I put forward the view that religion/spirituality is something far stricter, less open, less democratic, less accessible
— baker

...as if that is a good thing! 'Close your eyes and swallow the medicine! Everything will be fine, trust me!' — Wayfarer

Oh, come on. You should know better by now that I'm not an advocate of blind faith. I also don't think that the people who were born and raised into a religion have blind faith.

What interests me, is that Schopenhauer is generally assumed to be a vociferous and militant atheist, and yet he's totally open to 'the transcendent'. Sure, he's bitterly critical of mainstream religiosity, but he reads religion allegorically, and also acknowledges that they exist for a real purpose, that there's a genuine need there. — Wayfarer

That's peculiar. Can I have a genuine, real yearning for some kind of transcendence, for the transcendent, even though I am religiously/spiritually homeless, unaffiliated? No. I think the transcendent is reserved for religions/spiritualities. There is no religiously/spiritually neutral way to think about transcendence.

You should know better by now that I'm not an advocate of blind faith. — baker

C'mon now. A lot of what you've just been saying sounds exactly like that.

Of course there is. There are those that realise the state of spiritual liberation spontaneously and are not part of any religion, movement or school. That's what is designated by the 'pratyekabuddha' title.

The pratyekabuddha is an individual who independently achieves liberation without the aid of teachers or guides and without teaching others to do the same. Pratyekabuddhas may give moral teachings but do not bring others to enlightenment. They leave no sangha as a legacy to carry on the Dharma.

You should know better by now that I'm not an advocate of blind faith.
— baker

C'mon now. A lot of what you've just been saying sounds exactly like that. — Wayfarer

?? I don't know how come it sounds that way to you. I keep talking about religious/spiritual elitisim, the emic-etic distinction, qualifications necessary for religiosity/spirituality, the impossibility of entering a religion/spirituality by an act of will.

I believe that in order to enter a religious/spiritual epistemic community, a person must have "that special something", and this is not something that can be willed, or faked.

In blind faith, a person is pretending to have "that special something", but knows they don't have it.

Of course there is. There are those that realise the state of spiritual liberation spontaneously and are not part of any religion, movement or school. That's what is designated by the 'pratyekabuddha' title. — Wayfarer

But we don't know how common that is because we can't recognize those people.

Are you in any way suggesting that philosophers are pratyekabuddhas or pratyekabuddhas-to-be?

But we don't know how common that is because we can't recognize those people. — baker

Which is just what I've been arguing and you've been disagreeing with: that "those people" (if they even exist which we have no way of knowing since we cannot recognize them) cannot demonstrate their knowledge except to others who purportedly share their talent or suitability for it. Or it could be that they share a common delusion.

I've been trying to show that just because religious tenets are verbalized in a language one grammatically and lexically understands, this doesn't yet mean that one is qualified to understand them as intended. I emphasize the emic-etic distinction. — baker

Fair enough, and that's an important distinction. Let those with ears to hear (and only those) hear. But in a 'rational' context, this means promising something that can't be supported with a controlled experiment, for instance.

It's a digression, but this touches other philosophical themes, such as whether we are calling the same something 'red.' More concretely, how does one insider recognize another?

It's more a matter of only including what can be quantified, preferably in line with the paradigmatic model provided by physics. — Wayfarer

Quantity allows us to be definite in our observations and our predictions. Some focus on physics, but as as I can tell that would just be a bias. Metaphysicians might especially compare themselves to physicists (and the reverse), since both may perceive themselves as studying the fundamentals of reality.

As such it can't be given ruling power. Which it clearly has in the modern world! And look at the consequences... The world has never been in a more deplorable state! Speaking of an analysis of the shadows.... — GraveItty

FWIW, Pinker's book makes a strong argument that the world has never been better, which is not to say that he fails to acknowledge our problems. IMV, it's tempting to project some golden age on the past. Life today is complex. We are condemned to be (sort of ) free.

