not end up believing these propositions &for instan e, !e may pass on to more sophisti ated beliefs, or !e may dis over defeaters of these "ustifi ations', but they nonetheless offer "ustifi ation that an be believed. A dogmatist Pente ostal hermeneuti might go something li%e so. A person reads s ripture, has a per eption of !hat has been read, and is immediately "ustified in believing !hat !as per eived. Cor instan e, Ri % reads 6enesis .4., !hi h says /(n the beginning, 6od reated the heavens and the earth1 and he has a per eption that /)he bibli al te$t says that 6od reated the heavens and the earth in the beginning.1 )hat is the per eption>e$perien e that Ri % is having !ith the te$t. A ording to dogmatism, regardless of Ri %*s other beliefs about the -ible, his belief in 6od, his Pente ostalism, his previous e$perien es, or even his onte$t in a real physi al !orld &as opposed to a dream !orld, or another s%epti al s enario', Ri % is still immediately "ustified to believe that /)he te$t says that 6od reated the heavens and the earth in the beginning.1 )his is a s riptural and theologi al truth that Ri % is immediately prima facie "ustified in believing &as long as there are no defeaters'. -ut might Ri %*s per eption of the te$t have been ognitively penetrated by his previous beliefs regarding theisti reationism, or even

his e$perien e of %no!ing su h a 0reator first2hand# )his be omes even more problemati !hen assessing ri hly e$periential passages, su h as those Pente ostals often highlight. (n short, ognitive penetration seems to be a !ren h in the !or%s of epistemi dogmatism, and of foundationalist Pente ostal hermeneuti s based on dogmatism.

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 Cognitive Penetration 8ne of the problems !ith ognitive penetration is that of do$asti as ent4 if a previous un"ustified belief ognitively penetrates my per eption, and ( am immediately &though defeasibly' "ustified in believing !hatever ( e$perien e, then an my previously un"ustified belief be ome "ustified based on my ognitively penetrated e$perien e &and be ome further "ustified through further ognitively penetrated e$perien es'# )he problem !ith epistemi ally illi it ognitive penetration, a ording to Siegel &79.7', is that it seems to introdu e "ust su h a ir ular belief stru ture. )o borro! an e$ample from Siegel &79.7', <ill believes &for no good reasons' that <a % is angry !ith her, and !hen she sees <a %, she per eives that <a % loo%s angry &regardless of ho! <a % a tually loo%s, be ause her per eptions are being ognitively penetrated', and no! she has prima facie &first blush' "ustifi ation for her belief that <a % is angry. <ill*s e$perien e !as per eived as "ustifi ation of her belief, even though it seems that it may have been aused by that belief. 0an a belief provide further "ustifi ation for itself# <ill is no longer he %ing her beliefs against realityIshe seems to rather be he %ing reality against her beliefs, or as Siegel puts it in this instan e, he %ing her beliefs against her beliefs &79.7, p. 797'. Jogmatism seems to predi t that a ognitively penetrated e$perien e an bring <ill from an un"ustified belief that <a % is angry to a "ustified belief that <a % is angry. )he Guestion is /(s su h epistemi elevation plausible in ases li%e this#1 0an your belief be ome "ustified as a result of ognitive penetration# )he target of this problem is dogmatism*s laim that having the per eptual e$perien e /(t seems that ( see a dollar bill1 is enough to give a person defeasible "ustifi ation for believing /)here is a dollar bill.1 8r in this instan e, that having the ognitively penetrated

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 e$perien e /(t seems that <a % is angry1 is enough to give <ill defeasible "ustifi ation for believing /<a % is angry,1 even if <ill !as not "ustified to believe this before the e$perien e. Option 1: Reliabilism Dyons* &79..' response goes even further in its ramifi ations for dogmatism, bringing against the problem of ognitive penetration not a harge of ir ularity &!hi h he argues against', but of diminishment of the reliability of per eption. 0ognitive penetration threatens not "ust per eptual %no!ledge, but "ustifi ation of beliefs that rest on per eption. Dyons does not thin% ir ularity is the ans!er to the problem of ognitive penetration4 epistemi ir ularity involves improper

