Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God

[lightgigantic]

And to comprehend the above, is epistemology!


I'm not too sure, but light's mistake may be called:
The Etymological Fallacy

Epistemology 101

If it seems that I am repeating the word epistemology too much it might be due to the fact that anything and everything about religion is being discussed except epistemology

 

[Godless]

If it seems that I am repeating the word epistemology too much it might be due to the fact that anything and everything about religion is being discussed except epistemology

Your fallacy here is puting epistemology in the same sentece as religion. For one "religion" claims automatic knowledge, while the other explains how knowledge "evolves" naturaly.

 

[lightgigantic]

Your fallacy here is puting epistemology in the same sentece as religion. For one "religion" claims automatic knowledge, while the other explains how knowledge "evolves" naturaly.

Religion claims automatic knowledge?

Where did you pull that from?

 

[Satyr]

Religion claims automatic knowledge?

Where did you pull that from?

Then perhaps you can offer us an “epistemology” of religion.
Something that would be adequately irrefutable to match your irrefutable certainty.

Start by explaining how the “infallibility” of your source (God) is determined or how the connection to the source is established (Bible) or how the reliability of the source or the connectors to it is determined (Biblical Writers).

Is it the "word of God" because it says it is so?

If so then:
Hi, I'm Batman.

but epistemology comes before that - otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell a digital image from crow stool

But it gains respect and reliability through empiricism.
Yours?

The difference is that the hypothesis are not fallible in spiritual life- the only reason physics has fallible hypotheisis is that it has a human source for developing them (and ironically, the atheist assumes scripture functions out of the same paradigm. which manipulated scripture falsely repesented may, but certainly the correct epistemology doesn't) is fallible - hypothetically at least, wouldn't you expect an infallible person (god) to have an infalluble hypothesis?

Okay, now we are getting to the nitty-gritty of it all.
The reality peeks behind the façade.

Are you claiming to know an absolute?
Wow!!!!

I'm not sure how an absence of moral codes is an indication of advancement? In fact it is a weaknes of science that leads to it occupying a lower rung of credibility - eg nuclear warfare

Ah, another peek of fear.
When has science lead to “nuclear war”?

It seems that you are quick to point out that religion hasn’t produced war, although religion is a factor in most of the wars you associate with political and national aims, and yet you use the war-card to insinuate something about amoral science – the dreaded Nuclear War – which has, of yet, never occurred.
How magnificent that amoral science has managed to display much more moral fiber and restraint than your religious dogmas.

Wll there certainly are a few fat cats at the top and they have their scientific scriptures too - of course they get toppled by other fat cats, which is th inglorious nature of empiricism - replacing one relative truth with another

It is called ‘survival of the fittest’.
A practice which deals with weakness and error and disease by eradicating it through competition.
In the realm of thinking the weak idea is replaced by the stronger one.
Competition here producing the mechanism of determining superiority and plausibility.
Ideas evolve like creatures do. They aren't created out of nothing by a super-natural God.

Sorry, if you are afraid of it.
In your religion, the idea is maintained there in weakness, since it satisfies a weakness and is dependant on human weakness.

But why are your “infallible universal truths” so dependant on cultural and geographical boundaries? Coincidence?
They exhibit the same dominion and expansion patterns of any other ideology.

Yes there are also more books than you can read in a lifetime - they all however hit on the same point, not being reliant on speculation - given the choice would you rather be guessing about something or know it for a fact? Or is science contingent on the existence of eternal ignorance?

This is becoming sad.

Science is a product of ignorance, just as your religion is.
We do not know and we want to know, this is why we explore and think and deduce.

The difference comes from motive and method.
Scientific method exhibits a relative – nothing is infallible or perfect…nothing - unprejudiced courage.
Religion a cowardly prejudice.

Science is curious and wants to know, even if knowing might be dangerous or unflattering or discouraging.
Religion wants to comfort, and placate and protect and flatter.

You display your fear so well.
I notice that you are disheartened by uncertainty; you cannot live in that way. You require to “…know it for a fact.”
This is where you expose the motive behind your mind-set.
This is where your need produces faith.
It doesn’t matter what the fact is, just as long as it is unquestionable, flattering, comforting and protective of you.
It has to be unshakable and unchanging.
To it you sacrifice what reason you possess and dedicate yourself to defending its premises.
It's a matter of survival for you. Just another strategy in the evolutionary game, only yours is characterized by an extreme weakness seeking power through numbers and through association.

Well its not clear in what way we have advanced - certainly we are not advancing in jolliness - see dumbing of society thread

Religion IS part of this “dumbing-down”.
It is a symptom of it.
Your religion has flourished in times of suffering, ignorance and war.
It is a product of despair and a weakened psyche wanting to find solace and a way out of a disturbing, to it, reality. It offers un-reality and constructs an unverifiable myth anyone with the need can access and sooth itself with.

The Dark-Ages were the Golden-Age of Christianity.
You see the reverse dependence here.
A time of unreason producing faith which depends on unreason.
A time of great suffering and ignorance and disease in Europe, producing a myth which offers hope and justice.

Islam is currently going through its own dark-age and exhibits some of the same traits Christianity did during that period.

And what epistemological proceses does science take on board to ensure that their practioners are neither dry, dull or proud?

