I think such criteria can be found in various 'domains of discourse and practice'. For example in Zen Buddhism, there are means by which teachers ascertain the understanding of the students. In Tibetan Buddhism there is an academic curriculum with recognised degrees of attainment. I'm sure similar mechanisms existed in Western religious orders also. In any case, even for non-attached students of various traditions, there are kinds of evidence that can be adduced regarding their understanding or 'attainment'. But again it's very dependent on being situated in a domain of discourse with an agreed lexicon and some sense of standards, which are probably not that common in current culture.

But again it's very dependent on being situated in a domain of discourse with an agreed lexicon and some sense of standards, which are probably not that common in current culture. — Wayfarer

Except in science. I was hoping to brainstorm with people here on this subject.

Interesting about the Buddhists.

But one of the hallmarks of modern scientific method is to 'bracket out the subject' and concentrate exclusively on what can be measured/quantified. So in the 'domain of discourse' of secular-scientific culture, then this attitude is regarded as normative. 'Show me the data', 'prove it', and so on.

I’m not disagreeing with you.

Ok.

Ok.

The epistemic standard for science is whether a belief about the physical world is justified by other beliefs about the physical world and by sense data and whether the beliefs correspond to actual states of affairs — Noah Te Stroete

That isnt the standard of science, that is a description of broad concepts within science.
The standard is the scientific method.

There is no epistemic standard for spiritual beliefs that I’m aware of. For me personally, my spiritual beliefs have to be consistent with my other spiritual beliefs and justified by my experiences and by reports throughout human history. Then an abductive inference is made as to the source of these experiences. — Noah Te Stroete

The problem with that standard is that it is equally sufficient to justify any claim. A delusion for example, is just as valid by that standard as anything else. I can work out an hypothetical example if you find that insufficient.
Now, I am not saying what you believe is a delusion, Im not even saying what you believe spiritually isnt true, Im just saying that the standard you just described cannot be used to tell the difference between something that is true and something that isnt true or a delusion.
It isnt a very good standard to find out whats true, spiritually or otherwise.
So what do we want from our standard? What makes a standard a good standard?
I would say the best standard is the one that most reliably find out whats true. Would you agree with that?

I would say the best standard is the one that most reliably find out whats true. Would you agree with that? — DingoJones

I would. I don’t know how one would even touch truth, though, when it comes to spiritual beliefs other than through abductive reasoning.

I thought you might have more to say on the first part of my last post, it seems especially relevant given you agree that the best standard is the one that most reliably finds out what is true...could you please comment on that so I know how to proceed? Is the standard you describe the best one for finding out whats true, cuz I disagree that it is.

I thought you might have more to say on the first part of my last post, it seems especially relevant given you agree that the best standard is the one that most reliably finds out what is true...could you please comment on that so I know how to proceed? — DingoJones

I’m not necessarily in disagreement with you. I have what I call spiritual experiences. Interpretation of them is difficult. Jumping to conclusions is easy, and I’ve had what many would say are some very bizarre interpretations of those experiences. However, saying that it is all brain malfunction is easy, too.

Ok, I understand. So let's look at it then...
I said “the problem with that standard is that it is equally sufficient to justify any claim”
To me, that doesnt make a very good standard. Even if you are right about any given claim, it won’t be because you were using a good standard. Imagine trying to guess someone's password. You could just type random letters and still get the right password, but the method still kinda sucks even though you managed to hit the right random letters. It would be much more reliable to use just about any other way.
Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes sense.

There is no epistemic standard for spiritual beliefs that I’m aware of. — Noah Te Stroete

I will use the term "religion" as a synonym for "spiritual beliefs" in this context. This ignores the issue that they may not be 100% one and the same thing, but ok, that is part of the cost of doing business.

In my opinion, the first problem is that religion covers at least two epistemically different propositions.

The first proposition is that God created the heavens and the earth, and the second one that there is something like religious law -- provided by God, because that is the connection -- which is a set of rules that we are not supposed to break.

The first proposition is a historical question. Did it really happen like that? So, question belongs to the epistemic domain of history. So, the question becomes: Can we corroborate witness depositions for this? Well no, there were no humans at that point. Hence, the question is out of reach in the historical epistemic domain.

There is actually nothing special about questions being part of the historical epistemic domain, but not answerable by it. If for the one or the other reason, there were no witnesses to an event, then the historical method will simply have to throw in the towel.