basing, but e$perien es are not based on things li%e beliefs or prior e$perien es. Prior beliefs or e$perien es may cause or influence e$perien es or per eptions, but ir ularity only o urs !hen something is based in some !ay or other on itself. Dyons argues that memory has the same stru ture as ognitive penetration, but that !e !ould not say it is illi it or ir ular. Cor e$ample, <im has a belief that some flo!ers are yello!, !hi h triggers & auses' a remembran e of a per eption of yello! flo!ers, !hi h in turn auses <im to have a further belief that some flo!ers are yello!. 0ognitive penetration of beliefs on remembran es an be epistemi ally benefi ial or neutral. So !hat is the differen e bet!een memory and per eption as far as ognitive penetration goes# An issue beyond ir ularity is identifi ation of !hat ma%es a ase of ognitive penetration illi it. (lli it ognitive penetration seems to involve prior un"ustified beliefs, moods, desires, et .4 maybe that is the ans!er to !hy some %inds of ognitive penetration are bad !hile others are not &Dyons, 79..'# -ut !hat about un"ustified prior beliefs that seem to ause good epistemi out omes &li%e !hen ( am not "ustified in my belief that there are sna%es by the hi%ing

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 trail, but ( believe any!ay, and this auses me to be more attentive to the presen e of sna%es, !hi h helps me to see the sna%e that a tually is there'# )his is !here reliabilism omes in. (nstead, !e ould say that /the good %inds of ognitive penetration are the %inds that in rease reliability1 &Dyons, 79.., p. 399', !hile the bad ones de rease reliability. )he e$pert uses ognitive penetration to inform their later beliefs, but the novi e fails be ause their pro esses are not reliable. Dyons here offers a refutation to dogmatism4 the possibility of ognitive penetration is problemati be ause the dogmatist has no !ay to tell !hi h %inds are a eptable and !hi h are not. 3e thin%s this puts internalism itself in "eopardy. (n ases of bad ognitive penetration, a person*s beliefs may perfe tly mat h their per eptual e$perien es &they might seem to be immediately "ustified in their beliefs', but the e$periential state is !here the problem o urs4 it does not mat h the e$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 lo us of penetration does not matter4 !hat matters is the mode of penetration &!hether or not it is a reliable pro ess, !ith true>"ustified inputs'. So if the per eption>e$perien e is influen ed by a reliable pro ess, "ustifi ation 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 pro ess#'. (f reliabilism is the only ans!er &as Dyons argues', dogmatism is no longer a !or%able argument, !hi h seems to ma%e a foundationalist Pente ostal approa h not possible. )he possibility of ognitive penetration in Pente ostal hermeneuti s seems to suggest that one of the t!o premises outlined above are false4 either the s riptures are the foundation of our beliefs, or

.9

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 our e$perien es affe t our interpretation, but not bothIat least not in this simplisti formulation. 3o!ever, there may yet be room for other options. ( !ill e$plore three su h 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 a ess to defeaters. Pryor &7999' argues that dogmatism is on erned only !ith transitions from e$perien e to belief that result in "ustified belief5 it is not on erned !ith ho! e$perien es ome about in the first pla e &!hat aused them'. So pre2per eptual beliefs do no harm to dogmatism a ording to Pryor. Sunglasses that pre2per eptually tint a sub"e t*s vie! of the !orld might be analogous &Pryor, 7999, p. =49'. Sunglasses do not "ustify the sub"e t*s per eptual belief that /( seem to see a hand is tinted.1 Rather, the e$perien e>per eption is !hat immediately "ustifies the sub"e t in their per eptual belief about the hand, not the sunglasses &or if ognitively penetrated by a prior belief, not the prior belief'. -ut !hat if t!o different people loo% at a s ribble on a hal%board and their per eptions &due to ognitive penetration' lead them to t!o mutually in ompatible beliefs about !hat they see# 8ne seems to see the letter /p1, !hile the other seems to see a side!ays mouth and tongue. )hey both are immediately "ustified, but ho! an this be# Pryor argues that ea h sub"e t is having different e$perien es, so of ourse they might both have different per eptual beliefs, and still both be "ustified &based on their varied e$perien es' &7999, p. =4:'. And further, they might both be !rong &their per eptions might not line up !ith the e$ternal truth', and yet they might both still be prima facie "ustified in their disparate beliefs. -ut only prima facie "ustified, and this "ustifi ation might be defeated or undermined by eviden e that prior beliefs &or moods, %no!ledge, hypotheses, et .' played a role in s%e!ing their e$perien es in a bad !ay.