Scientific Methodology- Empiricism - Debate - Reliability - Skepticism – Competition – Evolution – Adaptation – Overcoming - Progress.

What about yours?

But science doesn’t claim infallibility, like you mistakenly did before.
How can you write such words and not cringe or feel embarrassed?
Infallibility?
How and when do you determine the "infallibility" of anything or anyone?
What source do you take as reliable enough as to take it at its word?

In my ‘Christian Debate Tactics’ – which you so cleverly avoid – I write about the burdens of Christianity or of any hypothesis claiming an absolute irrefutable knowledge.
Given that you’ve, obviously, solved some of the biggest existential mysteries I would think that answering them would be easy for you and your kind.

Proceed.
Or are we to take you at your word?
Prove it.
Show us you "infallible truth" and please try not to reference a single Book as your starting irrefutable proposition.

Theerfore you find that more people take the ontological conclusion of alah more seriously than X-men, santa and the works by Tolkein (RPG'ers aside)

I love how you selectively chose what to answer to.

I ask again:

Why is the Qu’ran taken more seriously than X-Men?
Why should the Bible be taken more seriously than Tolkien’s Silmarillion?
They are both books of myth, proposing a fantasy world with fantasy creatures, supported with a creationist hypothesis, with saints and heroes and sinners and a story full of wisdoms and warnings and insinuations.
They are both books dealing with absolute ‘good’ and ‘evil’.
Why does one deserve unquestioning faith and a life dedicated to it and the other doesn’t?

Again - not clear how this gives you the upper hand - it all indicates that you have no idea what the proces of the successful application of religious epistemology grants - in other words how do you dtermine the utility, testability etc of an ontology you haven't approached?

Then teach me, sage.
Isn't that what you are here for?
you are doing God's work, no?
He will certainly reward you for it.

I skimmed it - the only thing that prevents me from responding to it is that the number of fallacies you presened would make it even bigger if I posted it

I know, it is more convenient to allude to my “fallacies” than to actually respond to them
It’s the natural survival weapon of the religious minded.

I can't speak for christianity but I can say that the religious epistemology works in only one way - that's the nature of any epistemology actually -

Which is?

It just lacks evidence of macro-evolution, which is kind of integral

What kind of "evidence" does it not lack?

I could say the same thing about evolution

All human actions and beliefs are rooted in existential anxiety and fear of the unknown.
Some cower in the corner, praying for salvation, others face it trying to solve and surpass it.

So, you admit that your faith is rooted in fear and hope and anxiety?
Does this not make you skeptical, concerning it, then?
Does not your emotionalism and self-interests cause you to doubt your own thoughts?

Fortunately there are other scriptures where the complete picture is given

Do you mean 'Lord of the Rings'?
"Complete picture"?
Upon what grounds do you determine that such a thing exists or is even possible or accessible to the human mind?
Did someone tell you?
Did someone write it in a Book?

you don't have plans to participate in mortality I take it

I accept my mortality as being a part of my being.
You fear it and try to establish a premise through which you can avoid its finality.

It’s unfortunate that the universe is indifferent to you and to me. Denying it will not save you from it, it’ll just make you more of a victim to it.
You cannot escape reality through praying and hope.
You must act.
The first step towards acting is thinking.
The success or failure of your acting is determined by how accurately you’ve interpreted and thought about what you perceive around you.

Fear underlies all human acting. This is a given.
What separates the cowardly from the courageous is how they deal with this fear.


I know how you have dealt with it….poor thing.

At this point I’m debating if I should continue punching this thick wall.

Actually this rhetoric is not much different from the brainless corner preachers who you abhor

Calling something “rhetoric” doesn’t make it untrue or ineffective, just as calling something epistemology doesn’t make it science or philosophy or even possible.

.....

working on the fallacious idea that religion causes war? There's a thread for that if you really want to approach the subject

Are you saying religion has never caused war or violence or prejudice or suffering?

In other words you want us to forget the evidence so you can establish your ideas - now that's CUTE

You still haven’t responded.

It is minds, like yours, who take things as infallible and irrefutable and who believe unflinchingly in what they were taught, that can then go off and kill and die for what they can never question or doubt.
When you are sure you are going to heaven and you are the 'hand of God' then what does death or destruction mean to you?
You become capable of atrocities in the name of an absolute ‘truth’.
This is how religion, just like any other absolutist hypothesis, produces war.
It creates the mind that will accept flimsy, unreliable information as indisputable.
It creates a mind that can be manipulated using emotion and ego.

Like I said, what separates you from the Muslim fundamentalist present of vulgarities, blind belief and violence is affluence.
Nothing else.
You both believe in an irrefutable absolute.
You both reference a single text as holy.
You both believe you are the chosen ones, deserving of God’s praise and His rewards.
You both think you are special and destined for God’s heaven. (His includes 77 virgins)
You both feel righteous and belonging on the side of ‘good’ against ‘evil’.
You are both complacent, dim-witted and weak.

The mindset is the same. The causes are the same:
Genetics, coupled and enhanced through environmental effects.
No kidding, you would find evolution repulsive.
You both are the quintessential victims of evolution.
The disposable masses.

You can witness it in the minds of the U.S. soldiers who go off to die and kill, often in the name of ‘right’ or ‘nation’ or ‘god’ or ‘good’ or 'Democracy'.

