wsionynw said:
Its highly dubious whether it fulfills points 2 - 7 and 9
Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
Its highly dubious whether it fulfills points 2 - 7 and 9
KennyJC
Your statement is only valid as a tentative suggestion, and its the nature of one tentative suggestion to be cancelled by an equally opinionated tentative suggestion - in other words tentative suggestions don't really resolve issues.
Basically they have two choices
1) accept on faith (much like a layman can accept on faith the words of a physicist)
2) apply the process and arrive at the point of direct perception (much like a person who wants to directly perceive the reality of physics can study it and come on par with established authorities in the field)
But not everyone does - like for instance some people fail theory tests in physics - what to speak of the high school drop out who is adverse and exhibits severe animosity towards scientific establishment
The difference between those things and god is that god is quite a perceivable phenomena - at the very least those things don't show up on lists like this
Your statement is only valid as a tentative suggestion, and its the nature of one tentative suggestion to be cancelled by an equally opinionated tentative suggestion - in other words tentative suggestions don't really resolve issues.
Basically they have two choices
1) accept on faith (much like a layman can accept on faith the words of a physicist)
2) apply the process and arrive at the point of direct perception (much like a person who wants to directly perceive the reality of physics can study it and come on par with established authorities in the field)
But not everyone does - like for instance some people fail theory tests in physics - what to speak of the high school drop out who is adverse and exhibits severe animosity towards scientific establishment
The difference between those things and god is that god is quite a perceivable phenomena - at the very least those things don't show up on lists like this
Because there's more to the application of science than merely comprehending its findings. I can comprehend a Feynman diagram but I am not trained to do the calculus necessary to complete an equation on my own. Likewise I can comprehend the meaning of Michelangelo's Pieta despite the fact that I could never create such a work.lightgigantic said:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Chapel_of_the_Pieta,_St_Peters_Basilica.jpg
Not if explained properly, no, that shouldn't be the case.
You fail to explain how.
So if I take LSD and "see God" as many have professed I have verified that method.
Again, a completely subjective phenomena. And if I don't perceive god?
Doubt.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/feynman-meaning.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html
Truth, if such exists, is not a matter of faith.
~Raithere
~Raithere
So since some people fail even comprehending such things it indicates that there is a process that enables one to come to the platform of comprehending
- qualified teacher
- qualified student
That requires a scriptural study - since most scriptures are full of normative descriptions to enable one to undersatnd who is saintly and who is not - for instance suppose a scientist was a child molester - we might say "Well that doesn't infringe on his scientific intelligence" - now if a priest is a child molester, why don't we say the same thing?
In other words there are personal character traits that are associated with a person who is saintly, and these are seen to reflect his level of realisation
But then you have to look at those who are leading such disciplic successions - if it seems that most of them end up in dysfunctional romantic relationships or in mental institutions with sever brain damage one could be forgiven for being a bit reluctant to apply such epistemologies - once again it is a question of perceiving quality - they could just as easily be talking about seeing atoms split while under the influence, but a cursory examination of their quality doesn't inspire one to attach much importance to their theories on quantum physics
And if you don't perceive god it means you haven't attained the desired result of the process
The speed of light is constant?
The rest mass of an electron is constant?
The electronic radius is constant?
lol - how about the Planck constant?
Or does science have faith that it does?
Or even on a simpler level - does a scientist have faith that there is order in the universe? - If they didn't on what basis would they even begin to be able to research anything?
So since some people fail even comprehending such things it indicates that there is a process that enables one to come to the platform of comprehending
explanation requires two things
- qualified teacher
- qualified student
That requires a scriptural study - since most scriptures are full of normative descriptions to enable one to undersatnd who is saintly and who is not - for instance suppose a scientist was a child molester - we might say "Well that doesn't infringe on his scientific intelligence" - now if a priest is a child molester, why don't we say the same thing?
In other words there are personal character traits that are associated with a person who is saintly, and these are seen to reflect his level of realisation
But then you have to look at those who are leading such disciplic successions - if it seems that most of them end up in dysfunctional romantic relationships or in mental institutions with sever brain damage one could be forgiven for being a bit reluctant to apply such epistemologies - once again it is a question of perceiving quality - they could just as easily be talking about seeing atoms split while under the influence, but a cursory examination of their quality doesn't inspire one to attach much importance to their theories on quantum physics
Not sure why directly perceiving an object is a subjective phenomena, or more specifically why such a subjective perception could not also be objective.