..

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 Where might that eviden e arise# Must !e depend on reliabilism here# (t ould be argued that possible sour es of eviden e for /s%e!ed1 e$perien es might arise from e$perien es of intera tion !ith other people &and either you e$perien e them telling you that their e$perien es are different than yours, or you e$perien e them presenting eviden e that you are s%e!ing your e$perien e', through remembering other times !hen a person &you or someone else' has s%e!ed their o!n e$perien es, and through introspe tion to reassess the e$perien e for tra es of bias. )hat sounds lose to reliability, sin e these all seem to be !ays of getting at reliability, and seem to be outside the s ope of dogmatism. 3o!ever, dogmatism allo!s for other %inds of "ustifi ation and belief different than prima facie !hi h may offer defeaters, and ea h of these proposed sour es of eviden e are internal in s ope. )hey ea h reGuire internal a ess to one*s e$perien es as further "ustifi ation for per eptual beliefs rather than fo using on reliable pro esses &so !e may not reGuire reliabilism'. We an thus distinguish bet!een good and bad ases of ognitive penetration by fo using on defeaters that are potentially available internally to the per eiver &through their per eptions'. When !e apply this approa h to one of Siegel*s &79.7' ases of bad ognitive penetration, it be omes learer ho! this might !or%. <ill has a prior &though un"ustified' belief that <a % is angry, and !hen she sees him, she per eives that /( seem to see <a % is angry,1 and forms a "ustified per eptual belief based on her & ognitively penetrated' e$perien e. 3o! an <ill tell if this is a ase of bad ognitive penetration# She ould as% <a %. She ould as% Phil &<a %*s best friend'. (f she does, she might e$perien e them telling her that <a % is not angry, and that <ill seems to be penetrating her e$perien e !ith previous beliefs. <ill ould also remember that she !as !rong about <a % being angry !ith her last !ee%, and remember that she had s%e!ed her o!n e$perien e !ith her prior beliefs before. And she ould remember ba % to the e$perien e of

.7

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 <a %*s fa e, and perhaps identify some sort of bias in her analysis based on her prior belief &she ould noti e that she biased her internal beliefs over the e$ternal fa ts'. Joes <ill have to do all of these things to be "ustified in her resulting belief# ,ot a ording to the dogmatist. -ut these methods might further "ustify her belief &or in this ase, defeat her earlier belief'. Might <ill ognitively penetrate ea h and every one of her e$perien es in a bad !ay &i.e., even <a % telling her that he is not angry seems to her li%e <a % really is angry'# )his is a possibility, but there is also still the possibility that <ill might have an e$perien e of a defeater &that is internally available' in the future that she does not ognitively penetrate, and this potential defeater allo!s us to still distinguish bet!een good and bad ases of ognitive penetration. (f the possibility e$ists that <ill may ome a ross defeaters, then she is still prima facie "ustified, !hile also having the possibility of un overing her ognitive penetration &and "udging !hether it is good or bad'. )raditional Pente ostal interpretations of bibli al passages regarding prophe y tend to rely on past personal e$perien es of propheti gifts. We might test for ognitive penetration by assessing these interpretations for signs of bias, see% out the interpretations of others, analyBe any eviden e that might point in the dire tion of our o!n s%e!ed per eptions, and>or remember ba % to a genuine ase of ognitive penetration to ompare !ith the present ase. (nternal a ess to these potential defeaters might allo! us to assess our o!n ognitive penetration of per eptions. Option 3: Etiologies Another option might be to loo% at the origin &etiology' of the ognitive penetration in order to assess !hether or not the ognitive penetration is of the epistemi ally illi it variety. Siegel &79.3' argues that in ases of bad ognitive penetration, !hat ma%es them bad is that they have