Fanatics killing fanatics.
Imbeciles shooting at imbeciles.

I don’t mind…..really. It’s funny.

So if all theists are potential human bombs are all atheists potential stalins?

What a wonderful Black & White world view you have there.
Typical of your quality of mind.

How does atheism relate to Stalin?
In Stalin’s case ideology replaced religion as an absolute authority.
The Red Book took over from the Bible, the Communist Party replaced the Church.
Religion, therefore, had to be destroyed so as to be replaced.
It was a competition, between dogmas, over the mindless, discouraged, fearful, desperate masses

Atheism is simply the denial of Theism.
An Atheist isn't automatically a Communist.
It has no politics.
In fact a skeptical mind would exhibit skepticism in all areas, including ideology.

But I love how the absence of religion automatically results in fascism or communism.
But isn’t faith a kind of fascism. An authoritarian, mind-controlling, behavior altering dogma that demands total obedience and rewords threatens so as to maintain power?

Didn’t the church persecute, kill and punish thousands if they did not adhere to its authority?
How do you control the masses?
You manipulate their vanity and use their fear.

If I follow you logic why am I any different from a person who follows blindly? You seem to be rallying a cause here - and what is the solution to get these dangerous persons
- isn't this what the war on terrorism functions on?

You represent a human disease.
A mind containing illness which feeds on human insecurity and ego.
It is a meme that produces automatons.

Who else, but a weak mind seeking redemption for its frailty, would come to a dogma that offered it eternity or told it that it deserved it?
Would not such weak minds then defend this dogma tooth and nail, if it were threatened?
Yes. This is what creates the premises for violence.

so you do conceed to the real basis being economic development and allocation of fundamental resources?

Huh?

and where is the level playing field evidenced by this new era of enlightenment?

Unfortunately religion is but a part of what suppresses and represses humanity.

I’m not so sure it should be totally taken away. Most minds require suppression and repression to remain tolerable or even reliable.
A religious mind is civil and ‘good’ because it believes. Without its faith it has no reason to continue being so.

I guess the problem is when they are underpinned by atheistic values and turn a blind eye to knowledge in the form of scripture to protect their delicate set of values

What atheistic values.
You make it sound like there is a church of atheism.
Atheism is a denial of religion or of any absolute.
Our commonalities end there.

An atheist can be spiritual in his own way.
A person can be good without believing in a religion.
Religion does not equal God. Religion is a hypothesis concerning existence; a dogma, a spiritual ideology.
I can remain loyal and loving and happy and giving without having a belief in an omnipotent punisher or infallible being.
Only people like you require threats and promises to remain human.

So if a person is proven unqualified in a field of knowledge that indicates all persons in that field ar e unqualified?

Is this a proclamation of faith?

It’s like saying:
Okay this doesn’t work but that doesn’t mean it’ll never work.
I have faith that it will one day and that it does even when I cannot make it.

This is called Bind Hope.
“I cannot prove God but that doesn’t mean that someone, somewhere at some time will not be able to. I have faith and so I remain loyal.”
What reverse reasoning.
You discover or are given a ‘truth’ and then maintain it by awaiting the proof for it afterwards.
In your case after death.
Thinking backwards.

wouldn't the correct application of religion eliminate the incorrect one? I guess you cannot make that analysis if you haven't applied the relevant epistemology

So, I must believe so as to know belief.

One drug substituting another to placate human anxiety.
'Do you want certainty or uncertainty?'
'Do you want to be a drug-addict and an alcoholic or come into religion?'
This is the question for the religious mind.
There is no alternative.

The inebriation is equal.
Different escapist methods for different dispositions.
Do you know why religious people as so happy? They are high on faith.
Their mind’s clouded by dogma. They become addicted to the sensation.
How wonderful it feels.
‘Feels’ the operative word.
Religion being reliant on emotion. Even their gods are emotions raised into deities.
God is love, for instance.

Underneath it all the root of all emotions: Fear.
The world is faced with emotion, not with reason.

Well, that aside, feel free to address anything I established in the opening thread, or are you just the run of the mill atheists who blindly slaps their dogma on any theistic minded thread?

I’ve already answered.
Are you a run-o-the-mill religious mind doing God’s work and spreading the gospel?

Do you know how memes replicate?
Look it up.

You exhibit all of the Christian or religious tactics of debate.
You are a walking caricature. A living example of what I referred to in my post.

There is no amount of argument that will even dent that emotional armor of yours.
In fact you take all of this as a test of your faith, proof of your commitment to God - one more reason to be accepted in paradise, while we burn in hell.

What human parent would be as cruel as your Father who, although loving and compassionate, punishes so extremely?
What human father would want his children to remain beneath him ...forever?

You suffer from stunted psychological growth. You are stuck in a childlike state where you need care, and protection and a father’s authority to make your life tolerable and your sufferings meaningful.
Like all pampered children who have not been weaned from their mother’s milk, you want to be made to feel special and important and the apple of your father’s eye, in his image and with heaven awaiting you.


I believe my work is done here. This is a dead horse.

Carry on children.

 

[perplexity]

What human parent would be as cruel as your Father who, although loving and compassionate, punishes so extremely?
What human father would want his children to remain beneath him?

