but because you won't admit it is a faith like any other. — Janus

If you are willing to admit that your position too is built upon faith, then this seems like a reasonable complaint. If you are not so willing, then Wayfarer seems justified in investing his time elsewhere.

Please forgive me for this guess, which is based on 20 years of experience, but no knowledge of you personally. My best guess, which could easily be wrong, is that you don't know that your position is based on faith, and thus you are being sincere if you claim it isn't. If that's the case (and it may not be), you wouldn't be intellectually dishonest but just not fully informed.

I am prepared to listen to arguments to support your beliefs but you don't present any. Instead you make appeals to traditions and authority. — Janus

But if you say:

The whole phenomenon could be explained merely in terms of brain chemistry for all we can tell. — Janus

But even feelings of absolute certainty are not rational warrants for beliefs. — Janus

religious experience cannot tell us anything definite — Janus

So if you believe that, then there's no chance that anything said in a forum will be likely to overturn it.

As far as 'appeals to tradition and authority' - what I say is, certainly in Buddhism there is both tradition and authority, but there is also the principle of 'ehipassiko' which means 'come and see'. Through application of the principles and the disciplined practice of meditation, then evidence can be discerned in direct terms. But of course, to you, that is a 'belief'. I can't persuade you that there is such evidence because it has to be 'seen each one for himself'. And as you've already declared that such seeing is impossible in principle, then again, what argument could be presented? What is there to discuss? You already know 'it's just a belief'.

Please read the long passage I quoted from David Loy's essay, which directly addresses your criticisms:

The main problem with our usual understanding of secularity is that it is taken-for-granted, so we are not aware that it is a worldview. It is an ideology that pretends to be the everyday world we live in. Many assume that it is simply the way the world really is, once superstitious beliefs about it have been removed.

This is exactly the perspective you come at everything from. You're like a lot of people on this forum, the secular thought police. Anyone who says anything which questions the secular understanding of secularity better look out.

You say

I actually used to think as you do — Janus

But now, you're essentially a positivist.

a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism.

I liked you a lot better when you were Dawson. So, meanwhile, have a nice life.

It’s simply not worth discussing it with someone whose mind is already made up. It’s a waste of time for both parties. — Wayfarer

Well, discussing doesn't necessarily require the possibility that anyone will be convinced of anything. And as you undoubtably know from long experience, it's quite rare that anyone is persuaded to any view other than the one they already hold. Many people, probably most, consider anything said on any philosophy forum to be a waste of time, a point of view which is not so easy to dismiss.

Personally, I keep typing a billion words to nowhere because I was born to type. If I wasn't typing on the Internet, I'd be typing in my head, just as I long did before 1995.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having groundless faith; we all inevitably do it. The point is that it should be acknowledged, not obfuscated by further groundless appeals to "direct knowing" as if that could prove anything about the nature of reality! — Janus

OK I'll take you up on your challenge of 'presenting an argument'.

This thread started as a question about whether Zen Buddhism was 'based on logic'. I responded that Zen Buddhism is based, not on logic, but on

Prajñāpāramitā or ‘transcendental wisdom’, or awakening, satori. It is neither religion in the Western sense, nor yet science. — Wayfarer

But you are insisting that it can only be based on 'groundless faith'. In other words, you're taking issue with the very idea that there can be such a faculty as Prajñāpāramitā. So not only are you saying that I'm wrong, you're basically saying that Buddhists, generally, must be wrong about it.

So here's my argument. Adherents of secular philosophy are obliged to deny that there can be such a faculty as prajñāpāramitā. This is because in that worldview, 'religion' is a private and subjective matter; it can only be about belief. Liberal democracy allows individuals 'freedom of belief', as you acknowledge. This is not because it accepts that belief means anything necessarily, but because of the democratic principle of freedom of conscience. 'Knowledge', meanwhile, is always public, third-person and verifiable by scientific method. So there cannot be such a thing as 'gnosis' or prajñāpāramitā in that worldview. It is black and white, open and shut - religion is never about knowledge, only ever 'groundless faith', which might be touching in its sincerity and might even lead to beneficial consequences. But in reality it has no objective reference. Reality is solely a matter for science.

That is why I quoted the passage from David Loy's essay. That essay was written after the 9/11 attacks, as an analysis of the terrorist response to the perceived groundlessness of secular culture. It's quite a sophisticated argument and is directly on point. You're speaking from 'secular culture's self-understanding'. That passage is an analysis of that attitude. You haven't said anything about that, I think it applies directly to your criticisms and the cultural background that gives rise to them.