.3

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 irrational etiologies> auses>origins that seem to resemble bad inferen es &M 6rath alls these /Guasi2inferen es1' and that these inferen es ta%e pla e in the /basement of the mind,1 beneath the sub"e t*s re ognition of them &M 6rath, 79.3'. )hese irrational etiologies ma%e it so that ases of bad ognitive penetration do!ngrade the "ustifi ation of a belief. -e ause Siegel &79.3' argues that the problem is partially a result of a ir ular belief stru ture &bad beliefs being based on bad beliefs', she maintains that the beliefs involved in bad ognitive penetration are later used as bases of further /per eptual1 beliefs, and if the previous beliefs are un"ustified, the latter are as !ell. M 6rath &79.3' disagrees !ith this assessment, and finds the problem in the e$perien e itself &and its etiologies' rather than in the ausality of a previous un"ustified belief. So the problem of ognitive penetration is re2envisioned as being an internal pro ess that an be internally assessed. At least one problem remains, though. (t seems that for both Siegel and M 6rath, e$perien es !ith illi it ognitive penetration do not "ustify a person in their per eptual beliefs. )his leaves some forms of mentalism inta t, but not dogmatism, !hi h rises or falls !ith the on ept of immediate "ustifi ation of per eptual beliefs by per eptions of !hatever varietyI even in ases of bad ognitive penetration. 3o!ever, !e ould revise the distin tion of !hat %ind of "ustifi ation is do!ngraded in order to spare dogmatism, yet %eep the argument regarding etiologies. Jogmatists argue for prima facie "ustifi ation of per eptual beliefs, and !e ould posit that this %ind of immediate "ustifi ation is still supplied even in ases of ognitive penetration &note that this is not the vie! of either Siegel or M 6rathIit is a potentially hereti al revision'. Ultima facie "ustifi ation may or may not result from this &and the dis overy of Guasi2inferentials might provide defeaters against the prima facie "ustifi ation'. )he basement etiologies ould then be used as defeaters if they are un overed &as in the previously elaborated

.4

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 option derived from Pryor' and the presen e of Guasi2inferen es ould do!ngrade the "ustifi ation of the per eptual belief &but not erase the prima facie "ustifi ation unless they a t as defeaters by being dis overed'. While M 6rath &79.3' argues that !hat is Guasi2inferred annot be said to be foundational &or for Pryor, "ustifi ation for basi per eptual beliefs', be ause it is not the /given1, dogmatists ould argue that the per eption, !hether ognitively penetrated or not, and !hether onne ted !ith the /given1 in the e$ternal !orld or not, does provide "ustifi ation, !hi h is foundational and an lead to immediately "ustified beliefs. And using the revised version of the etiology argument, dogmatists ould distinguish bet!een good and bad ases of ognitive penetration &bad ognitive penetration involves irrational etiologies'. While this proposal is a revision of Siegel and M 6rath*s approa hes, it might yet be used as an additional option to reliabilism, as a %ind of pro tanto thesis4 to the extent that the etiologies in a ase of ognitive penetration are irrational, the ognitive penetrations are also bad &and if these etiologies are un overed, they may be ome defeaters of the per eptual beliefs'. So in Pente ostal hermeneuti s, to the e$tent that a ognitive penetration arises from an irrational etiology &su h as being aused by an irrational desire to fall to the ground and onvulse', it may be said to be an epistemi ally illi it ognitive penetration. ,ote that in all of this, there is still room for neutral or even epistemi ally benefi ial ognitive penetration4 previous e$perien e !ith an author may influen e ho! a person reads their !riting. (n the same !ay, intimate e$posure to the Spirit may influen e -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$t'. Additionally, a Pente ostal*s e$perien e of reading 6enesis . might be in part influen ed by e$perien es !ith the Spirit of the 0reator, but this ognitive penetration may not lead to any