And if you don't perceive god it means you haven't attained the desired result of the process
This is merely antithesis - it requires a thesis to operate out of otherwise "doubt" has nothing to doubt
" Science demands also the believing spirit. Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance gates to the temple of science are written words : Ye must have faith. It is a quality which science cannot dispense with ... This imaginative vision and faith in the ultimate success are indispensible. The pure rationalist has no place here" - Max Planck
The speed of light is constant?
The rest mass of an electron is constant?
The electronic radius is constant?
lol - how about the Planck constant?
Or does science have faith that it does?
Or even on a simpler level - does a scientist have faith that there is order in the universe? - If they didn't on what basis would they even begin to be able to research anything?
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
The red parts have got to be the funniest things I've ever read on this forum.
Thanks Sciforums!
Only Buddha1 could match this level of gullibility.
Can anyone say... brainwashing? He definitely earned his reward.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57669&page=6&pp=20
Let me see if I understood this right:
The brain must be "conditioned" [taught, indoctrinated, prejudiced, brainwashed] by the "right" teacher [the correct authority of divine truth] to receive the "correct" definition of unquestionable scripture [one more unquestionable authority of final decrees] that must be respected no matter what.
This is called "Epistemology".
The entire system relies on placing an end to questioning by being given, by the appropriate authorities, the final absolute answers.
These no one can disrespect [respect being another way of saying fear]
This is called indoctrination.
When authority becomes a conveyer of certainty and the receiving mind cannot even imagine confronting or contradicting or questioning what he is told is truth and right, then we have an end to thinking altogether.
What is called ‘thinking’ then is the redefinition or adaptation of what is thought to be ‘truth’ already to the changing social and natural environments.
The mind is now part of a meme.
The system loops upon itself becoming its own supporting "evidence" and all "proof" is sought from within the 'box'.
Simulacrum of a Simulation
This is the end result of social conditioning and institutionalization and "The Feminization of Man".
We have a living example here, of what happens in domestication.
The individual cannot function outside the whole. It, in essence, has ceased being a true individual and now defines individuality from within a particular value system with limitations to individual expression.
The individual thinks itself 'free' in relation to the other members of the group who are dependant themselves.
The mind, unable to function in uncertainty and freedom [self-reliance, self-responsibility], is further weakened by centuries of procreative practices which enfeebles the genetic makeup of the species as a whole, and it is also diminished by making it entirely dependant on the whole, on the system, through multiple generations of domestication.
It then grabs onto the first mind, the first ‘absolute’ idea, the first identity, in its immediate vicinity which offers certainty and safety from the univers's indifference and flux – usually it is a cultural absolute handed down to it by family and teachers during its early developmental years of childhood.
All masculine traits of challenging authority and facing the uncertain and unknown and exploring possibilities have been suppressed or diminished or bred out of these individuals, making them feminine in psychology.
Their need to belong has surpassed their need to dominate.
In turn they seek masculine dogmas and ‘alpha-male’ leaders to offer them peace and safety and compassion and a way out of feeling weak and dependant and needy.
No amount of argument or logic or reason can change this. Their entire psychological well-being will crumble if any part of their needed certainty is cracked. The mind is primarily interested in self-preservation - damn truth to hell -and it resists or forgets or self-medicates or self-inebriates. It's similar to self-hypnosis or when a traumatic event is forgotten and quarantined within the subconscious.
There is no chance for honesty or intellectual integrity.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're still on my ignore list
If you happen to post anything intelligent I am sure some third party will be charitable enough to bring it to my attention
If you happen to post anything intelligent I am sure some third party will be charitable enough to bring it to my attention
Who the hell is talking to you?lightgigantic said:You're still on my ignore list
If you happen to post anything intelligent I am sure some third party will be charitable enough to bring it to my attention
The phenomenon of more authoritarian religions is one that occurs during periods of unrest and population pressure.
It is during these periods that human unpredictability, creativity and will has to be harnessed and directed away from actions and beliefs that threaten social cohesion and stability.
Religions become more dogmatic in areas of vast populations and dwindling resources.
They represent a systemic attempt to control behavior through Scripture – written human law.
To accomplish this individuality has to be contained and the individual ‘dumbed-down’ or instinctively repressed.
Thought has to be controlled by using ethical standards which make certain ideas prohibited, evil or primitive.
Through morality the system projects acceptable and unacceptable behavior and thought upon its parts and forces a discipline to them through religious dogma, idealism, Law & Order and peer pressures.
All these use methods of reward and punish, praying upon human anxiety and fear and insecurity.
Everything is affected by this, including supposed free-thinking enterprises such as science and philosophy.
