We don't normally ask others every five minutes whether what we are experiencing is real. — Apollodorus

I wasn't questioning whether religious experiences are real. Of course they are real. It is the interpretation of their significance and the commonly made inferences to God, Ideal Forms. Spiritual Beings and so on that are questionable.

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

If I had dreams on a regular basis that predicted the future, then I would not dismiss that. If someone tells me they regularly have such dreams I would probably be skeptical. If someone told me regularly about dreams and the events described were regularly proven to come to pass, then I would not be skeptical. The possible explanations for such phenomena. if they exist, are another matter, though.

I wasn't questioning whether religious experiences are real. Of course they are real. — 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.

If I had dreams on a regular basis that predicted the future, then I would not dismiss that. — Janus

Exactly. This would be one example where an intelligent and educated person would be able to determine of their own accord that their experience is real and not imagined, without having to check with others, which was the point I was trying to make.

Another example would be lucid dreams. I think there would be no need for an intelligent and educated person to consult others in order to determine that they actually experienced that particular state of consciousness and not just imagined it, etc.

So, we don't always depend on others for knowledge. What we know does not always need to be confirmed or validated by others.

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

All I meant by saying that religious experiences, or any experiences for that matter, are real is that they really were experienced by the experiencer. Of course memory is not infallible and the longer the interval between the purported experience and the claim that it really happened, the more shaky that claim may become.

My aim, though, was at religious experiences which claim to prove something. If I have an experience, for example, wherein I am convinced that I am remembering my past five thousand lives, that does not prove that I actually had five thousand or indeed any past lives. So, in my view any claim to such kinds of knowledge are unjustifiable.

Of course the feeling of certainty may be so great for the experiencer that she feels there can be no doubt; but that is still a matter of faith on the part of the experiencer.

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 would say we don't depend on others for our beliefs. For something to count as knowledge it needs to be demonstrable to others. Sure, we may feel absolutely certain that it is knowledge, but that certainty is a matter of faith. 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.

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

I think most human experience - consisting in thoughts, feelings, emotions, desires, etc. - tends to be personal and unverified by others. Unless we are the type of person that has an irresistible urge to communicate their every move, physical or mental, to the whole world .... :smile:

In any case, I for one find the idea of having my experience of life "validated", "certified", and "approved" by others, a strange proposition.

I don't say anyone has to. Personal faith is fine, as I've said all along. But some people want to claim that some kinds of faith constitute knowledge. Personally I think such a claim is dangerous because it may lead to fundamentalism, where people feel they know what the Truth is, or what God wants, and they feel they have a right to foist this "realization" on others. In any case if people come to a philosophy forum to assert such things, and it is always without cogent argument, then they should expect to be challenged.

Personal faith is fine, as I've said all along. But some people want to claim that some kinds of faith constitute knowledge. — Janus

Sure. However, to be fair, Socrates does say that justified belief or "right opinion" (orthe doxa), though not knowledge as such, is nevertheless as good as, for practical purposes.

For example, if somebody knew the way to Larisa without himself having traveled there, his knowledge would not be mere uninformed opinion but right opinion that can serve as knowledge for oneself and as a basis for guidance to others:

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)

I agree that faith does not constitute knowledge but (a) it may correspond to fact and (b) it may serve as a basis for right action.

In the Cave Analogy, having faith that there is an outside world, may prompt the prisoner to find a way out. Without that faith or belief, there would be no reason or motivation to try to get out. And I believe this would go against human nature, indeed, against intelligent life which is to constantly inquire, discover, and explore. Plato would probably say that this is the very essence of philosophical life. Hence the analogy :smile:

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

Oh, thanks, massa.

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.

Unless God just is the text, you are abusing 'direct' here. 'I don't want to sit and talk about Jesus,...I just want to see his face.' — hanaH

Well, that's your problem then. And what are you doing about it?

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

Yes, if you take the claim literally. I guess J is using 'absolute truth' to mean something a bit more adventurous, possibly transcendent. It is an interesting question. Absolute truth? What is this meant to be?-It is such a versatile term and can represent anything from Sufi mysticism to Scientology. Is this a term that means anything much to you?

It's not strictly "my terms". It's what's accepted in the philosophical community, as specified by epistemology. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why should religious/spiritual people hold the philosophical community as authoritative over the religious/spiritual community?

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.

No, your use of religious/spiritual terms is not consistent with religious/spiritual use.

You are imposing your standards on a magisterium that is foreign to you and to which you are a foreigner.

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.

Do you feel the need to demonstrate to the religious/spiritual people that you are right? Yes, you probably do. Do you think the religious/spiritual people should see your standards as authoritative? Yes, you probably think that too.

Do the religious/spiritual people think they need to abide by your standards? They don't. Do the religious/spiritual people feel the need they need to demonstrate to you that they are right? No, they don't.

Tough luck.



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.

Is this a term that means anything much to you? — Tom Storm

Duh, of course it's an important term! People have been fighting over it for millennia, so it definitely has to matter!

Duh, of course it's an important term! People have been fighting over it for millennia, so it definitely has to matter! — baker

Are you prepared to say some more? People will fight over jelly beans.

You do sound like you're lecturing here. — Wayfarer

Indeed, it's tedious to have to repeat the same point over and over again.

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.

I haven't met any!

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.

Religious/spiritual knowledge is a field of knowledge in its own right. Physics knowledge is a field of knowledge in its own right. Mathematics is a field of knowledge in its own right. Biology is a field of knowledge in its own right. Culinary knowledge is a field of knowledge in its own right. Fashion knowledge is a field of knowledge in its own right. And so on.

And people generally treat physics, mathematics, biology, culinary science, fashion etc. etc. as fields of knowledge, each in its own right.