.=

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 additional "ustifi ations for beliefs regarding the te$t4 in this ase, the ognitive penetration may be of the neutral variety. Option : !rut" #atc"ing Cinally, !e should e$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 "ustifi ation of per eptual beliefs, and finds su h "ustifi ation in e$perien es of per eptions. 0ognitive penetration involves penetration of these e$perien es, and some of those penetrations might be illi it &as in the ase of <a % and <ill'. What if !e bring illi it ognitive penetration to its most e$treme, and say that the entire per eption is being aused in some !ay by previous beliefs, moods, desires, and %no!ledge# )hen !e ould ompare this !ith a more typi al ase of ognitive penetration and !ith memory to see if !e an identify some elements of this problem that might provide %eys to its solution. Det us e$amine the ase of sleepy Cred. Cred is al!ays sleepyIe$ ept in bed. (n s hool, at !or%, at home, and even !hile !at hing )K he is prone to nod off and start dreaming. -ut !hen Cred is in bed, he stays a!a%e all night thin%ing about his day. (n the dar% he re onstru ts his previous day*s events in the re esses of his mind. Roughly half of those events are a tually dreamed, and did not happen to Cred in !a%ing life. -ut be ause his dreams are realisti &or at least very lear', and Cred dreams so often, he regularly has trouble telling the differen e in the dead of night bet!een !hat !ere his previous day*s dreams, and !hat !ere the events in his !a%ing reality. (t seems as if some of Cred*s per eptual beliefs about events in the previous day may not be true in the e$ternal !orld. Jogmatism seems to imply that even !hile Cred sleeps in the day, the e$perien es and per eptions he has !hile dreaming in his sleep give him immediate "ustifi ation for per eptual

.;

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 beliefs, even though these per eptions 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 !at hing <eopardy on television, and he realiBes that he is floating in the air instead of sitting on the ou h in his living room &a tually, Cred has slipped into a dream'. As he e$perien es floating in the air, he thin%s /( seem to be floating in the air,1 and is immediately &though defeasibly' "ustified in believing that he is levitating &he did per eive that, so he is prima facie "ustified in believing it for the time being'. )he television flips to a ommer ial, and Cred !a%es up. (n his ne!ly a!a%ened state, Cred has the per eption that he is still floating. 3e thin%s /( seem to be floating1 and is immediately "ustified &in his a!a%ened state' that he is floating. 3e then loo%s around and thin%s ba % to his dream. ,o! that he is a!a%e, the e$perien e of floating seems a bit !eird. (n fa t, he has had dreams li%e this before. Cred thin%s that his hildhood desire to be Superman may have impa ted his per eptions, and that he !as probably "ust re ently dreaming &he falls asleep so often that he sometimes has trouble telling the differen e bet!een being a!a%e and asleep'. More than that, his earlier dream e$perien e of floating impa ted his !a%ened per eptions and may have aused him to thin% that he is still floating. Cred*s !ife Martha, sitting on the sofa near him, loo%s up from her %nitting and gives him a %no!ing glan e. /Call asleep#1 /( an*t tell. Was ( "ust no! floating in the air above the ou h#1 /,o, but you might !ant to see a do tor about that prob@,1 and off Cred falls into another slumber as his !ife realiBes he is no longer listening, and goes ba % to her yarn. Dater, as the t!o get into bed and turn off the lights, Cred lies a!a%e !ondering about the events of his day. 3e thin%s ba % over !hat he did at !or%, the le ture he attended, and the television sho! he !at hed !ith his !ife. And he remembers that he floated in mid2air at one

.:

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 point during the Jaily Jouble. -ut !ait, did that really happen# Will Cred be able to identify his illi it ognitive penetration# Jream states ould be reassessed as &nearly' pure ognitive penetration. (nstead of most of the information of a given per eption being aused by an e$ternal !orld, most of the information is provided internally from previous beliefs, %no!ledge, desires, et . Cor dogmatists, immediate "ustifi ation may still !or% in dream states &though defeasibly', even though the per eptions ould be said to be nearly ompletely ognitively penetrated. While in his dream, an Cred identify that his dream e$perien e of floating has been ognitively penetrated in a bad !ay &that led to a false belief'# Cred still has &limited' a ess to his mind. 3e an remember that people don*t generally fly li%e omi boo% heroes &based on his failed hildhood attempts to soar off the roof'. Cred might even thin% of other defeaters &or eviden e for ognitive penetrators' !hile he is still sleeping. Cred might realiBe he is in a dream. )his might turn into a lu id dream !here Cred %no!s that he is purposefully penetrating his per eptions &and an distinguish that he has been illi itly doing so !hile he !as floating'. (f a person %no!s they are dreaming, they also %no! that their per eptions of the e$ternal !orld &or at least most of those per eptions' are not a tually per eptions of the e$ternal !orld, and that their prima facie "ustifi ations about the e$ternal !orld have been defeated be ause of the eviden e for illi it ognitive penetration. &(t should be noted here that !hile epistemi s%epti s argue that you annot %no! you are not dreaming, they generally do not argue that you annot %no! you are dreaming. )hey do not argue this be ause it is possible for people to %no! that they are dreamingIfor instan e, in lu id dreams.' (f Cred fails to e$perien e a lu id dream, !hen Cred !a%es up, his previously "ustified belief may still be found to be a false belief, and be defeated &for instan e, by his !ife*s