Strangely enough that exactly how I'd imagine Satyr to be as a parent, and in this regard I have some qualification. At the age of 18 I left home and turned my back completley on our family, for several years, because that was how I felt, otherwise to be eternally crushed and subdued to fatherly authority, and to this day the notion of "God the father" fills me with fear rather than comfort.

I did not have the time, by the way, to read the entire missive, only backwards for a while from the usual "Carry on children", as a part of my continuing study of psychological projection. Maybe later I find the time to catch up, though I doubt it.

--- Ron.

 

[Raithere]

But I bet if I ask you to examine the cause of why these things happen you cannot explain it ( or you can only explain it with another cause you cannot explain - which amounts to the same thing)

The problem here is that such a reductionist approach always fails. No matter what path you take your a forced to the dilemma that either; 1. Something must be infinite / eternal or 2. Something can come from nothing. Either way the concept of causality fails. Conjuring up god as an escape by arbitrarily assigning special properties merely begs the question.

You missed the point - epistemology leads to self evident ontology - If you want to insist on how empirical processes can lead to god you will have to establish how an empirical process can lead to direct perception of the president (as opposed to seeing the president on the presidents terms)

Empiricism does not require first-hand observation, merely the observation of effect. In fact I would argue that effect is all one can perceive. But I made no such restriction upon your epistemological position... I’m merely waiting to find out what it is.

if ... you wouldn't have an entity that fits the description of god.

That would depend upon the definition of god.

Too late - you have already jumped the gun by declaring that the concept of god is fallacious - this indicates that you obviously applied some epistemological principle to arrive at that conclusion - what is that principle?

Actually, I never declared any such thing. Whether I find the concept of god fallacious or not depends upon the definition being presented. There are some definitions for which I may be considered a theist or at least agnostic. The principle is rather simple, however, I do not believe in concepts for which I have neither evidence nor sufficient argument. In any case, my personal opinion does not preclude my ability to understand, analyze, or debate other arguments.

Could you establish any of your scientific evidences on a person bereft, and in fact adverse, to the epistemology for perceiving them?

Epistemology is not necessarily for perception or experience, only for belief. What we perceive is what we perceive. Epistemology questions the truth of those perceptions: Which (if any) of our perceptions are true? How can we know they are true? By what methods can we verify what is true?

The proof of an epistemology lies in application - is it illogical to say that you must do something before you undersatnd something, or is our mind so vast and unlimited that we can understand anything without teh slightest need for application?

I’m not even sure I understand what you mean here. The proof of an epistemology does not lie in its application but in its results.

So what exactly is the cause for the perception of god and how does that relate to human social phenomena - in other words what general principles did you apply to determine that one social structure is clearly and obviously an abstraction of another?

You’re making this needlessly complex. God is simply the anthropic projection of self onto the screen of the universe. We look at the Universe through human eyes and see our selves everywhere we look. It's not a difficult riddle.

The only thing missing for an atheist is the aspect of practical application, which is the principle that distinguished it from being knowable from unknowable.

I've applied a number of theologies as have many atheists. I abandoned the practice because I found it lacking.

~Raithere

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

"Absolutely nothing - the absence of god (apparently) in this age is a special facility for us to exhibit our free will"

So you are saying this age is meant to be sinful so we can do sinful things?

But let me ask you this: How do you even know that this age is different than any other? Specifically when all the scriptures are supposed to take place in past ages? This is a common theme in scriptures that seems to more explain away the fact that what is said to have happened in the past, is not happening today.

"Just like along with god, comes god's opulence - just like someone may declare they want to be the friend of a rich man but actually they just want to enjoy the opulence - similarly when people say "I want god" it can mean many things, but that person who only wants the personality of god (as opposed to his opulences) is the true candidate for "heaven" and will not take an exit to a material heaven (or hell) on the way to pursuing god - "

Yet for what reason should we want a personality of God we are not even sure of getting? God could be eternally indifferent. In fact, coonsidering the state of this universe today, it would indeed seem God is such! People cry out to God all the time, yet he does not manifest.

"I am reluctant to answer this because you don't know whether I would be lying or not - in other words you lack the knowledge to discriminate on the matter - which just leads to more confusion - I don't mean to sound condescending but it is my practical experience to answering these types of q's"

You didn't sound condescending, but thank you for taking the time to care about whether you did. But anyway, if they have experienced God in such a way, what proof do they offer? Do they have something they got from God? For instance, a gift?

"yes - definitely its better than relying in an imperfect one,"

Yet if perfect beings are defined by this system as part of the system, is it capacble

"Well if all you are interested in is the body and things related to the body (all of which gets lost at the point of death, and very often on numerous occassions before that event) than I guess that is a true statement - the word's of sages definitely won't enable you to become a bigger animal"

But the question is: Do they help one to become a bigger spirit, even?

"I take it you are responding to the recent excavation of sites in INdia that have revealed unsafe levels of radiation and seem to indicate a nuclear explosion has taken place (as if people got suddenly vapourised while in the middle of daily life - and in the absence of volcanic activity) - what's your angle on this?"

A forgery. Radiation from nuclear fall out does not contaminate an area for 8,000 years. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are almost to the same level of radiation as the area around it in 50 years. In fact, almost all radiation from nuclear fallout from a normal nuclear weapon is gone within a week, and even bombs salted with radioactive cobalt would not last 8,000 years.

Indeed, the credibility of this is on the same level as the (in)famous "Russians dig into Hell".

