“Spirituality” is just a place holder some people use for feelings of awe, wonder, etc., and for heightened or altered states of consciousness. They can call it whatever they want, I suppose.

“Spirituality” is just a place holder some people use for feelings of awe, wonder, etc., and for heightened or altered states of consciousness. They can call it whatever they want, I suppose. — Noah Te Stroete

I think equating spirituality with awe and wonder makes perfect sense.

I think equating spirituality with awe and wonder makes perfect sense. — Pantagruel

I don’t have a problem with it.

Gnosis is not "knowing that" it is "knowing how". It's like being able to play a musical instrument with feeling and nuance. In gnosis there is nothing that could be called propositional or empirical knowledge. So, for example, a Zen practitioner might be certified as enlightened or awakened according to some institutionalized criteria, but that enlightenment doesn't involve knowing anything such as whether there is a God or an afterlife. Answers to these kinds of "transcendental" questions remain as articles of faith, and what people in the various traditions believe regarding those kinds of questions is predominately culturally determined. So, for example an awakened Christian would most likely believe in resurrection, while an awakened Hindu, Jain or Buddhist would probably believe in some form of rebirth.

So, in short, there is no non-prejudicial epistemic standard for spiritual beliefs that any unbiased inquirer would be induced or compelled to recognize. But this doesn't matter, because spiritual beliefs are either shared communal values or individual values, and as such they don't require any further corroboration in the scientific sense. They are simply not within the field of efficacy for the scientific method. This is why it is nonsense to say that science and religion are not compatible. It is like saying that a blowfly and and a whale are not compatible marriage partners.

The other point is that, contrary to what some people seem to think, religious beliefs are not "conclusions" unless they are fundamentalist. If they are fundamentalist then the religious believer has conflated religious belief with empirical belief. This conflation is the source of all the egregious arguments between theism and atheism.

That was my point with S about how consistency has nothing to do with coherency. He just ignored that point.

Sorry, which point? I wrote quite a bit and was adding to it while you responded, so it's not clear what you are referring to.

S ignores most points that were not made by him, or if he does respond he usually distorts what has been said to make it possible for him to respond, so it would be no surprise, anyway.

How religion can in theory be compatible (consistent) with science. Consistency has to do with whether beliefs contradict one another. Coherency has to do with justification, and consistency has nothing to do with coherency.

Answers to these kinds of "transcendental" questions remain as articles of faith, and what people in the various traditions believe regarding those kinds of questions is predominately culturally determined. — Janus

I think this attitude is culturally conditioned. We have carved up the territory in such a way that we deem such subjects matters of faith and feeling. Whereas in the various gnostic paths - and they are hugely varied - it is definitely a matter of knowledge, gnosis, which is 'soteriological', i.e. pertaining to salvation/liberation from the round of birth and death. Many examples could be given although they would probably be all met with the same preconceptions.

So, you are saying that religion can be consistent with science insofar as it does not contradict any established theory? I'm still not sure what you are saying about coherency, though. Do you mean that beliefs are justified insofar as they cohere with other beliefs? If so, would that not be a kind of consistency?

The problem is that the so-called knowledge of gnosis can never be cross-culturally and non-prejudiciously corroborated in the way that empirical knowledge obviously can. When you can give me an example of how that could be done, I'll believe you. The fact that you have never been able to proffer such an example justifies my contention that it is not possible

a Zen practitioner might be certified as enlightened or awakened according to some institutionalized criteria, but that enlightenment doesn't involve knowing anything such as whether there is a God or an afterlife. — Janus

At the 'heart of Zen' is a breakthrough generally designated Prajñā. Prajñā is definitely 'knowing' and knowing a particular way. The problem in interpreting that is that in current culture, knowledge *is* 'propositional' i.e. comprising words designating some thing or some state-of-affairs. But Prajñā is not within the scope of such discursive knowledge, so can't be understood discursively, hence the emphasis in Zen on disciplined practice and being pushed by the teacher to attain satori (insight or awakening).

The Prajñā attained by Buddha is said to be salvific - the point of that understanding is precisely liberation from samsara, the never-ending round of birth and death. Certainly that can be interpreted in a microcosmic sense as meaning liberation from the ups and downs of emotionality but in the cultural context of Buddhism, it really does mean liberation from being subject to birth in other realms.

. When you can give me an example of how that could be done, I'll believe you. — Janus

It requires the williningness to commit, to take the question seriously enough to dedicate yourself to it. And that is what 'belief' really comes down to. It's not propositional - it's dispositional. (And it's immaterial to Buddhists whether you believe them or not; unlike Christians, they're not inclined to try and save you in spite of yourself.)

Beliefs can be justified by other beliefs and by sense data (coherency). A set of coherent beliefs are also consistent (they don’t contradict one another). That doesn’t mean that one couldn’t have another set of consistent beliefs that aren’t justified by sense data but are also consistent with the coherent beliefs (they don’t contradict the coherent beliefs). Make sense?

At the 'heart of Zen' is a breakthrough generally designated Prajñā. Prajñā is definitely 'knowing' and knowing a particular way. — Wayfarer

Yes, I understand that so-called Prajñā is an altered state of consciousness. So, it is an example of knowing how and knowing with, but not knowing that, as I explained those terms in Noah's other thread.

It requires the willingness to commit, to take the question seriously enough to dedicate yourself to it. — Wayfarer

Yes, it requires faith, just like any other religion, in other words. Faith,according to my schema is a kind of knowing; namely knowing with. Faith is a kind of "Anthropotechnology" (Sloterdijk) whereby we can come to know things in the sense of knowing by acquaintance or familiarity or Heidegger's "being-with". We come to know things in a novel, even radically different, way.

Hallucinogens I would count as an Anthropotechnology. So are the arts, the humanities and science itself.