.E

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 omments in this regard'. Da %ing defeaters, that previous belief might also affe t a per eption in !a%ing life, and this ne! per eption !ould "ustify Cred in a further belief &that he is floating'. 3ere Cred*s !a%ing per eption is ognitively penetrated by a belief that is "ustified by his dreaming per eptions. When he remembers these e$perien es later that night, perhaps he additionally forgets all of the defeaters, and in his memory per eives the dreaming and !a%ing e$perien es of floating in mid2air, and thin%s on e again /( seem to have floated1 and gains further "ustifi ation in his belief that he floated that day. So Cred might ome a ross defeaters throughout his day and night, but might also fail to use or remember them to defeat his false belief, or the "ustifi ation that gave rise to the belief. 3ere 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 per eived that he ould'4 that is the nature of dreamsItheir realities onsist of a person*s per eptions, regardless of ho! they line up !ith e$ternal reality. 3o!ever, !hen Cred !o%e up, it !as no longer true that he !as dreaming, and it !as no longer true that he !as floating. -ut as far as he had "ustifi ations from his per eptions, it seemed true that he !as floating &he ould be "ustified in a belief in as mu h'. Without defeaters, he ould remember this later, and it ould still seem true to him that he ould float, and he !ould have "ustifi ation to believe as mu h. (n this reassessment, !hat ma%es ognitive penetration illi it# When the "ustifi ation is not based on the truth &!here the proposition does not obtain in reality'. -ut for the dogmatist, e$ternal truth is not immediately in fo usIonly "ustifi ation is, and "ustifi ation an arise from per eptions of !hat is true e$ternally or internally. (mmediate "ustifi ation does not al!ays lead Cred to beliefs that are true about the e$ternal !orld, but it does often lead Cred to believe !hat

.?

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 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 per eptions, !hile Cred*s per eptions an immediately "ustify his per eptual beliefs. )his reassessment may ome do!n to ho! "ustifi ation, per eption, and the truth !or% together. Det us say that the truth is merely /!hat obtains.1 ,ot "ust in the e$ternal !orld, !hi h !e !ill all /e$ternal !orld truths1 &+W)' &li%e it is the truth that Paul used a spe ifi 6ree% !ord', but also in internal mental states, !hi h !e !ill all /internal !orld truths1 &(W)' &li%e it is the truth that ( believe that Paul !as the author of that spe ifi epistle'. (W) may or may not onsist of true beliefs, moods, or desires &i.e., they may not mat h +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 per eptions, !e ould say that no! both a truth about the e$ternal !orld &Cred has a body or there is su h a thing as floating, et .' and a truth about his internal states &Cred believes he is floating' are influen ing> ausing his e$perien e &or if in a dream, Cred*s e$perien es might be purely ognitively penetrated by his (W)'. -oth Cred*s (W) and the +W) are mediated by the per eption /( seem to be floating,1 but this may not ultima facie "ustify Cred*s beliefs about the e$ternal !orld. 3o!ever, both an ome together in per eption to immediately "ustify Cred*s belief about his per eptions, and prima facie "ustify Cred*s beliefs about either his internal states or the e$ternal !orld &depending upon the ontent of the proposition that is per eived'. (n addition, there is a possible third %ind of truth !e might identify here I /per eptual !orld truths1 &PW)'. PW) are !hat dogmatists are immediately "ustified in believing &(W) and +W) are mediated by per eption in their "ourney to!ard per eptual beliefs, and ome together to ma%e