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!

And knowledge of it is not a pre-requisite for the faithful in any religion, to my understanding.

Indeed, it's not, but they do have to hold some tenets as true (such as that holy scriptures are a direct revelation from God).

For something to count as knowledge it needs to be demonstrable to others. — Janus

And who are those "others"? Toddlers? Senile old men? Teenagers? Bored housewives? Poles? Argentinians? Jews? Stamp collectors? Chemistry teachers? Who?

Who is your epistemic community?

The whole of the human race? Probably not.

But some people want to claim that some kinds of faith constitute knowledge. — Janus

Some do. But other times, this is how you interpret their claims when you have left your sphere of competence and ventured into foreign territory without even noticing it.

While X is a matter of faith for you, this doesn't mean it's a matter of faith for everyone else, or somehow objectively, per se.

Other people may know things that you don't know, and they can demonstrate their knowledge to their epistemic community (and they don't care much whether they can demonstrate it to you).

You're not giving others that credit. You hold yourself as the authority over everyone else's knowledge.

Well, that's your problem then. And what are you doing about it? — baker

I was quoting a song, having pointed out what I considered your twisting of a word. Unless 'God'(or whatever) just is the text itself, merely reading about God would not typically be understood as a direct experience thereof. (Finnegans Wake was once said to not be about anything but rather to be that thing itself, so maybe FW is a self-referential god-text.)

I find nothing to disagree with in what you say here; which is bad news for discussion. :wink: :smile:

Oh, thanks, massa. — baker

I am not your "massa", nor anybody else's, nor would I want to be. I don't have sufficient energy to continue; you're too "high maintenance".

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

We are talking about the same thing. Pinker defends scientism essentially, and he does a pretty good job. But I imagine the revolt against Pinker's scientism is something like Kierkegaard's against Hegelianism. The big sane system seems to have a blindspot (perhaps only a tonal-emotional blindspot) and can look insanely sane. A hidden assumption might be : I find myself quite comfortable in this world with only a faith in secular data-driven humanism...so others can surely also be happy this way. 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.

Pinker defends scientism essentially — hanaH

I 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.

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

They are not my favorite people but I don't think what you have said is correct. 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. They also elevate the sense of the numinous - Harris particularly and has gone into a kind of pseudo spiritual self-help mode. Dawkins talks about being moved to tears by religious music and art. I think it is way more complicated.

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

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.

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

I haven't found any of this in what I have read of Dawkins. Perhaps you could cite something? I agree with you about Harris; he is into meditation; but from the little I've read i think he advocates it as a means of stress reduction and perhaps introspective self-knowledge, but he has not truck with anything supernatural; and he even rejects free will. Dennett wants to reject all "folk psychologies" and I'm sure this would include religion. Hitchens was out out and out, unequivocally against religion.

Perhaps you could cite something — Janus

Just YouTube video interviews where they ask Dawkins do you want all religions ended. And is there anything good in religion? If I'd known I were going to need to cite it I would have made notes. :smile:

Hitchens was out out and out, unequivocally against religion. — Janus

I think the problem with the popstar-atheists is that they use aggrieved hyperbole too frequently and this is taken for a lack of humor and a fanaticism. Hitchens is perhaps the only fun one of the 4.

I agree that they would all like religion to be gone as the end game but surprisingly they also said positive things about some features of religion and especially the impulse behind religion. I may have look to see what I can find and keep these on record as this comes up sometimes.

OK, thanks. I.m happy to take your word for it, anyway.

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

That's the kind of point a Western philosopher might make, though, is it not? Yet you write as if the Western philosophy was a simple beast with clearly demarcated territory.

It's as if you deny the legitimacy of critically thinking about spiritual matters. It's a classic position.

8. ... 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

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Essay_Concerning_Human_Understanding/Book_IV/Chapter_XIX

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

Just to be clear, I'm saying that he argues for scientism. Or, knowing the term is used pejoratively, he defends a data-driven, scientific approach to answering big questions.

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

I did overstate the case perhaps. 'Scientism' is usually pejorative. It's sometimes a good play to grab a slur and rehabilitate it. I don't think Pinker would deny that he was defending scientism if I phrased the question in the right tone. Recall that I mostly find Pinker convincing. I just continue to understand the allure of religion's wicked secrets. I understand why some people aren't as enthusiastic about it as Pinker, for instance, who's basically the nerdy version of a rock star. The 'magic' of identity is still here after all, if one can manage it.

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

Many of us live in free societies where even the proles can read the Gospels in the private and either scribble improvements in the margins or burn the thing in the toilet. This is strange, historically speaking.

Many individuals now suffer perhaps because others doubt their own right to pronounce, their own mail-order credentials or what not. Do I care if a scientologist is a clear? I care far more about whether a doctor finished medical school.

If God-claims are just a speciality for nerds, it's not clear what those nerds do. Are they professional soul-savers? Or are they on private journeys? Butterfly-collecting divine experiences without a thought for the rest of the world?

The 'magic' of identity is still here after all, if one can manage it. — hanaH

Tantalizing. Can you expand briefly?

Tantalizing. Can you expand briefly? — Tom Storm

Imagine the kicks that Pinker gets being an intellectual rockstar. He has the joys of the poet. Romanticism is alive in well in him, even if he writes apologetics for seemingly anti-romantic scientism. In the same way a philosopher could write beautifully about the unreality of the self...all the while feasting vaingloriously on his own eloquence.

Think instead of an aging, poor nobody who's never felt gifted or interesting. In theory this Nobody could identify with the species and its rare, heroic specimens (Einstein and Tolstoy and Lincoln, etc.). In practice I think it's hard to accept a place at the bottom of the pyramid.

Ego kicks, an important drug.