Also, it hardly seems to me that the scientific worldview reigns in democracies. Sure, the elite tend to be more scientifically educated, and they do have disproportionate influence, but plenty of voters are happy to see abortion made almost impossible in Texas, etc. Even if 'science' reigned, there would still be problems and disagreements.

cosmology of the creation of the heavens, schools (to which you are forced to go) and universities as the seminaries, etc. etc. — GraveItty

To me it seems unrealistic indeed to imagine a culture where children are not 'forced' to learn that culture's fundamental beliefs and ways of living.

You say religion is irrelevant, confusing, self-deceiving, and biased, and science is a refind common sense stripped away of all this. But that's your personal opinion. And that's indeed all it is. An opinion. So not a common sense. What would this common sense be? How do you know the gods don't exist? Science can't explain why the universe is there! — GraveItty

You may be reading too much in to my statement. Religions may be understood in sophisticated ways that get around my complaints (such as their late, "cultural" forms, like enjoying the myths, rituals, music, architecture, and history...without 'believing' or acting on the obsolete theology and stoning sinners.)

I think a person of only average intelligence can understand why controlled experiments are convincing in a way that anecdotes are not.

Do the gods exist? What does it mean to believe so? Or to be sure that they don't exist? Instead of getting lost in the endless smoke of what people babble about, we might look at how beliefs are manifested in action. If I claim to believe I can fly but refuse to jump off a building.... If I claim to believe in an afterlife but panic when death is near...

As far as science explaining Everything, that to me sounds like you casting science as a religion again. IMV, the disabused scientific attitude no longer clings to such things, can't even make sense of them ---not out of incuriosity but rather from high standards of definiteness and seriousness when it comes to claims. I see the world as ridiculously complex, and useful patterns are something like a hard-won exception.

Which is just what I've been arguing and you've been disagreeing with: that "those people" (if they even exist which we have no way of knowing since we cannot recognize them) cannot demonstrate their knowledge except to others who purportedly share their talent or suitability for it. Or it could be that they share a common delusion. — Janus

Where we disagree is whether "those people" are obligated to demonstrate their knowledge to just anyone.

I maintain that they are not suchly obligated.

Fair enough, and that's an important distinction. Let those with ears to hear (and only those) hear. But in a 'rational' context, this means promising something that can't be supported with a controlled experiment, for instance. — hanaH

Sure. But were you in particular ever promised anything by a religious/spiritual person?

It's a digression, but this touches other philosophical themes, such as whether we are calling the same something 'red.' More concretely, how does one insider recognize another?

I take it that's between them.

I think a person of only average intelligence can understand why controlled experiments are convincing in a way that anecdotes are not. — hanaH

No, a plebeian person is like that.

Sure. But were you in particular ever promised anything by a religious/spiritual person? — baker

Are you serious? Of course. Promised and threatened. Not only as child but quite recently by a stranger with a megaphone.

Kierkegaard-style jive, which presents itself as post-scientific or trans-rational, is rare in my experience. Though the man with the megaphone did strangely blend a 'virtuous' Socratic ignorance into his pitch. How does an atheist know that there is not a God, after all? This kind of argument from him was disappointing. He was a sweaty salesman, debasing his faith, revealing it as bad philosophy. He was, accidentally, an anti-advertisement for his sad myth.

No, a plebeian person is like that. — baker

You are echoing Nietzsche. You may already know that. The point is that...yeah, I've been down this road. It offers some fascinating scenery.

You should know better by now that I'm not an advocate of blind faith. I also don't think that the people who were born and raised into a religion have blind faith. — baker

This has taken a couple of days to come back to, but I will try and respond.

I had commented on this post below:

I put forward the view that religion/spirituality is something far stricter, less open, less democratic, less accessible, far better delineated than they present it as. — baker

by saying:

...as if that is a good thing! 'Close your eyes and swallow the medicine! Everything will be fine, trust me!' — Wayfarer

So, I was rather sardonically suggesting that this was suggestive of fundamentalism.

But then you go on to say:

I believe that in order to enter a religious/spiritual epistemic community, a person must have "that special something", and this is not something that can be willed, or faked.