79

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 up in some !ay PW) that may or may not be ognitively penetrated in an illi it, benefi ial or neutral !ay'. Several larifi ations 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) a ting on PW), !hi h ould immediately "ustify a person to have a true or false per eptual belief about +W) or (W). Se ond, you !ill noti e that dogmatism in this s heme still has a problem &as does internalism' !ith tra %ing !ith the e$ternal !orld. (W) may not mat h !ith +W). An immediately "ustified belief might be dead !rong about the e$ternal fa ts and yet still be internally onsistent. )hird, ognitive penetration is still problemati &and in need of identifi ation' be ause immediately "ustified beliefs may not mat h up !ith +W) as a result of the influen e of a spe ifi %ind of (W) &those that do not mat h !ith +W)'. Courth, immediate "ustifi ation of per eptual beliefs is still possible. So dogmatism an still !or%, still have a problem !ith ognitive penetration and tra %ing of the e$ternal !orld, and yet be able to distinguish bet!een good and bad ases of ognitive penetration !ithout the help of reliabilism. -ad ognitive penetration is !here the ontent of (W) do not obtain in +W) &there is a mismat h', but still unduly influen e or ause PW). 6ood ognitive penetration is !here the ontent of (W) do obtain in +W), and influen e or ause PW). ,eutral ognitive penetration is !here the ontent of (W) do or do not obtain in +W), and influen e or ause PW), but do not lead to "ustifi ation that is different from the "ustifi ation that !ould e$ist had no ognitive penetration o urred. Cred*s per eptions 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.

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 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 a tually meeting Cred*s desire for ba on'. Cred*s per eptions 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 ba on and eggs is met by a !orld !here ba on and eggs obtain for him'. (f Cred*s belief about the e$ternal !orld &su h as that he is Superman' "ust happens to obtain in the e$ternal !orld &for instan e, if he really is Superman, but has forgotten his true identity, and has no additional "ustifi ation other than his immediate "ustifi ation provided by his ognitively penetrated per eption of floating in the air', this is still a ase of good ognitive penetration &be ause his (W) obtain in +W)'. Peter Mar%ie*s &799;' gold prospe tor ounter2e$ample might be !orth e$amining here. )here are t!o gold prospe tors panning for gold, one an e$pert, one a novi e. As one is panning, they find a gold nugget, and both loo% at the nugget. )o the e$pert, it seems li%e it is a gold nugget &and she is penetrating her e$perien e !ith beliefs derived from previous e$perien e in order to re ogniBe it'. )o the novi e it also seems li%e a gold nugget &and he is penetrating his e$perien e !ith a desire for gold'. Are the resulting beliefs of both prospe tors identi al in epistemi status# Perhaps not. -ut in the reassessment ( have presented here, a dogmatist ould say that both prospe tors are ognitively penetrating their e$perien es in a good !ay &the (W) of both mat h the +W)'. While both may have slightly different PW) &i.e., different e$perien es', they are both still immediately "ustified in their per eptual beliefs, though the epistemi status of those beliefs may vary bet!een the t!oIone person*s per eptual belief may be more "ustified be ause it has additional oherent previous beliefs and %no!ledge by its side &but it is not more

77

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 immediately "ustified'. (f the nugget turns out to not be gold after all, both are having per eptions that have ognitive penetration of the illi it variety &the (W) of both fail to mat h the +W)', but both are still immediately &though defeasibly' "ustified in their beliefs. (n Pente ostal hermeneuti s, if (W) and +W) do not mat h, and the per eption of a bibli al te$t is ognitively penetrated by the (W), the per eption has had a ognitive penetration of the illi it variety. )he resulting belief may still be prima facie "ustified if no defeater presents itself. )he belief may be false, but it is still properly basi . Attention should be paid to assessing our o!n ognitive penetration of per eptions !hen interpreting bibli al te$ts, but !e may still be immediately "ustified in our s riptural and theologi al beliefs. We might also synthesiBe these last three options &a ess to internal defeaters, etiologies, and truth mat hing' to say that !e may have internal a ess to defeaters for our "ustifi ations !hi h !ould allo! us to un over our o!n ognitive penetration, illi it 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 mat hing. We are thus immediately prima facie "ustified in believing !hat !e basi ally per eive bibli al te$ts to say &in the absen e of defeaters'. )he -ible and>or the Spirit may thus be the foundation for our true s riptural or theologi al beliefs, !e may have problems !ith ognitive penetration &!e may influen e our per eption of the te$t !ith our previous e$perien es, moods, and desires in a good, bad, or neutral !ay', and !e may also be able to dis ern !hether !e have ognitively penetrated our e$perien e !ith the te$t &and if it !as good or bad'. Conclusions Using epistemi dogmatism, !e have argued that a foundationalist epistemologi al a ount is possible even in e$periential Pente ostal hermeneuti s. Pente ostals an have immediate