In other words the very idea that humans can directly know the nature of reality is itself an article of groundless faith, no matter how "enlightened" a person, or some tradition, finds that person to be. — Janus

Speaking of 'arguments', all of yours consist of this one: that there can be no 'enlightenment'

Now, what 'enlightenment' is, is obviously a vexed and deep question. In the Buddhist tradition, the word that was translated as 'enlightenment' was 'bodhi', which is elsewhere translated as 'wisdom'. However, here you're declaring that, whatever it is claimed to be, it can't be real. So I'm expected to produce an argument to the contrary. You want me to persuade you, by argument, that Buddhists are not, in fact, uniformly deluded.

I shouldn't get wound up about this. I think I'll probably try and keep away from this forum for another month or two, as it ends up wasting a lot of time. But please at least understand that I am not the one being 'dogmatic' here.

Now, what 'enlightenment' is, is obviously a vexed and deep question. In the Buddhist tradition, the word that was translated as 'enlightenment' was 'bodhi', which is elsewhere translated as 'wisdom' — Wayfarer

It might help if you could, here or elsewhere, dive further in to this description. Or perhaps point us to descriptions which have been translated out of Buddhist terminology in to something approaching every day English.

If the argument is "does enlightenment exist or not" then it would seem to help for us to have clearer understanding of what enlightenment is proposed to be. I've been reading about such things for 50 years, and don't have a clear understanding myself.

I REALLY hope you won't bail on the forum, but I'd still be interested in reading you respond to a challenge which I've not yet seen you address, though you very well may have. You're heard this one before I think...

I'm agreeable to the possibility that some form of fundamental transformation of human psychology may be possible, because there are people with special abilities way out at the end of the talent bell curve in every field. Assuming such people exist...

My challenge would be that they seem to be so exceedingly rare as to be largely irrelevant to the human condition.

↪TiredThinker

"Ch’an is the Chinese transliteration of the Sanskrit ‘dhyana’ which means ‘meditative absorption’. The Japanese version is the more familiar ‘Zen’".(Wayfairer)

A patriarch of Zen is the Noble Nagarjuna. He is famous for making clear the philosophical foundation of the Buddha's teachings. In his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way he reduces to absurdity all positive metaphysical theories, thus proving the logical soundness of non-dualism and a neutral metaphysical position.

So, yes,. Zen/Ch'an has a sound and unshakeable logical foundation. It's the foundation of the Perennial philosophy. This is why no workable fundamental theory can be found in Western thought. The only theory that works is the only one it rejects as a matter of principle.

Zen gives the appearance of being unconcerned with analysis and logic, but there's an iron fist inside the glove. .

Space, the overwhelming vast majority of reality, is invisible, and has none of the properties we typically use to define existence. — Hippyhead

Yes, air is invisible too, but air pressure and the curvature of space have measurable effects.

But if you say:

The whole phenomenon could be explained merely in terms of brain chemistry for all we can tell. — Janus


But even feelings of absolute certainty are not rational warrants for beliefs. — Janus


religious experience cannot tell us anything definite — Janus


So if you believe that, then there's no chance that anything said in a forum will be likely to overturn it. — Wayfarer

It's not a matter of me believing anything. I am merely pointing out that there are alternative explanations, and that there is no way of determining which is the case. So, the phenomenon of peak experiences could conceivably be just down to brain chemistry. Or it could be a contact with a "higher reality". We can imagine both explanations. We cannot know which is true. So, if we opt for one or the other faith is involved. That's all I'm saying. The frustrating thing is that you don't listen to what I'm saying but instead put me into one of your preconceived boxes that you feel you can tidily dismiss.

Absolute certainty about some proposition in any person, even those who are generally revered as sages or enlightened ones, does not constitute a rational warrant for belief, because it is always possible that what anyone is certain about is wrong, or a delusion.

That is why religious experience cannot tell us anything definite. And an example of your failure to address my arguments is your failure to address the problem that religions all tell us different things about the origin of the soul and Cosmos and the purpose of life and the possibility of an afterlife.

As far as 'appeals to tradition and authority' - what I say is, certainly in Buddhism there is both tradition and authority, but there is also the principle of 'ehipassiko' which means 'come and see'. — Wayfarer

Yes, but before one has had the experience of seeing one must have faith in the tradition and its authority figures in order to be motivated to attempt to "come and see".