If there is indeed radiation, it is much more likely from current INdian nuclear testing (1998 saw the first explosion of the Indian hydrogen bomb, I watched it on TV) or from radioactive waste. Not from an ancient nuclear explosion. Moreover, it is truly absurd to claim that an ancient battlefield which used ancient means of fighting (swords, bows, et cetera) would out of no where have nuclear missiles. Unless we assume that Arjuna's chariots were really Abrams tanks, or Krishna was "Goose" to his "Marverick"...

"How can they say 100% when they are not in a position to guage 100%?"

Most modern science all ready points to the fact that every religious document embellishes historic and scientific facts if taken litterally, and even when not, requirse far-flung exegesis to make it remotely sensible.

"I am not aware what this bias against the west is - maybe you could describe it as something post post modern - but it certainly doesn't indicate the acceptance of any other cultural paradigm outside of the euro/american one - - in other words its just a re-digestion of already established western values (or an acknowledgement of their failure)"

Truly good examples are two wildly popular demi-scientific books: "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn, or "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. If you are also interested, I'd suggest taking any study of anthropology on a college level (which is absolutely obsessed with being against ethnocentrism and judging other cultures and ignoring the West) and also look to modern history books, which tend to always put non-Westerners on the book cover, even when some primitive African sculpture hardly encapsulates history. I'd also like to point out the erroneous conceptions of the racial identity of ancient Egyptians in both academic and popular works, including the constant presentation of Cleopatra as black, despite the fact that she was a Macedonian/Greek.

Science is only Western in the sense that that it attempts to study things rationally and objectively.

"primitivism? excuse me? I don't follow"

http://www.ishmael.com/welcome.cfm - There ought to be some essays on this website that explain a growing movement.

I also did not mean to imply, if I did, that India was primitive, only that in its economic backwardness compared to the West (although I must say, bravo on India's success as a country for 50 years independent of Great Britain) makes it actually a -prime- place for science to fall in love with now.

"But then krishna states that he is again re-establishing it with arjuna - and there are numerous threads on different levels of performance that are constantly being maintained - in other words there is a deal of variety in the establishment of religious practices to suit what people are capable of"

The lineage that Krishna may have brought about may have falled in the current day is quite a real possibility. For instance, though in India many claim to know yogis which are supposed to be able to do all these magical things, almost all have shown to be frauds, including even balancing on canes to decieve people into the view that they are levitating.

"low level of what? Certainly its not leading the way in society (in kaliyuga religious principles start at 25% and decrease down to practically zero over 430 000 years, at which time things get totally "reorganised by the kalki incarnation (there are some avatars called lila avatars, they appear like clockwork), to come to satya yuga starting at 100% and getting down to 75% over a period of 1 200 000 years etc etc "

When only the old and fearful are religious, instead of the young and brave, does not this say that perhaps religion is unbefitting to some? For whereas in prior ages, it appears that men such as Arjuna and Rama were strong and heroic and religious, in the present age, no such energy is to be found. Is not it then beneath the dignity of many a person to participate in such?

"So is it enough to detrmine if something is of value in the world by taking a vote?"

Certainly not, but it says something when only people stricken by weakness cling to it.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
But I bet if I ask you to examine the cause of why these things happen you cannot explain it ( or you can only explain it with another cause you cannot explain - which amounts to the same thing) ”

The problem here is that such a reductionist approach always fails. No matter what path you take your a forced to the dilemma that either; 1. Something must be infinite / eternal or 2. Something can come from nothing. Either way the concept of causality fails. Conjuring up god as an escape by arbitrarily assigning special properties merely begs the question.

So if god fits your first premise, and you base your assumptions on god outisde of the practice of the relevant epistemlogy, how can you determine whether the qualities of god have been arbitrarily attributed or not?

“ You missed the point - epistemology leads to self evident ontology - If you want to insist on how empirical processes can lead to god you will have to establish how an empirical process can lead to direct perception of the president (as opposed to seeing the president on the presidents terms) ”

Empiricism does not require first-hand observation, merely the observation of effect.
In fact I would argue that effect is all one can perceive.

You are neglecting the processes that enable one to appreciate what a person is observing - hence there are different schools of knowledge, with different catagories, or sub-catagories, of epistemology.

But I made no such restriction upon your epistemological position... I’m merely waiting to find out what it is.

well its there in the opening post


“Conjuring up god as an escape by arbitrarily assigning special properties merely begs the question"

“ Too late - you have already jumped the gun by declaring that the concept of god is fallacious - this indicates that you obviously applied some epistemological principle to arrive at that conclusion - what is that principle? ”

Actually, I never declared any such thing.

Excuse me? is this a typing error?
"Conjuring up god as an escape by arbitrarily assigning special properties merely begs the question. "

NOt only are you revealing a definition of god but also an epistemology to reach such a bogus definiton to work with as a vehicle of logic - at the very least it stands outside of the epistemology that I presented with this thread

Whether I find the concept of god fallacious or not depends upon the definition being presented.

Then why open with such statement as indicated above?

“ Could you establish any of your scientific evidences on a person bereft, and in fact adverse, to the epistemology for perceiving them? ”

Epistemology is not necessarily for perception or experience, only for belief.

Then why do universities apparently waste their time with 4 semesters of theory before prac?