73

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 "ustifi ations for beliefs in s riptural and theologi al truths regardless of previous e$perien es, and an at the same time value the role of e$perien e in interpretation. Past e$perien es an positively, neutrally, or negatively affe t our beliefs, but !e may still have immediate "ustifi ations for beliefs in s riptural and theologi al truths. Where !e are &in our internal mental state' before !e interpret may affe t our interpretation &in a positive, neutral, or negative !ay', but !e may nevertheless have immediate prima facie "ustifi ations for basi per eptual beliefs.

74

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1

References Arrington, Cren h D. &.??72.??4'. Christian doctrine: A Pentecostal perspective, 3 vols. 0leveland, ),4 Path!ay Press. 3uemer, Mi hael. &799;'. Phenomenal onservatism and the internalist intuition. American Philosophical Quarterly, 43&7', .4:2.=E. <a obsen, Jouglas. &7993'. hin!in" in the #pirit: heolo"ies of the early Pentecostal movement. -loomington, (,4 (ndiana University Press. Dyons, <a %. &79..'. 0ir ularity, reliability, and the ognitive penetrability of per eption. Philosophical $ssues, %&&.', 7E?23... Mar%ie, Peter. &799;'. +pistemi ally appropriate per eptual belief. 'o(s, 4)&.', ..E247. M 6rath, Matthe!. &79.3'. Siegel on the epistemi impa t for epistemologi al internalism. Philosophical #tudies, &*%&3', :732:37. Moore, 6eorge +d!ard. &.?7='. A defen e of ommon sense. (n <. 3. Muirhead &+d.', Contemporary +ritish philosophy: Personal statements ,#econd #eries-. 6eorge Allen and Un!in. 8liverio, William D. <r. &799:'. )he lassi al Pente ostal hermeneuti and its su essors. (n Proceedin"s of the 3*th Annual .eetin" of the #ociety for Pentecostal #tudies, 0leveland, ),4 7;.27;;. Pollo %, <ohn. &.?:9'. /nowled"e and 0ustification. Prin eton, ,<4 Prin eton University Press. Pryor, <ames. &7999'. )he s%epti and the dogmatist. 'o(s, 34&4', =.:2=4?. Pryor, <ames. &799='. )here is immediate "ustifi ation. (n Matthias Steup L +rnest Sosa &+ds.', Contemporary debates in epistemolo"y, &pp. .E.279.'. Malden, MA4 -la %!ell Publishing.
7=

Robert R. Wadholm, /0ognitive Penetration1 Siegel, Susanna. &79.7'. 0ognitive penetrability and per eptual "ustifi ation. 'o(s, 4*&7', 79.2 777. Siegel, Susanna. &79.3'. )he epistemi impa t of the etiology of e$perien e. #ymposium in Philosophical #tudies, &*%&3', ;?:2:77. Stephenson, 0hristopher A. &799:'. +pistemology in Pente ostal systemati theology4 Myer Peralman, +. S. Williams, and Cren h Arrington. (n Proceedin"s of the 3*th Annual .eetin" of the #ociety for Pentecostal #tudies, 0leveland, ),4 39:23.3. Wadholm, Robert R. &799:'. )he role of e$perien e in the interpretation of mira le narratives in Du an literature. (n Proceedin"s of the 3*th Annual .eetin" of the #ociety for Pentecostal #tudies, 0leveland, ),4 3732339. Williams, +. S. &.?=3'. #ystematic theolo"y, 3 vols. Springfield, M84 6ospel Publishing 3ouse.

7;