But I don’t think Evangelical Fundamentalism works very well if one wants to be an astrophysicist. — Noah Te Stroete

This begs the question of what constitutes a valid justification. The fundamentalist would claim that astrophysics is a failed enterprise because it holds to the preposterous belief that the universe began from some sort of Big Bang hundreds of millions of years ago when it is well established the world is only a few thousand years old and that it began with a six day creation event. In order to satisfy the fundamentalist that the scientist's conclusions are valid, he would need to find an astrophysicist that arrived at conclusions consistent with the Bible's.

I don’t have a good argument as to how there is a theoretic difference between scientific knowledge and spiritual or religious knowledge. One might say that science often makes accurate predictions, while the Bible has made none. Also, technology seems to work. So, one could argue that one appears to satisfy the truth condition while the other does not, but that wasn’t what I said in the OP.

Also, the topic was spiritual knowledge, not religious fundamentalism. Were you deliberately trying to confuse me with this category error, or was it an honest mistake on your part?

Spiritual experiences are self-justifying as spiritual experiences if one defines spirituality a certain way, viz. the feelings of awe and wonder and heightened states of consciousness. Given that they are a given to the individual, the person must know when they are experiencing them.

Also, the topic was spiritual knowledge, not religious fundamentalism. Were you deliberately trying to confuse me with this category error, or was it an honest mistake on your part? — Noah Te Stroete

It's not a category error. It's a definitional issue, where you wish to limit the definition of spiritual knowledge as that which is received in a mystical manner as opposed to through sacred documents.

As you've defined spiritual knowledge (vague notions of awe and wonder), I'm wondering how you define that as "knowledge" at all. It sounds like you're describing an emotion. It's like seeing a robin hopping around on the ground and feeling happy.

If, though, it's sort of like receiving prophecies and you insist those prophecies are revelations of truth, that would satisfy the JTB criteria. And isn't that what biblical knowledge allegedly is, with prophets receiving truth from atop a mountain?

If, though, it's sort of like receiving prophecies and you insist those prophecies are revelations of truth, that would satisfy the JTB criteria. And isn't that what biblical knowledge allegedly is, with prophets receiving truth from atop a mountain? — Hanover

I granted you this.

. It's like seeing a robin hopping around on the ground and feeling happy. — Hanover

Why couldn’t this be spiritual? Emotion can be spiritual, especially as consciousness to me is inherently spiritual.

It's not a category error. It's a definitional issue, where you wish to limit the definition of spiritual knowledge as that which is received in a mystical manner as opposed to through sacred documents. — Hanover

It is a category error in so much as what I intended to mean by “spiritual.” Insofar as you didn’t know what I was talking about, and you define it another way to include religious fundamentalism, it is not a category error.

I suppose an interesting topic of discussion might be whether spirituality is purely mystical or whether it includes religious fundamentalism?

For me, any reasonable definition of spirituality would have to include, not mere happiness, but cultivation of the good life, however you might conceive of that. Cultivation implies something beyond merely espousing some set of beliefs that might make you feel secure or happy, but would include actually working on yourself to make yourself into a better person. So, I think spirituality is neither "purely mystical" nor would it include religious fundamentalism, since the latter exemplifies a narrow bigoted life that could not qualify as "virtuous" or "thriving".

For me, any reasonable definition of spirituality would have to include, not mere happiness, but cultivation of the good life, however you might conceive of that. Cultivation implies something beyond merely espousing some set of beliefs that might make you feel secure or happy, but would include actually working on yourself to make yourself into a better person. So, I think spirituality is neither "purely mystical" nor would it include religious fundamentalism, since the latter exemplifies a narrow bigoted life that could not qualify as "virtuous" or "thriving". — Janus

This is a good point, and I think @Wayfarer would agree.

Yes. I think this is certainly one of the points that we have in common. :smile:

Except I don’t see how mysticism equates to fundamentalism.

Except I don’t see how mysticism equates to fundamentalism. — Wayfarer

Who said it does?

(Another thing we have in common, I've just noticed, is that we have both made 7.9 K posts. I checked and you have made 7,864 and I have made 7,876. Just 12 posts the difference. It's a scary thought, wasting all that time, isn't it)?

Sorry, I had misread the point that I was responding to. Should have read it more carefully.

(My partner often complains about my 'playing with my invisible friends'. I do see her point, and it is strangely habit-forming and time-consuming, but on the other hand, I tell her, it is a philosophy forum, there's plenty more nefarious online activities that people could get up.)

Such as?

My partner often complains about my 'playing with my invisible friends'. — Wayfarer

Yeah, mine too. but she spends her share of time texting and sometimes even facebooking :yikes:, the first of which I avoid except when absolutely necessary (I prefer to communicate audibly about everyday matters at least) and the second of which I avoid like the plague.

To be serious, though, I think it is a great way to improve your writing skills (both typing and expression), and your critical thinking and grasp of philosophical concepts and their history, and it also offers windows into just how other more or less thoughtful and intelligent people think, as well as introducing you to ideas and texts you otherwise may never have become aware of. So it can't be all bad!

In my more optimistic moments I like to think of the philosophy forums as the modern day equivalent of the agora. No doubt the agora also had its share of bigots, bullies and buffoons; since despite what romantic dreams might lead us to believe there is no perfection in this world!