What we perceive is what we perceive.

That says nothing about whether what a person is perceiving is actually great or even true

Whether we can make sense of it, particularly in regards to subtle knowledge (science included) relies on epistemology

Epistemology questions the truth of those perceptions: Which (if any) of our perceptions are true? How can we know they are true? By what methods can we verify what is true?

Therefore q's of epistemology are often addressed by training - basically your position is that you insist that a person should be able to perceive god without training - if we don't hold science by those conditions, why do you hold religion by them?

“ The proof of an epistemology lies in application - is it illogical to say that you must do something before you undersatnd something, or is our mind so vast and unlimited that we can understand anything without teh slightest need for application? ”

I’m not even sure I understand what you mean here. The proof of an epistemology does not lie in its application but in its results.

I agree with that last statement, application equals results
- sorry for the english - it should read

“ The proof of an epistemology lies in application - is it illogical to say that you can understand something before you apply something, or is our mind so vast and unlimited that we can understand anything without the slightest need for application? ”

“ So what exactly is the cause for the perception of god and how does that relate to human social phenomena - in other words what general principles did you apply to determine that one social structure is clearly and obviously an abstraction of another? ”

You’re making this needlessly complex. God is simply the anthropic projection of self onto the screen of the universe. We look at the Universe through human eyes and see our selves everywhere we look. It's not a difficult riddle.

I am trying to actually unpack what you are saying here by examining the logical premises you are relying on - its difficult why you give a special status to the notion that "god is created by human society" (social structure a) when it is at least just as equally logical to say that "human society was created by god" (social structure b) - in otherwords its not clear what are the logical premises you are relying on to establish that social structure b is an abstraction of social structure a - inother words you are just stating your opinion.

“ The only thing missing for an atheist is the aspect of practical application, which is the principle that distinguished it from being knowable from unknowable. ”

I've applied a number of theologies as have many atheists. I abandoned the practice because I found it lacking.

Doesn't say anything about the existence or non existence of a correct theology, only that you have had the misfortune of applying a few wrong ones, or alternaively, you weren't properly established in the correct epistemolgy for granting the ontology of religion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

"Absolutely nothing - the absence of god (apparently) in this age is a special facility for us to exhibit our free will"

So you are saying this age is meant to be sinful so we can do sinful things?

It empowers us in ways we want to act - yes - not to say that god wants us to be sinful - we want to be sinful - unless god provides us an opportunity to be sinful, how is it possible otherwise? (Its an issue of free will)

But let me ask you this: How do you even know that this age is different than any other? Specifically when all the scriptures are supposed to take place in past ages? This is a common theme in scriptures that seems to more explain away the fact that what is said to have happened in the past, is not happening today.

How do you know anything about history? (without a connection to the testimonies of credible sources)
Well the vedas are etenal (they don't vary even a syllable beween cosmic devastations) and the commentaries on them (puranas) are what is really significant for us because they teach practical application - so the puranas are accepted as temporal, and thus they deal specifically with certain issues of certain ages - there are even puranas which elaborate on the future of kali yuga - you can read about it in the 12 canto of SB - there are also different processes for doferent ages - for instance what worked to grant god consciusness in satya yuga willnot work in kali yuga etc etc

"Just like along with god, comes god's opulence - just like someone may declare they want to be the friend of a rich man but actually they just want to enjoy the opulence - similarly when people say "I want god" it can mean many things, but that person who only wants the personality of god (as opposed to his opulences) is the true candidate for "heaven" and will not take an exit to a material heaven (or hell) on the way to pursuing god - "

Yet for what reason should we want a personality of God we are not even sure of getting?

The only uncertainty is whether we actually want god or not - its not like he is playing hard to get - its us that have the trouble drumming up enough sincerity to perservere with integrity

God could be eternally indifferent.

lol - on the contrary we run that risk- nitya bandha

In fact, coonsidering the state of this universe today, it would indeed seem God is such! People cry out to God all the time, yet he does not manifest.

So is god so cheap that he can be beckoned for an appearance by a person who neglects his instruction and even existence - like for instance in some places they have "pray to god" day - and the rest of the year it seems to be "do as I damn well please" - and even then how many of those that pray to god on that day are praying for the purity of self to properly perceive him?

You didn't sound condescending, but thank you for taking the time to care about whether you did. But anyway, if they have experienced God in such a way, what proof do they offer? Do they have something they got from God? For instance, a gift?

Just like you see someone else and reciprocate in such manners, so can god - if you can give someone something, why can't god?

"yes - definitely its better than relying in an imperfect one,"

Yet if perfect beings are defined by this system as part of the system, is it capacble

They arrive at the point of perfection, namely by being conscious of the perfectly perefect, god. - even in normal affairs a doofus can become a PHD by dint of education and training

"Well if all you are interested in is the body and things related to the body (all of which gets lost at the point of death, and very often on numerous occassions before that event) than I guess that is a true statement - the word's of sages definitely won't enable you to become a bigger animal"

But the question is: Do they help one to become a bigger spirit, even?

They enable the spirit to be uncovered - yes

"I take it you are responding to the recent excavation of sites in INdia that have revealed unsafe levels of radiation and seem to indicate a nuclear explosion has taken place (as if people got suddenly vapourised while in the middle of daily life - and in the absence of volcanic activity) - what's your angle on this?"