When systemic authority reaches its height of power and control a period of decadence and decline follows as the parts are diminished to the point where they cannot support the system against external threats.
The larger the populations that need integrating within a harmonious whole the more stupidity is required from its members, the less individuality and free-will.
Stupidity is a symptom of this decadence.
Last edited:
Stupidity
Stupidity is a comparison.
Someone is said to be more or less dimwitted than another or than an average whole.
As a concept stupidity becomes a virtue in time.
It represents a complete adherence to communal rule, since it is the mental state that is best suited for a domesticated existence.
It is characterized by an absence of free-thought and of a challenging of established ‘truths’.
The individual who is Stupid is completely dedicated to systemic rules and regulation and thinks within appropriate parameters.
He has become normal, in that he remains civil, polite and does not disturb the fundamental laws and beliefs of the whole.
His stupidity is a manifestation of a total submission to cultural norms.
He remains mediocre, average, and he becomes proud of his mental deficiency, thinking it ‘cool’ or part of his belonging.
The stupid person isn’t interested in ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ unless it is a ‘reality’ and ‘truth’ which facilitates his integration and well-being.
He is more interested in being ‘happy’ and preserving ‘hope’.
Stupidity is a comparison.
Someone is said to be more or less dimwitted than another or than an average whole.
As a concept stupidity becomes a virtue in time.
It represents a complete adherence to communal rule, since it is the mental state that is best suited for a domesticated existence.
It is characterized by an absence of free-thought and of a challenging of established ‘truths’.
The individual who is Stupid is completely dedicated to systemic rules and regulation and thinks within appropriate parameters.
He has become normal, in that he remains civil, polite and does not disturb the fundamental laws and beliefs of the whole.
His stupidity is a manifestation of a total submission to cultural norms.
He remains mediocre, average, and he becomes proud of his mental deficiency, thinking it ‘cool’ or part of his belonging.
The stupid person isn’t interested in ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ unless it is a ‘reality’ and ‘truth’ which facilitates his integration and well-being.
He is more interested in being ‘happy’ and preserving ‘hope’.
I wasn't arguing that comprehension is automatic or ubiquitous but that comprehension does not require expertise, years of training, or the establishment of an epistemological position. As I've stated already comprehension is primarily a matter of semantics. The only "qualification" necessary is that the communication is relatable.lightgigantic said:
And what about those who exhibit "saintly" attributes who study different scriptures or none at all? Or is the definition circular, such that only those who profess the scripture are defined as saintly?
Ah, but one can make no such examination of another's personal revelation. So you cannot make such a judgment. Thus your entire argument collapses in upon itself.
And this is the crux of our disagreement. In short, there can be no such thing as qualification or authority in a spiritual sense because experience itself is intrinsically subjective. One can no more qualify or verify it than you can another's experience of happiness. You might be able to give some approximation as to how people generally react or general approaches towards the realization of such an experience but one can never truly translate the experience nor prescribe set conditions that ensure the experience. To word it another way, no one may reject the revelation of another.
Nonsense. If you are conscious and have experience you have something to doubt.
Read it again. He's not talking about having faith in the tenets of science but about faith in human progress and ability. To progress one does indeed need faith but not in that which is known, one needs faith in what might be known.
These are conventions that allow for explanation, not immutable facts. One might define them differently and still have a workable theory; it is just simpler this way. For instance; there's nothing inherently more correct about Copernican astronomy but just try to calculate or explain the movement of Neptune in a geocentric astronomy.
Again, no faith is necessary. One either perceives order or one does not. No a priori position is necessary to establish this.
~Raithere
~Raithere
In other words is the fact that all realisations are subjective the only objective realisation one can have? This is a contradiction.
One of the problems of negative absolutes is that they discard all possibilities except the one they advocate, yet it remains very dificult to ascertain how one arived at such an absolute, since to accept them would be to discard the means of arriving at their conclusions
Like for instance the first tenet of science that requires faith is that the universe has order - if you didn't have faith in that you couldn't even ascertain that one can start a fire with flint shards
lol - I can't imagine what a scietist could possibly research if they didn't have faith that the universe has order - to begin with they would have nothing to measure their observations with, nor any previous body of work to make comparisons with
And coming to t he point of information being relatable may take years of expertise - even in the case of simple comprehension there are schools of logic that operate out of different paradigms, which make take years of study
Therefore the central quality upon which all qualities of saintliness hinge is that one takes shelter of god
Then it raises the question how do you know that all experiences are subjective?
In other words is the fact that all realisations are subjective the only objective realisation one can have? This is a contradiction.