But you are insisting that it can only be based on 'groundless faith'. In other words, you're taking issue with the very idea that there can be such a faculty as Prajñāpāramitā. So not only are you saying that I'm wrong, you're basically saying that Buddhists, generally, must be wrong about it. — Wayfarer

Again you have failed to understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying Buddhists "must be wrong" about Prajñāpāramitā. Perhaps inner experience does show us something about reality. But what could that something be other than something ineffable? Personal intuition, which is what Prajñāpāramitā amounts to if you don't accept any dogma, cannot be rationally or empirically demonstrated to yield any determinate knowledge about anything. It's like poetry; it can yield insight, evoke "higher" feelings, but the meaning of poetry cannot be rationally demonstrated. Same goes for music and the visual arts. I love all that stuff, but I don't draw any conclusions from the experiences evoked by them.

So here's my argument. Adherents of secular philosophy are obliged to deny that there can be such a faculty as prajñāpāramitā. This is because in that worldview, 'religion' is a private and subjective matter; it can only be about belief. Liberal democracy allows individuals 'freedom of belief', as you acknowledge. This is not because it accepts that belief means anything necessarily, but because of the democratic principle of freedom of conscience. 'Knowledge', meanwhile, is always public, third-person and verifiable by scientific method. So there cannot be such a thing as 'gnosis' or prajñāpāramitā in that worldview. It is black and white, open and shut - religion is never about knowledge, only ever 'groundless faith', which might be touching in its sincerity and might even lead to beneficial consequences. But in reality it has no objective reference. Reality is solely a matter for science.

That is why I quoted the passage from David Loy's essay. That essay was written after the 9/11 attacks, as an analysis of the terrorist response to the perceived groundlessness of secular culture. It's quite a sophisticated argument and is directly on point. You're speaking from 'secular culture's self-understanding'. That passage is an analysis of that attitude. You haven't said anything about that, I think it applies directly to your criticisms and the cultural background that gives rise to them. — Wayfarer

Your first paragraph is not an argument but a characterization of what you take to be the general view of "secular philosophy". You haven't said anything about what is invalid or wrong in such a view; you have simply put all that philosophy in a box labeled "secular" to be rejected as if it were anathema; without giving any reasons for that rejection.

You refer in the second to Loy's essay. I read it and I think it is an overgeneralizing tendentious summation. Everyone has different experiences and views. Mine have changed a lot over my life. To attempt to dismiss what I say as being merely "speaking from 'secular culture's self-understanding'" is not an argument that addresses anything Ive said, but merely a disingenuous attempted dismissal of a conceptually impoverished strawman, with ad hominem overtones.

Or then there's this scintillating argument:

But now, you're essentially a positivist.

a philosophical system recognizing only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism. — Wayfarer

I don't reject metaphysics and theism. How many times do I have to say it before you will understand that? As I've said and argued fro many times, I see theism and metaphysics on the same level as poetry and the arts; they can certainly enrich lives, but from a purely rational and/or empirical perspective (which are the only perspectives where determinate inter-subjective knowledge can be established) they are groundless. Imagine trying to rationally prove or empirically show that one particular interpretation of a poem is "the one true meaning" of the poem. It simply can't be done.

from a purely rational and/or empirical perspective (which are the only perspectives where determinate inter-subjective knowledge can be established) they are groundless. — Janus

You're preaching positivism.

Its' easy to show how determinate inter-subjective knowledge is possible within logic, mathematics and the sciences. If you think it is possible in other disciplines then the burden is on you to show how.

You continue to try to dismiss me as a "positivist". I am no more a positivist than Wittgenstein or Popper were. You don't understand what positivism consists in obviously. You're preaching bullshit.

That is why religious experience cannot tell us anything definite — Janus

This is a reasonable conclusion which many people share. There is a simple obvious rational solution to this concern. Explore the experience for itself, and set aside any explanations which arise. End of problem.

What typically happens on philosophy forums is that many members really really want to see religion as nothing more than an ideological assertion machine, because they really, Really, REALLY want to play the role of The Great Debunker. And so for example, we'll see 8 billion "does God exist" threads, and none on the experience of love.

It's not so much a reasonable conclusion than it is a fact. If religion could tell us anything definite, which could be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be true, then it would have done so long ago. Instead you have the very different metaphysical claims of the different religions.

And of course I agree about exploring experience, and coming to no conclusions about it; that is just what I'm saying. I'm not interested in debunking religion; I think it has an important place in society. "Does God exist" is in my view simply a stupid, senseless question. The better question to ask yourself would be "does God exist for you?".

If religion could tell us anything definite, which could be rationally or empirically demonstrated to be true — Janus

Many people have a typically unexamined faith that the rules of reason invented by a half insane semi-suicidal species with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, only recently living in caves on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, should automatically be accepted as the final authority on the very largest of questions regarding the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

This faith position is as easily ripped to shreds as any other. But only fools such as myself bother to do so, because everyone is entitled to whatever form of faith they can connect to, and it's almost always the case that any and all inconvenient challenges to their faith will be promptly discarded.