I’ll give you an example. I believe the radio is playing. It is justified by my sense data (I hear it), and by my observation that others are singing along to it. It coheres with my belief that radios are such things that can cause audible music. These two beliefs are also consistent (they’re not contradictory). Suppose that is the set of all empirical knowledge. I have one more belief, namely that there is a God that created the universe. It is not justified by sense data, and it doesn’t cohere with the radio beliefs, but it is also doesn’t contradict those beliefs. It is consistent with the radio beliefs.

Beliefs can be justified by other beliefs and by sense data (coherency). A set of coherent beliefs are also consistent (they don’t contradict one another). That doesn’t mean that one couldn’t have another set of consistent beliefs that aren’t justified by sense data but are also consistent with the coherent beliefs (they don’t contradict the coherent beliefs). Make sense? — Noah Te Stroete

So, you are saying that we can have a set of consistent and coherent empirical beliefs that are justified by sense data, and then another set of consistent and coherent religious beliefs that are not justifiable by sense data, that do not cohere with, and yet are consistent with, the first set, but only insofar as they do contradict the latter? If so, then I agree.

In other words coherency has to do with justification. Consistency does not.

Two kinds of consistency then? The consistency involved in coherence and the consistency of non-contradiction between bodies of knowledge that do not cohere? If that's what you mean it makes sense to me.

Coherent beliefs must be consistent, but consistent beliefs need not be coherent.

Yes, it requires faith, just like any other religion, in other words — Janus

That's where the cultural conditioning shows up. One way in which Buddhism differs from mainstream Christianity is with the emphasis on practice-insight. When you engage in the practices, then they open different perspectives. It is empirical in a sense, although with the major caveat that in this case, subject and object are the same thing. But as far as most are concerned 'ah, that is religion, faith, belief, we know about that'.

In any case, in answer to the question in the OP, there are very rigorous epistemological criteria in Buddhism, so it can be rightfully referred to as an 'inner science'.

Or one could just take acid as a shortcut to get a glimpse of the subject-object dissolution. The effects are temporary, though. It would be much cooler to go there by willing it at any given time.

See what I added above while you were responding; I think it's consonant with what you are trying to say.

In any case, in answer to the question in the OP, there are very rigorous epistemological criteria in Buddhism, so it can be rightfully referred to as an 'inner science'. — Wayfarer

Except that the word 'science' suggests inter-subjective corroborability which is not possible in Buddhism, since we are talking about "inner states" and not about anything publicly available. In my view your claiming that counts as a kind of fundamentalism; conflating the empirical with the faith-based, That kind of conflation does no favour to either domain; it just perpetuates the wrong-headed idea of incompatibility between domains of knowing that do not cohere with one another.

Exactly!

Except that the word 'science' suggests inter-subjective corroborability which is not possible in Buddhism, since we are talking about "inner states" and not about anything publicly available — Janus

Hence my first remark in this thread about 'domains of discourse and practice'. Western culture defines that in a particular way. and then we 'map' against that. You often critique 'scientism' and 'reductionism', but the only alternative you see is 'personal' and a matter of 'feeling'. So what I'm trying to do here is provide some alternatives, although you seem very determined to roadblock them. :wink:

I'm new to this forum, so please excuse any improprieties. Spirituality is a curious word. It suggests an approach to ontology. On another front it invites an escape from being. Kierkegaard's leap of faith was existentially spiritual. Badiou invites fidelity to events based on a mathematical ontology. Spirituality might not be a unique category, but it's not empty, and intersects with existing categories.

Or one could just take acid as a shortcut to get a glimpse of the subject-object dissolution. The effects are temporary, though. It would be much cooler to go there by willing it at any given time. — Noah Te Stroete

Check out the paisley gate.

Hence my first remark in this thread about 'domains of discourse and practice'. Western culture defines that in a particular way. and then we 'map' against that. You often critique 'scientism' and 'reductionism', but the only alternative you see is 'personal' and a matter of 'feeling'. So what I'm trying to do here is provide some alternatives, although you seem very determined to roadblock them. :wink: — Wayfarer

We can only "map" domains as they are recognizable to us. How else could we do it? "Western culture", per se, doesn't define anything, individuals do, and of course individuals define things from within their cultural paradigms, otherwise they would not be understood.

You think I maintain a dichotomy between "scientism and reductionism" and the "personal which is merely a matter of feeling". This is not true at all. Reductionism is not necessarily scientism; rather it is a method that works very well, even though it may be falsely claimed to be the only valid kind of understanding. I don't agree with that; I think there are holistic understandings too. And "the alternative" is not merely "personal", it is cultural. So, what Zen monks believe about their altered states of consciousness is not merely "personal" it is culturally conditioned. Zen Buddhism just is a culture.

My contention has been that it is only in relation to empirical (and logical and mathematical) matters that definitive inter-subjective corroboration in a cross-cultural sense is possible. That is the salient point and to that you have offered no counterexample or counterargument.

Check out the paisley gate. — Wayfarer

“After the ecstasy, the laundry.”

Yes, well, life must go on. Personally, I find the act of empathizing and walking in others’ shoes to be spiritual, not just thinking how I would feel if I were in that situation, but really trying to understand the other and take enjoyment in what they enjoy, or sad how they would be sad, etc. That’s how I now break down the subject-object barrier. I try to “be” them for a little while. One cannot do this all the time, but one can always “conjure” it.

I was speaking specifically about how Noah was describing spirituality.

Spiritual beliefs are explanations. Here's where Ockham's Razor applies.

Spiritual beliefs may not be empirically falsifiable/verifiable, it does not follow that they lack meaning. Meaningful unverifiable beliefs are anything but empty. Rather, they are chock full of connections with/to the world and/or ourselves.