A forgery. Radiation from nuclear fall out does not contaminate an area for 8,000 years. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are almost to the same level of radiation as the area around it in 50 years. In fact, almost all radiation from nuclear fallout from a normal nuclear weapon is gone within a week, and even bombs salted with radioactive cobalt would not last 8,000 years.

Indeed, the credibility of this is on the same level as the (in)famous "Russians dig into Hell".

If there is indeed radiation, it is much more likely from current INdian nuclear testing (1998 saw the first explosion of the Indian hydrogen bomb, I watched it on TV) or from radioactive waste. Not from an ancient nuclear explosion. Moreover, it is truly absurd to claim that an ancient battlefield which used ancient means of fighting (swords, bows, et cetera) would out of no where have nuclear missiles. Unless we assume that Arjuna's chariots were really Abrams tanks, or Krishna was "Goose" to his "Marverick"...

interesting - there was a science of weaponry however where weapons would be invested with mantras - of course this is a subtle science, practically extinct now, although you see traces of it visible in tantra and voodoo - BTW I have seen many things including a young child bitten by a cobra on the brink of death revived to life in a matter of 20 minutes by mantra (its common practice for irretrievable sbake bit evictims in remote vilages to be put on rafts on the ganges on the off chance that a tantric may spot them and cure them )- how do you explain that, or any number of phenomena?
Of course this is all just to answer the q of authenticity - I don't advocate that voodoo or tantra is a suitable discipline for the spiritually ambitious - merely that it indicates the common disciplines of an ancient era

"How can they say 100% when they are not in a position to guage 100%?"

Most modern science all ready points to the fact that every religious document embellishes historic and scientific facts if taken litterally, and even when not, requirse far-flung exegesis to make it remotely sensible.

But the point is how do they establish historic and scientific facts if they are not 100% to begin with - what gives science the privledged status to determine authenticity, since it is based on theories that they hold as axiomatic (like the uniformity of time and space cannot be proven - but it is advocated as a theory - and hence astronomy, archeology etc become accepted as credible on this principle)

"I am not aware what this bias against the west is - maybe you could describe it as something post post modern - but it certainly doesn't indicate the acceptance of any other cultural paradigm outside of the euro/american one - - in other words its just a re-digestion of already established western values (or an acknowledgement of their failure)"

Truly good examples are two wildly popular demi-scientific books: "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn, or "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond. If you are also interested, I'd suggest taking any study of anthropology on a college level (which is absolutely obsessed with being against ethnocentrism and judging other cultures and ignoring the West) and also look to modern history books, which tend to always put non-Westerners on the book cover, even when some primitive African sculpture hardly encapsulates history. I'd also like to point out the erroneous conceptions of the racial identity of ancient Egyptians in both academic and popular works, including the constant presentation of Cleopatra as black, despite the fact that she was a Macedonian/Greek.

Regardless of the picture - you still have westerners trained in western thought telling how the world is or should be - hence it is post post modernism

Science is only Western in the sense that that it attempts to study things rationally and objectively.

Rational Objective according to western values no doubt?

"But then krishna states that he is again re-establishing it with arjuna - and there are numerous threads on different levels of performance that are constantly being maintained - in other words there is a deal of variety in the establishment of religious practices to suit what people are capable of"

The lineage that Krishna may have brought about may have falled in the current day is quite a real possibility.

Therefore there is the concept of disciplic succession - whichis kind of integral to what I posted originally about epistemology - it would be proven to fail if people were no longer developing attarction to krishna and instad developing attractiomn to his inferior nature (which admittedly happens from time to time - but not to the extent of rendering the whole system collapsed - ie destroys the appropriate and successful epistemology)

For instance, though in India many claim to know yogis which are supposed to be able to do all these magical things, almost all have shown to be frauds, including even balancing on canes to decieve people into the view that they are levitating.

Where does krishna say that balancing on a cane and the like is evidence of being the spiritual science he periodically comes to re-establish? He is more interested in the living entity reviving their relationship with him in love, and in fact declares in several places that the pursuit of mystic yoga is for the less intelligent


"

low level of what? Certainly its not leading the way in society (in kaliyuga religious principles start at 25% and decrease down to practically zero over 430 000 years, at which time things get totally "reorganised by the kalki incarnation (there are some avatars called lila avatars, they appear like clockwork), to come to satya yuga starting at 100% and getting down to 75% over a period of 1 200 000 years etc etc "

When only the old and fearful are religious, instead of the young and brave, does not this say that perhaps religion is unbefitting to some?

Doesn't say anything about whether a person is perceiving long term benefit in favour of short term benefit
Maybe you are basing your observations on american christianity - but that's the general symptom of kali yuga - not too intelligent

For whereas in prior ages, it appears that men such as Arjuna and Rama were strong and heroic and religious, in the present age, no such energy is to be found. Is not it then beneath the dignity of many a person to participate in such?

Maybe they are just not looking hard enough - admittedly what you are saying is true - theer are many frauds, but generally that is the way of the world - for everything that exists theer are numerous cheap imitations bandied about for persons who are not willing to pay the proper price for the proper article - the first point is to gather the knowledge for the article one is looking for - that is the best way not to be cheated

"So is it enough to detrmine if something is of value in the world by taking a vote?"