And of course I agree about exploring experience, and coming to no conclusions about it — Janus

And yet, your posts would seem to be filled to overflowing with your conclusions, and so far as best I can tell, little report of your exploration of experience.

My apologies. I truly have no beef with you personally and just wanted to make sure that's clear. I have a bad case of the "picking things apart" disease, and can thus be rather annoying and inconvenient to people of faith of all flavors. Were I truly rational, I would quietly watch everyone yell about their competing faiths while cheerfully eating a fresh ripe apple. But, like everyone else I am not truly rational, so hey, here I am! :-)

I see theism and metaphysics on the same level as poetry and the arts; they can certainly enrich lives, but from a purely rational and/or empirical perspective (which are the only perspectives where determinate inter-subjective knowledge can be established) they are groundless. Imagine trying to rationally prove or empirically show that one particular interpretation of a poem is "the one true meaning" of the poem. It simply can't be done. — Janus

Sound reasoning, but no believer could see their beliefs as art or poetry. It simply can’t be done.

I think some religious people can see their religion's doctrines as metaphorical, not as literal. Whether such people should be referred to as believers is another question.

And yet, your posts would seem to be filled to overflowing with your conclusions, and so far as best I can tell, little report of your exploration of experience. — Hippyhead

My posts on this reflect my observations; my experience of people, logic and the sciences. I'm very open to counterarguments, but none have been forthcoming.

My posts don't reflect my contemplative examination of altered states of consciousness and aesthetic experiences, because it is my experience that such states can yield only poetry or mysticism, not inter-subjectively determinable knowledge. If you think this observation is wrong you're welcome to present counterargument.

I'm very open to counterarguments, but none have been forthcoming. — Janus

I've already presented you with counter reason, which you have ignored, while claiming no counter arguments have been presented, exactly as Wayfarer predicted.

You appear to want me to present some argument justifying conclusions which have arisen from religious experiences. Why? You've already clearly stated you don't find such conclusions valid or useful, and I've already agreed that is a reasonable position.

So why are you clinging to that which you have already clearly and repeatedly identified as not being useful to you? How is that an example of reason?

Reason might look this like.

1) Separate the experiences from the conclusions.

2) Drop the conclusions.

3) Keep the experiences.

This is a common problem on philosophy forums, you are not alone. Some members like to lecture religious people about reason, while ignoring reason themselves. Not very credible, imho.

So why are you clinging to that which you have already clearly and repeatedly identified as not being useful to you? How is that an example of reason? — Hippyhead

I don't understand the logic (if there is such) of your citicism. I am saying that I think it's eminently reasonable to drop conclusions; that's the whole point!

I am saying that I think it's eminently reasonable to drop conclusions; that's the whole point! — Janus

Saying, but not doing. Thus, not credible.

You don't me hence you don't know what I do. Its so far out of your experience since you don't know me, that it is irrational to comment on it. So this looks like a cheap resort to ad hominem.

You don't me hence you don't know what I do. — Janus

I know what you write and don't write, publicly available for all to see.

I am saying that I think it's eminently reasonable to drop conclusions; — Janus

But you are not dropping conclusions. You are repeating the same conclusions over and over. As is your right of course.

But doing so undermines your credibility, because that's an argument with your own stated position, making you vulnerable to the kind of debunking you may prefer that you would be applying to others.

But you are not dropping conclusions. You are repeating the same conclusions over and over. As is your right of course. — Hippyhead

What I'm arguing is simply that, unlike mathematics, logic and the empirical sciences, where conclusions may be drawn and tested, no rational, that is testable, conclusions can be drawn from religious or peak experiences. Do you disagree with that assertion, or not. If you do disagree, then why?

What I'm arguing is simply that, unlike mathematics, logic and the empirical sciences, where conclusions may be drawn and tested, no rational, that is testable, conclusions can be drawn from religious or peak experiences. — Janus

Religion is not science, we agree. To me, comparisons between the two are misguided. Science is concerned with facts about reality, whereas religion is about our relationship with reality. Apples and oranges.

So for example, if my religion tells me XYZ is true, it's irrelevant that this assertion can't be proven so long as it enhances my relationship with reality.

Should you choose to read more of my posts you will see that I routinely rant on and on about valuing religious experience over religious explanations. I'm also entirely agreeable to discarding religion entirely if such experiences are more easily accessed by other methods.

