I bet it would’ve been. That’s why I’m glad it never was … :smile:

Sitting cross-legged under a tree for all eternity.

The other side of that is that religions posit entities and realms that are not publicly observable, and theories, like karma, rebirth, enlightenment, resurrection, divine judgement and so on, which are not inter-subjectively testable. — Janus

You still haven't answered my question:

Again, it depends on who those others subjects in the "inter-subjectively speaking" are. Who and what are they?Does just any random person, regardless of age, education, socioeconomic status, etc. qualify as your potential fellow subject? — baker

Whatever is observable publicly is observable by anyone. Only what is observable publicly can be rigorously inter-subjectively tested. Anything else is a matter of theory, speculation, imagination, faith or whatever. Even scientific theories are testable only insofar as what they predict will or will not be consistently observed. Even if what is predicted by a scientific theory is consistently observed that doesn't prove the theory to be true, but it is generally taken to make it plausible

Who is this public? Tell me.

Probably something like being aware of how little we know and to moderate our aspirations and expectations accordingly.

It seems to be an important theme guiding a good deal of the classical figures in western philosophy.

It's certainly true that our science has increased considerably, but this shouldn't lead us to believe that our epistemic situation has changed much.

And then again most people who are labeled as being "enlightened" very much reject being called such a thing.

Subjectivism, again. — Wayfarer

Not subjectivism, but inter-subjectivism. Scholars who devote whole lifetimes to studying ancient thinkers are better placed to understand them than laypeople, particularly when you consider that laypeople will be reading translations replete with the interpretations of the scholars who translated them. So, the best guide to understanding Plato would therefore be following contemporary scholarly consensus (if there be such). Otherwise you would be left to your own subjective devices (subjectivism).

Is there any reason I should take that question seriously?

Oh god.

You keep avoiding the point that the "public" you're refering to, the "subjects" in your "intersubjectively testable" is a very specific group of people, not just anyone.

The claims made by a scientist from a particular scientific discipline are testable only by people with a comparable scientific background. Most certainly not by just anyone.

It's the same in religion: The claims made by a religious person from a particular religious discipline are testable only by people with a comparable religious background. Most certainly not by just anyone.

It is not the case that science is somehow open to all, while religion isn't; or that science is objective, while religion isn't, like you keep arguing. Both require special knowledge and education for the testing of their claims, respectively.

The empirical observations that underpin science can be made by anyone who has been trained to use the equipment or to know what to look for. People can be reliably trained. No such reliable training exists in religion. You might have been meditating or praying for decades and enjoyed no "religious" experience or change of consciousness. And even if you had, the fact that you had is not observable by anyone else. If you can't get the difference between what is observable via the senses, and what is observable via introspection, the public nature of the first and the private nature of the second, then I'm done trying to explain it to you.

The empirical observations that underpin science can be made by anyone who has been trained to use the equipment or to know what to look for. People can be reliably trained.

No such reliable training exists in religion. — Janus

Of course it does. That's the whole point. That's how there exist whole schools in religions, lineages where thousands of people are trained to discern and develop the same things.

You might have been meditating or praying for decades and enjoyed no "religious" experience or change of consciousness.

And even if you had, the fact that you had is not observable by anyone else.

Of course it is. People trained in the same tradition as you can observe it. They can asses whether a particular person has come to a certain attainment or not.

Religion/spirituality isn't simply about "introspection". It is supposed to bring about a change of consciousness, a change in one's moral status, and more, and this is something that other people can observe, in accordance with the standards of their religion/spirituality.

They can asses whether a particular person has come to a certain attainment or not. — baker

They can assess behavior according to some criteria, but they cannot know the other's experience and hence cannot know that the other (even granting that the other could know themselves) that they are enlightened.

In any case, people can be morally superior without believing, thinking or "knowing" anything about being enlightened, so superior moral behavior is not going to tell you anything about whether someone is enlightened. People who are believed to be enlightened can also be morally inferior; think about the notorious "bad behavior" of supposed gurus and enlightened ones.

Anyway if you can't come up with anything more than assertions I'm over this conversation, Baker. You are not providing arguments, much less convincing ones, you are just saying "no it isn't" to my "yes it is" and "yes it is", to my "no, it isn't", we are not getting anywhere and it's becoming boring, so let's leave it there, eh?