One of the problems of negative absolutes is that they discard all possibilities except the one they advocate, yet it remains very dificult to ascertain how one arived at such an absolute, since to accept them would be to discard the means of arriving at their conclusions
exactly - doubt (antithesis) requires an experience to doubt (thesis)
How does one establish knowledge without having tenets of science to rely on?
Like for instance the first tenet of science that requires faith is that the universe has order - if you didn't have faith in that you couldn't even ascertain that one can start a fire with flint shards
So in other words he most up to date axioms of science become the articles of faith - of course these axioms may vary as knowledge increases - but science still operates out of the same paradgm of faith to dtermine true from false
lol - I can't imagine what a scietist could possibly research if they didn't have faith that the universe has order - to begin with they would have nothing to measure their observations with, nor any previous body of work to make comparisons with
Dear Raithere,
The retard has pulled you down to his level and has you on the defensive.
It takes experience with this mind-set to know how they function and what methods they employ to avoid the stupidity of their own positions.
I’ve posted an entire document enumerating their methods and evasive tactics.
Why do you think he ignores me while engaging you and others?
The truth is, about him, that he is mentally and psychologically retarded. I’m not saying this as an attempt to insult but as an expression of my real opinion concerning his type.
There is no possibility for reason or progress.
He has stated that Scripture is unquestionable in his epistemological bullshit and that special training and the ‘right’ teachers are required to understand his truth as truth.
This is a de facto starting absolute proposition from which he begins.
This is an argument that can be used by anyone concerning any opinion that seeks to avoid proving itself as an absolute.
If you are truly honest then you hold no ‘truth’ to be absolute, including the existence of absolutes. You are exploring possibilities in accordance with a method – which is itself questionable – in search for more or less plausible explanations of reality and the human condition.
If you are a free-thinker then you hold no authorities, no books, no teachers, and no sages to be above reproach.
Reversely you hold them all to be worthy of your challenges and critiques and doubt because they offer worthy opinions concerning reality and ‘truth’.
A student honors his teacher, as a child honors his parent, by surpassing them.
He’s flipped you on your back and forced you to become a squirming defender of a hypothetical scientific dogma that does not exist while avoiding proving the absoluteness of his own.
As an honest explorer – if you are one – you should admit that you hold no ‘truth’ to be unquestionable and no authority to be unchallenged – including scientific truth and method – and that you question all hypothetical truths that present themselves as such.
You then determine the superiority or inferiority of a possible ‘truth’ by evaluating the arguments, the reliability of source and their relation to your personal experience.
He posted a list of his epistemological points.
In his mind they are impregnable arguments.
He is the one claiming to know a ‘truth’.
You are simply the one that denies that what he offers.
An atheist, if he hasn’t become an absolutist himself, dos not hold that God is impossible, as a concept, but that what ‘evidence’ or descriptions of God there are, are inadequate, unconvincing and, for the most part, childish.
And here you are being duped by the head moron with classic theistic strategies, defending science against critiques which it freely invites and accepts as a method of remaining as objective as possible.
Critique is part of scientific methodology.
His ‘epistemology’, in not only ludicrous it reveals the quality of mind that would hold it to be unquestionable or even as respectable as others.
To be so gullible reveals a mental deficiency, as a child exposes its own mental level by believing in Santa Clause.
If you wish to waste your time with such brain-dead people then at least learn how to not fall into their verbal acrobatic traps by steering you away from the real issues and trying to equate all theories, using philosophical and scientific arguments, while retaining the absoluteness of their own, by using unscientific un-philosophical arguments.
He is posing philosophical arguments against absolute certainty concerning human subjectivity and yet does not employ the same skepticism on his own.
This is the mark of a prejudiced, fearful, retarded, closed-mind.
Even conversing with him on such topic lends credence to his stupidity. But if you choose to do so, for whatever reason, at least learn how to not fall into his traps.
The retard has pulled you down to his level and has you on the defensive.
It takes experience with this mind-set to know how they function and what methods they employ to avoid the stupidity of their own positions.
I’ve posted an entire document enumerating their methods and evasive tactics.
Why do you think he ignores me while engaging you and others?
The truth is, about him, that he is mentally and psychologically retarded. I’m not saying this as an attempt to insult but as an expression of my real opinion concerning his type.
There is no possibility for reason or progress.
He has stated that Scripture is unquestionable in his epistemological bullshit and that special training and the ‘right’ teachers are required to understand his truth as truth.
This is a de facto starting absolute proposition from which he begins.
This is an argument that can be used by anyone concerning any opinion that seeks to avoid proving itself as an absolute.