My pitch would be, find something that works, and work it.

I don't disagree with any of that, and have repeatedly said that religious faith (and faith generally, since we don't know anything at all with absolute certainty) has an important place in human life.

So all I have been doing is to point out the differences between religion and science, logic and mathematics; to show that religion is more akin to the arts. I am saying precisely that comparisons between the two kinds of inquiry are misguided; so I can't see why you have been accusing me of performative contradiction.

My argument with Wayferer is just that he won't admit the difference I am pointing to, insofar as he wants to claims that religious experience yields inter-subjectively determinable knowledge, and yet is unable to say how that could be possible.

My argument with Wayferer is just that he won't admit the difference I am pointing to, insofar as he wants to claims that religious experience yields inter-subjectively determinable knowledge, and yet is unable to say how that could be possible. — Janus

Ok, argue away, keep going for years, decades, your entire life. Who cares?

This is a pointless response. What are you here for, if not to present your ideas and your arguments for their truth. validity, or coherence? What do you think the purpose of a philosophy forum is, if not to do that?

What are you here for? I participate here to do what I outlined above because I enjoy it; it helps me to clarify my ideas. If someone comes up with a convincing critique of what I've presented, I might learn something and even change my mind.

My argument with Wayferer is just that he won't admit the difference I am pointing to, insofar as he wants to claims that religious experience yields inter-subjectively determinable knowledge, and yet is unable to say how that could be possible. — Janus

You start with the assumption of any religious tradition, that the literature and history of that tradition is first taken off the table, on the basis that it can only ever represent ‘authority and tradition’, which have no epistemic validity (according to positivist standards). You have to then commence tabula rasa, as it were - ‘persuade me that these traditions contain anything real, beyond the subjective edification they have on believers'. That's the argument this is not worth having. I'm not going to attempt to change your mind on that, I can't see any point. If you do change your mind, then it's something I would be more than happy to discuss.

No, the situation is that same as it is with the arts. The tradition doesn't matter; phenomenologically it's the same for all. You apparently can't outline any way that inter-subjective corroboration of the objective truth of any interpretation of what is yielded by religious or peak experiences could be possible. Sure you can outline traditional relationships with the Guru and how his or her pronouncements are accepted by adherents within any tradition, but I challenge you to show how that could amount to anything more than faith in the tradition.

As an example of this culturally mediated interpretive situation I offered the differences in the beliefs about the origin of the cosmos, the soul and the nature of the afterlife to be found in the various traditions. You can't reasonably deny that they all say different things about those, even if their core ethical values don't differ so much. And yet you simply refuse to address that difficulty for your position, apparently.

I'm presenting what I honestly think in good faith here. But you don't want to address the questions on their own terms; instead you just came back with lame and inaccurate accusations about me being a positivist. This shows that you can't tolerate people disagreeing with you, and it seems, will always resort to the strategy of claiming that your interlocutor doesn't understand, mustn't understand, because they don't agree. This is essentially elitist thinking and it has no rational warrant. It relies entirely on the idea of authority. Here's a simple question for you: can you honestly say that the idea of the Guru is not the idea of an authority?

You start with the assumption of any religious tradition, that the literature and history of that tradition is first taken off the table, on the basis that it can only ever represent ‘authority and tradition’, which have no epistemic validity (according to positivist standards). — Wayfarer

Here's your opportunity to explain how the literature and history of any religious tradition (choose whichever one you like) could have "epistemic validity" for the unbiased observer. Because that is what is at issue. Claims in logic, mathematics and empirical claims do have epistemic validity for the unbiased observer, at least once they have come to understand the claims if they are intellectually difficult.

religious faith (and faith generally, since we don't know anything at all with absolute certainty) has an important place in human life.

My argument with Wayferer is just that he won't admit the difference I am pointing to, insofar as he wants to claims that religious experience yields inter-subjectively determinable knowledge, and yet is unable to say how that could be possible. — Janus

Awesome topic!

‘persuade me that these traditions contain anything real, beyond the subjective edification they have on believers'. That's the argument this is not worth having. I'm not going to attempt to change your mind on that, I can't see any point. If you do change your mind, then it's something I would be more than happy to discuss. — Wayfarer

I know you don't give up that easily.

By "real", they would theoretically yield some kind of objective edification - is genocide not persuasion enough?

the very idea that humans can directly know the nature of reality is itself an article of groundless faith, no matter how "enlightened" a person, or some tradition, finds that person to be. Intellectual honesty demands that this be acknowledged, and yet it so seldom is by adherents. — Janus

Nice! :fire: