If I reject substantiation because it's bullshit, but I ignore the bullshitery of quantum mechanics and believe it anyway, that means two things (1) I'm logically inconsistent in my beliefs, and (2) transubstantiation is bullshit. — Hanover
I mean I get the argument of "sure my beliefs are stupid, but so are yours," but is that really where you want to land on this? — Hanover
Billions of people? Are you sure about that? There are a lot of religious people who don't have mystical experiences and would likely think there is something wrong with the person experiencing it just as much as there are a lot of Catholics that do not actually believe they are drinking the blood of Christ. Stigmata never actually happened to people and if it did, it is no different to pseudocyesis or other physiological manifestations symptomatic of a pathological disorder. — TimeLine
The point I was attempting to convey is that there is a lot of wrong in QM and those even with a hint of common sense would be able to see the difference that something like Schrödinger's cat was a clear example of how QM cannot be applied to our everyday reality and yet we have the Copenhagen Interpretation. There is the double-slit experiment followed by the claim that atoms move because they know they are being observed — TimeLine
I am saying that there is a lot of garbage from QM that is inconsistent with common sense and that there is no mutual exclusivity between classical and quantum interpretations of the universe, but at the same time there is a reason why these absurd suggestions are formulated because we have through QM developed some precise calculations, formed a better understanding of the behaviour of particles, and advanced our understanding of a number of others things. It is a process that is leading to something better, a kind of by-product of our epistemic evolution. — TimeLine
Perhaps I've missed it, but each of you need to define mystical experience first. Some experiences from modern Christian mystics suggests hysteria, but if one looks back into medieval Christian mysticism, you find a starkly different picture for many. It'd be helpful to ground this discussion with good definitions. — Buxtebuddha
So, one's awareness of experience 'x' can't be measured or observed? How does one make sense of their awareness, or the experience, then? — Buxtebuddha
You don't have to observe an experience to experience it, you just experience it. — T Clark
I'm not so sure. How're you not also observing your experiencing of eating dinner? You're experiencing it, so I think you're automatically measuring it somehow as being different from the experience of petting your dog. — Buxtebuddha
You don't have to observe an experience to experience it, you just experience it. — Buxtebuddha
As for mysticism - in some ways it is impossible to convey but the great mystics, the genuine mystics, do speak a universal language. — Wayfarer
I mean it's taken to be a meaning of the bread and wine in question, rather than to be literally what the states in question are-- just as we might say how the world "really is a stage" because people appear to others, even though it's not a stage at all.
Catholics don't think they are eating Jesus' fingers and putting a substance of blood in their mouth, no matter how much any of them say it's "literal." Any "literal" claim is distinguishing the meanings really are expressed by the bread and wine, rather than being a mere imaginary whim. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Any "literal" claim is distinguishing the meanings really are expressed by the bread and wine, rather than being a mere imaginary whim. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Right, but he's not considered to be the One True God come amongst mortals to save us from sin.Not true. He's considered a prophet in religions other than Christianity. — Sapientia
Muhammad is not of absolute importance. Allah is. Muhammad is merely the messanger and the prophet.Muhammad. — Sapientia
Yep, the centre of Islam is the One God Allah.Islam without Muhammad? — Sapientia
Sure, Buddhism is a set of techniques. Has nothing to do with a particular historical figure - maybe Buddha never even was a historical figure.Buddhism without Buddha? — Sapientia
That's not what the available testimony indicates.The Resurrection is not a historical event! >:O — Sapientia
>:) - when you see you're wrong, you run away.Whatevs. I'm not even going to discuss this red herring. — Sapientia
You can't know if it's unfalsifiable if you cannot even bring yourself to specify what predictions it makes. That's your own failing though. I've asked you multiple times already.It's unfalsifiable, so it's unscientific. — Sapientia
Yeah so what? Emotions are also unfalsifiable, therefore they're unscientific. So that means they're mythical? Give me a break from first-grade reasoning.It's unfalsifiable, so it's unscientific. — Sapientia
That's not true that a mystical experience wouldn't leave physical traces behind. Such could be detected in the brains of those undergoing them.That it was a mystical experience. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost. And, being of the spiritual realm, it would leave no physical trace behind. — Sapientia
>:OBertrand Russell — Wikipedia
Well, for one, I can conclude that mystical experiences do leave physical traces behind, and are scientific to that extent (we can judge whether or not someone really had a mystical experience). We cannot, however, scientifically study the inner meaning or significance of mystical experiences. That's not a failure either of science or of mystical experiences. It doesn't tell us mystical experiences are "mythical", or "unscientific" in a prejudiced sense. It just tells us that you're trying to cut a tree with a hammer ;)Something irrelevant that I've never denied. Good one. What exactly do you think that you can conclude from that?
Can you do any better? — Sapientia
Not comparable. First of all, in those cases there exists testimony in both directions. And most importantly, the testimony in that case was very often forced out of people by violence, etc. And the testimony was of the nature "I think she was a witch". It wasn't of the form "I've seen the Risen Christ".In that case, there must really have been witches, given all that testimony. (Look up witch trials in the early modern period). — Sapientia
Good historians wouldn't question the validity of one's claimed experience, only how that claim functions in different narratives. Suggesting that claims of mystical experience are in fact myths is not the job of a historian, so I don't think either of you would be good historians. — Buxtebuddha
History isn't as set in stone as many seem to think it is. — Buxtebuddha
You're not understanding at all. What I'm saying is that the claim itself is what historians analyze as part of a historical narrative, not whether or not the Christian resurrection happened yes or no. If Agustino is claiming that the Christian resurrection happened, not merely that it is claimed to have happened, then he could be right, but he could also be wrong. History isn't as set in stone as many seem to think it is. — Buxtebuddha
History doesn't change. — Michael
Whether or not we have enough evidence to discern whether or not it happened, which is to say whether or not it is historical, does come under the remit of a historian. — Sapientia
If he has no evidence suggesting the contrary, he ought not suppose that it did not happen, merely that it is not conclusive that it did. — Buxtebuddha
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.