In blind faith, a person is pretending to have "that special something", but knows they don't have it. — baker

I am inclined to agree. I think 'that special something' is actually what 'conversion' means. But I don't think that many of those who adhere to faith blindly are self-aware enough to understand that they're actually pretending to it. They may take themselves and their supposed 'faith' with seriousness that borders on fanaticism without any inkling that they're delusional. I think people can lie to themselves. (I guess atheists would consider all professions of faith in that light, but I don't agree.)

I keep talking about religious/spiritual elitisim, the emic-etic distinction, qualifications necessary for religiosity/spirituality, the impossibility of entering a religion/spirituality by an act of will. — baker

I hear you.

Sure. But were you in particular ever promised anything by a religious/spiritual person?
— baker

Are you serious? Of course. Promised and threatened. Not only as child but quite recently by a stranger with a megaphone. — hanaH

But why did you take that promise or threat seriously (assuming you did)?

And how personally was that promise or threat made? To you, by your name, or just in your "general direction"?

Because when you look at them more closely, religious/spiritual threats and promises tend to be made in general terms (such as when a text say "we promise our reader that ..."). They aren't as specific as "I promise to pick you up at the airport this Saturday at 5 PM" or "Your house will become property of the bank if you don't pay back the loan by the end of this November."

I am inclined to agree. I think 'that special something' is actually what 'conversion' means. — Wayfarer

But conversion doesn't apply with people who were born and raised into a religion (which makes for the majority of religious people). They never formally converted. If at some point, such a person were to "become more serious about their religion", this still cannot count as conversion because they have been immersed into their religion from the onset, and so have no notion of what it is like to not have said religion as a background, whereas conversion requires a major change from having no affiliation with a religion to having one.

But I don't think that many of those who adhere to faith blindly are self-aware enough to understand that they're actually pretending to it. They may take themselves and their supposed 'faith' with seriousness that borders on fanaticism without any inkling that they're delusional. I think people can lie to themselves. (I guess atheists would consider all professions of faith in that light, but I don't agree.)

What you seem to be describing applies to people who "converted" at a time of personal crisis (it can be a health crisis, a financial crisis, a relationship crisis, etc., or a general existential crisis). I think such people are a special category, because their "conversion" and their commitment to the (new) religion are driven and maintained by their personal crisis, and not by some deep study and practice of religion. Technically, they can be said to have "blind faith", but given the role that their personal crisis plays in their religiosity, I wouldn't apply that term to them. I also wouldn't describe them as "lying to themselves"; lying requires intention to deceive, and these people aren't trying to deceive themselves, no, they're looking for hope.

But why did you take that promise or threat seriously (assuming you did)? — baker

As a child, I tended to believe what the adults in authority said.

And how personally was that promise or threat made? To you, by your name, or just in your "general direction"? — baker

I've been harassed by manic street preachers. I tend to ignore them, because I don't respect them enough to want to talk to them. I also consider 'that' kind of religious person to be 'beyond logic' (they aren't going to address objections but simply return to their vomit.) Recently, though, I couldn't avoid an especially eager fellow who spoke of the hellfire that awaits the unsaved. So his spiel was directed at me personally, as a stranger lost to the deceptions of science, dogmatic in my skepticism. He had a megaphone. I did not. This was also absurd and made him more ridiculous. He was posted up on the side of a popular path, where musicians also tend to post up (most of them pretty bad.) To me he looked like one more attention-hungry failed artist begging for scraps of recognition, but arrogantly. I'd bet he considered modern females to be whores, etc., especially when they do not hearken to his holy song.

As a child, I tended to believe what the adults in authority said. — hanaH

Are you still a child?

I've been harassed by manic street preachers. I tend to ignore them, because I don't respect them enough to want to talk to them. I also consider 'that' kind of religious person to be 'beyond logic' (they aren't going to address objections but simply return to their vomit.) Recently, though, I couldn't avoid an especially eager fellow who spoke of the hellfire that awaits the unsaved. So his spiel was directed at me personally, as a stranger lost to the deceptions of science, dogmatic in my skepticism.

You seem to have a very general understanding of "personal".