The second proposition is about religious law. Can it consistently give answers to whether a particular type of behaviour is moral or not? In other words, is religious law complete? The epistemic standard for religious law depends on the religion. Judaism and Islam are axiomatic from scriptures. Christianity is mostly ecclesiastic.

So, the epistemic standard in (Judaism and) Islam is that the justified answer to a question of morality is provided by the wide consensus of religious scholars, i.e. muftis, inasmuch as they axiomatically derive their answer from scripture. The epistemic standard in Christianity is that the answer by the Papacy -- or your other church leader -- is deemed to be correct (=consistent), even if it isn't; just ask Martin Luther.

What you say is all true to my understanding.

Ok, so its not a very good standard then right? So should you trust the conclusions you have reached using that method?

There’s no good reason to trust them, seeing as how they only touch truth by chance, and one cannot know which ones do and which ones don’t.

Right, so if that standard is the only standard you can apply to spiritual matters, what conclusions should you draw about spiritual matters?

I understand now that abductive reasoning isn’t very good in practical matters, and when it comes to spirituality, there is no logical or otherwise argument for these beliefs so they are not the domain of philosophy or science. They probably have no place on this forum. That said, are they harmful in any way? Why should I give them up?

Well, you want to have good reasons for your conclusions right? If you don’t have good reasons to draw conclusions, then you shouldnt have those conclusions. Thats not to say you should conclude they are false, as of course that would be another conclusion. So I think the right answer, absent a good standard about spiritual matters, is to not reach any conclusions about them. Until you get a good standard, you just don’t really know, and thats fine. Sometimes “I don’t know” is the right answer.

Ok. Conclusions cannot be drawn, but the feelings of awe and wonder are self-justifying, in my opinion, as long as one admits that one doesn’t know what they mean.

The feelings of awe and wonder are self justifying....you mean as feelings or as something else?
Also, you not only shouldnt draw conclusions about what they mean, I think you shouldnt draw conclusions about what caused them either...you just have no standard with which to do so.
Apologies, I must retire for the night.

As feelings

I think it is pretty much universally accepted to refer to "spiritual beliefs" vs. "spiritual knowledge." Since an epistemic standard is a standard of knowledge, the term spiritual knowledge is a misnomer.

Bear in mind, it is possible to have true beliefs without evidence, so spiritual beliefs can still be true, they just don't rise to the level of knowledge by traditional epistemic standards. Hence the centrality of "faith" in many religions.

gnosis hasn’t come up yet.

Bear in mind, it is possible to have true beliefs without evidence, so spiritual beliefs can still be true, they just don't rise to the level of knowledge by traditional epistemic standards. Hence the centrality of "faith" in many religions. — Pantagruel

Actually a number of religions are quite empirical. You'll find this in many branches of Hinduism. You have stages and steps in experience, for example, with meditiation, and these can even be predicted by the experts, down to order of experiences and stages and tailor fitting predictions for individuals. Now an atheist or other skeptic will say that the conclusoins are still false, those that have to do with the external world. Though how they know this is an issue, but also the main point here is that there is a huge empirical aspect to spiritual beliefs, this is often systematized based on thousands of years of experience and that it works for people. IOW promised goals can be achieved by following the practices of, and the posited entities of, certain religions. In the West people are often used to prioritizing faith, so debates between believers get skewed to faith vs. knowledge. But this is not the only type of religion, and even Western theists will base their beliefs, often in part or in the main one what they experience as participants and how it is working for them. Now skeptics will say, as I mentioned about, that even if it is 'working' and there are predictable stages and experiences, this is not knowledge. But that is based on their sense that what is posited, say God, is not real. But actually knowledge has to do with experience and working, certain in instrumental approaches to knowledge. And further I have never met anyone who does not consider conclusions reached in similar ways knowledge. Not similar as in similar to meditation or chanting, but similar in the sense of built up over time in predictable stages of experience and finding that the beliefs work.

Well, now it has.

Yes, introspective-meditative traditions are quite another thing.. Other discussions I've encountered on this forum have been wholly unaware of this dimension. Happy to cede this point!

Ok, so the feelings are self justified but are you justified in your conclusions about the source?

I can only conclude that they are private. I cannot conclude anything as to their cause, unless of course I’m thinking about my thoughts which can have an impact on feelings.

Right, so what do you believe spiritually then? You do not need spirituality for your feelings, and you certainly dont need it to justify your feelings. You actually do not need it to experience awe and wonder at all, so what exactly do you believe spirituality? It seems like an empty category to me.