We don't normally ask others every five minutes whether what we are experiencing is real. — Apollodorus
If we take reported instances of precognitive dreams, for example, where a person has a particular dream that corresponds to real events experienced a few days later, should that person dismiss it as "imagination"? If yes, on what criteria? — Apollodorus
I wasn't questioning whether religious experiences are real. Of course they are real. — Janus
If I had dreams on a regular basis that predicted the future, then I would not dismiss that. — Janus
If we are saying that religious experiences are "real", then presumably we know that they are real. In consequence, we cannot insist that "we don't know".
Besides, I was not talking exclusively about "religious" experiences. It can be experiences without any specific "religious" content. — Apollodorus
So, we don't always depend on others for knowledge. What we know does not always need to be confirmed or validated by others. — Apollodorus
I am not saying that this is not the case withl all knowledge that is not a direct empirical observation like "it is raining, here, now". Claims such as those can be verified to be true by anyone else who is present. — Janus
Personal faith is fine, as I've said all along. But some people want to claim that some kinds of faith constitute knowledge. — Janus
Socrates
And so long, I presume, as he has right opinion about that which the other man really knows, he will be just as good a guide—if he thinks the truth instead of knowing it—as the man who has the knowledge.
Meno
Just as good (Meno 97b)
No, you're dead wrong and actually have it backwards: I am concerned with arguing that religion/ spirituality cannot be done on the terms of science or philosophy, or on any terms analogous to them. In other words they are matters of faith, not knowledge.
And just for the record; I'm not saying there is anything wrong with having religious or spiritual faith, provided you are intelligent and honest enough to realize that that is what it is, and not to conflate it with knowledge. Such a conflation is dangerous; it is the first step towards fundamentalism. — Janus
No one can ever know that they have access to truth in any absolute sense. — Janus
So ironic.
— baker
No, I wasn't being ironic. How could anyone possibly have access to absolute truth?
Well, someone making the claim "No one can ever know that they have access to truth in any absolute sense" certainly presumes to have access to absolute truth. — baker
It's not strictly "my terms". It's what's accepted in the philosophical community, as specified by epistemology. — Metaphysician Undercover
Knowledge requires justification. You can't just say "I know God because I talk to Him every night". Such a use of "know" is unacceptable by epistemological standards. So in reality, it's you who is relying on idiosyncratic use of words. Your use of "know" is not consistent with philosophical standards.
I'm just trying to get you to see the disjoint between the way you think and the way others think. And simply insisting that your way is right doesn't get you anywhere because you need to demonstrate that you are right. Of course, if what you are insisting on is that you do not need to demonstrate what you are insisting on, then you have a problem.
You do sound like you're lecturing here. — Wayfarer
this is a philosophy forum, and philosophers should know better than to attempt to do religion/spirituality on the terms of science or philosophy. I'm amazed that they don't; I wonder why this is so. I mean, they are supposed to be so much smarter than I! So why are they making such a basic mistake?!
— baker
Who are you referring to? I think there are philosophers and even scientists who have a clear understanding of these distinctions.
The point I was trying to get across was in response to your question "why is 'religious' knowledge any different to physics?' And the answer I was trying to give, is that it is of a different order, it is not concerned with objective measurement, but with your state of being. I don't see that as a controversial distinction. There is such a discipline as 'sacred science' (scientia sacra) which can be found in the classical tradition of Western philosophy and theology, but it's worlds apart from the approach of modern science.
And knowledge of it is not a pre-requisite for the faithful in any religion, to my understanding.
For something to count as knowledge it needs to be demonstrable to others. — Janus
But some people want to claim that some kinds of faith constitute knowledge. — Janus
Well, that's your problem then. And what are you doing about it? — baker
I haven't read that, but I get what you mean by "sterility or humorlessness about the enterprise". Some, like Dawkins and the so-called "Four Horsemen" seem to want to dismiss, even eliminate from human life, all religion, and that is in my view a ridiculous, not to mention arrogant, aim. — Janus
Pinker defends scientism essentially — hanaH
I haven't read that, but I get what you mean by "sterility or humorlessness about the enterprise". Some, like Dawkins and the so-called "Four Horsemen" seem to want to dismiss, even eliminate from human life, all religion, and that is in my view a ridiculous, not to mention arrogant, aim. — Janus
Another blindspot: the pleasure in secular humanism may depend on invidious comparison and therefore on the superstitious that it perhaps only pretends to want to convert. — hanaH
I have heard at least three our of the four horsemen (esp Dawkins) talk specifically about not wanting an end of all religion and also venerating religious architecture and hymns and writings as being fundamental pillars of civilization. — Tom Storm
Perhaps you could cite something — Janus
Hitchens was out out and out, unequivocally against religion. — Janus
What I've been saying all along is that Western philosophy is handling religion/spirituality on terms that are extraneous to religion/spirituality, and as such, necessarily misleading at the very least. And just because Western philosophy has been doing this for centuries doesn't make it right.
Western philosophy is acting outside of its competence when it talks on the topic of God, but thereby means Jehovah or Vishnu or Allah.
If philosophers want to talk about the "god of philosophers", that's their thing, their prerogative. But they should stop fooling themselves, and others, that this way, they are making any relevant claims about Jehovah or Vishnu or Allah. — baker
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Essay_Concerning_Human_Understanding/Book_IV/Chapter_XIX8. ... Reason is lost upon them, they are above it : they see the light infused into their understandings, and cannot be mistaken ; it is clear and visible there, like the light of bright sunshine ; shows itself, and needs no other proof but its own evidence : they feel the hand of God moving them within, and the impulses of the Spirit, and cannot be mistaken in what they feel. Thus they support themselves, and are sure reasoning hath nothing to do with what they see and feel in themselves : what they have a sensible experience of admits no doubt, needs no probation. Would he not be ridiculous, who should require to have it proved to him that the light shines, and that he sees it ? It is its own proof, and can have no other. When the Spirit brings light into our minds, it dispels darkness. We see it as we do that of the sun at noon, and need not the twilight of reason to show it us. This light from heaven is strong, clear, and pure ; carries its own demonstration with it : and we may as naturally take a glow-worm to assist us to discover the sun, as to examine the celestial ray by our dim candle, reason. — Locke
That's an interesting possibility! You make some good points; I'm no fan of scientism. but I haven't read Pinker so I can't comment on whether his arguments are scientistic. — Janus
think that's too strong. Pinker defends the Enlightenment tradition (which is unfashionable in many parts and provokes anger) and certainly privileges science and rationality. This does not necessitate scientism. Philosopher Susan Haack, who disparages scientism, is also a fulsome defender of the Enlightenment tradition and defends science as one of the most useful methods for acquiring reliable knowledge to meet goals. — Tom Storm
But when it comes to religion/spirituality, they drop this distinction, and treat religion/spirituality as something that should be readily, easily accessible to just anyone, from toddlers to senile old men, from bored housewives to academics with multiple advanced degrees. As if religion/spirituality would require no qualification. People admit that even talking about haircuts or how to fold socks isn't something that just any Joe Average can do, no, even for things like that, they grant that one must know this and that. But religion/spirituality is supposed to be fair game, for everyone. Now that's strange! — baker
Tantalizing. Can you expand briefly? — Tom Storm
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.