If you are truly honest then you hold no ‘truth’ to be absolute, including the existence of absolutes. You are exploring possibilities in accordance with a method – which is itself questionable – in search for more or less plausible explanations of reality and the human condition.
If you are a free-thinker then you hold no authorities, no books, no teachers, and no sages to be above reproach.
Reversely you hold them all to be worthy of your challenges and critiques and doubt because they offer worthy opinions concerning reality and ‘truth’.
A student honors his teacher, as a child honors his parent, by surpassing them.
He’s flipped you on your back and forced you to become a squirming defender of a hypothetical scientific dogma that does not exist while avoiding proving the absoluteness of his own.
As an honest explorer – if you are one – you should admit that you hold no ‘truth’ to be unquestionable and no authority to be unchallenged – including scientific truth and method – and that you question all hypothetical truths that present themselves as such.
You then determine the superiority or inferiority of a possible ‘truth’ by evaluating the arguments, the reliability of source and their relation to your personal experience.
He posted a list of his epistemological points.
In his mind they are impregnable arguments.
He is the one claiming to know a ‘truth’.
You are simply the one that denies that what he offers.
An atheist, if he hasn’t become an absolutist himself, dos not hold that God is impossible, as a concept, but that what ‘evidence’ or descriptions of God there are, are inadequate, unconvincing and, for the most part, childish.
And here you are being duped by the head moron with classic theistic strategies, defending science against critiques which it freely invites and accepts as a method of remaining as objective as possible.
Critique is part of scientific methodology.
His ‘epistemology’, in not only ludicrous it reveals the quality of mind that would hold it to be unquestionable or even as respectable as others.
To be so gullible reveals a mental deficiency, as a child exposes its own mental level by believing in Santa Clause.
If you wish to waste your time with such brain-dead people then at least learn how to not fall into their verbal acrobatic traps by steering you away from the real issues and trying to equate all theories, using philosophical and scientific arguments, while retaining the absoluteness of their own, by using unscientific un-philosophical arguments.
He is posing philosophical arguments against absolute certainty concerning human subjectivity and yet does not employ the same skepticism on his own.
This is the mark of a prejudiced, fearful, retarded, closed-mind.
Even conversing with him on such topic lends credence to his stupidity. But if you choose to do so, for whatever reason, at least learn how to not fall into his traps.
Last edited:
We call it learning. It has no dependence upon qualification, authority, or expertise.lightgigantic said:
God is the premise upon which all your assertions rely. The problem is that it is your premise that is in question. Obviously you're unwilling to explore the problem.
God is the supreme authority, god grants authority and authenticity to his saints and scriptures, scripture and practice allow one to experience god. It's a nice little circular argument, but it's not new, and it's not epistemology no matter how much you want to validate it by the assertion. As I stated at the beginning it's just another iteration of, "One must believe to perceive" and the discussion has never really progressed from there.
As to the rest, I have said more than enough and the issues have been explored deeply in philosophy. There is plenty of literature on these subjects and more than enough room for further discussion but at this point I don't really have anything else to say as you appear unwilling to explore the issues or even bring question to your own assumptions.
Finally I will say that you do need to explore the topic of science more deeply as your perception of it and how it works is blatantly incorrect. Although scientists as fallible humans may make such errors; certitude, personal qualification, and authority have no place in science. Scientific findings and theories are always provisional, perpetually vulnerable to new findings and alternative explanations. Indeed, it is this paradigm of uncertainty that accounts for its vast success. Assumptions must always be provisional.
~Raithere
Raithere
There is most definitely an authority in science - why else do they work out of established axioms?
So the fact that one axiom stands to be superceded by a more accurate axiom is supposed to indicate that science is not constantly operating out of the paradigm of empirical axioms to determine truth?
~Raithere[/QUOTE]
Then why is there a distinction between a professor and the sudents he teaches?
Well the basis of this entire thread is how to examine that premise
Just in the same way that its physicists that grant authenticity to the practice of studyinng physics
And I have already ascertained how such faith also runs parrallel in science - you can even find quotes by scientists to the same effect
Lol - apparently philosophy and science are not uniformly composed of the saem confidence of convictions that you are - interesting that you should bring up philosophy and science now since I cannot recall you even giving one credible source to back up your opinions
There is most definitely an authority in science - why else do they work out of established axioms?
So the fact that one axiom stands to be superceded by a more accurate axiom is supposed to indicate that science is not constantly operating out of the paradigm of empirical axioms to determine truth?
~Raithere[/QUOTE]