Certainly not, but it says something when only people stricken by weakness cling to it.

lol - are you saying I am weak?
well even if you are, there are many strong persons in spiritual life
To what extent have you examined the prowess of religionists anyway?

 

[Raithere]

So if god fits your first premise, and you base your assumptions on god outisde of the practice of the relevant epistemlogy, how can you determine whether the qualities of god have been arbitrarily attributed or not?

Admittedly, this is my own conclusion. If you have an argument that establishes the necessity of god with the relevant properties please present it. To date I've yet to see such an argument. It's seems naught more than a patchwork solution to the problem.

You are neglecting the processes that enable one to appreciate what a person is observing - hence there are different schools of knowledge, with different catagories, or sub-catagories, of epistemology.

Once again, I am not trying to argue towards a knowledge of god, you are. Why do you keep insisting that I do your work for you?

well its there in the opening post

No, it's not. You have described what we might call a method but do not explain anything about the epistemology. An epistemological argument needs support the validity of such a methodology. All you've made is an unfounded claim to authority. From there you simply declare that all subsequent dissemination despite its dependence on fallible human agents is magically free of defect or obfuscation. This hardly constitutes an argument.

How do you know which scripture is correct? How do you justify your position against those who have identical claims but refer different scriptures and "qualified persons"? How do you explain those who have heeded the "correct" scripture and hearkened to the proper mentors yet fail to find god?

“Conjuring up god as an escape by arbitrarily assigning special properties merely begs the question"

Excuse me? is this a typing error?

NOt only are you revealing a definition of god but also an epistemology to reach such a bogus definiton to work with as a vehicle of logic - at the very least it stands outside of the epistemology that I presented with this thread

I'm not giving a definition I'm addressing a point that you made, "But I bet if I ask you to examine the cause of why these things happen you cannot explain it (or you can only explain it with another cause you cannot explain - which amounts to the same thing)".

What I'm pointing out is that the failure you describe is not resolved in any notion of god, you cannot avoid it. But if your point was not that this reduction is resolved by god then don't worry about it.

Then why do universities apparently waste their time with 4 semesters of theory before prac?

They don't in my experience. In fact my science classroom experiences at all levels of education constantly integrated practice, typically prior or concurrent to the theoretical explanation. But perhaps you attended a different system than I did. In any case, how schools choose to teach science does not affect my argument.

Epistemology examines and attempts to ascertain the validity of experience. Experience is primary to epistemology. One need only note that if epistemology was primary to experience one could have no experience until an epistemology was established.

That says nothing about whether what a person is perceiving is actually great or even true

Hence the need for epistemology.

Therefore q's of epistemology are often addressed by training - basically your position is that you insist that a person should be able to perceive god without training

No, that is not my position. My questions are, "How does one know which position from which to approach god?" and "Given such a position and its correct application, how does one validate the experience or explain the lack of one?"

if we don't hold science by those conditions, why do you hold religion by them?

Again, this is inaccurate. One does not need training prior to perception. In fact, the nature of science is that one could start from scratch, relying only upon your own perceptions and start making headway into science. The methodology of science is observation, hypothesis, testing, theory.

“The proof of an epistemology lies in application - is it illogical to say that you can understand something before you apply something, or is our mind so vast and unlimited that we can understand anything without the slightest need for application? ”

Understanding and assessing validity are not the same thing.

I am trying to actually unpack what you are saying here by examining the logical premises you are relying on - its difficult why you give a special status to the notion that "god is created by human society" (social structure a) when it is at least just as equally logical to say that "human society was created by god" (social structure b) - in otherwords its not clear what are the logical premises you are relying on to establish that social structure b is an abstraction of social structure a - inother words you are just stating your opinion.

Again, there is no need for this level abstraction or complexity, no need to delve into the sociological constructs this early in the model.

As to premise, one need only examine individual human psychology and behavior. The tendency to anthropomorphize is very well established. It is ubiquitous and IMO unavoidable. We only have our own point of view from which to perceive the Universe. That this "colors" what we see and how we interpret the world should not be any surprise.

Doesn't say anything about the existence or non existence of a correct theology, only that you have had the misfortune of applying a few wrong ones, or alternaively, you weren't properly established in the correct epistemolgy for granting the ontology of religion.

Your response is as I predicted. And I again I ask; What then is the correct epistemology? How does one determine the correct epistemology and the correct application? Does one simply continue trying position after position, application after application at random until one falls upon it?

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

~Raithere

“ You are neglecting the processes that enable one to appreciate what a person is observing - hence there are different schools of knowledge, with different catagories, or sub-catagories, of epistemology. ”

Once again, I am not trying to argue towards a knowledge of god, you are. Why do you keep insisting that I do your work for you?

you don't have to the work for me - you have to do it for yourself - if I insist on saying things about science I am required to apply myself to the discipline

“ well its there in the opening post ”

No, it's not. You have described what we might call a method but do not explain anything about the epistemology. An epistemological argument needs support the validity of such a methodology. All you've made is an unfounded claim to authority. From there you simply declare that all subsequent dissemination despite its dependence on fallible human agents is magically free of defect or obfuscation. This hardly constitutes an argument.

How on earth do you assert an authority in a field of knowledge without relying on the authority of persons who have applied the process of knowledge - for instance don't physicists often assert the authority of physics?
I mean you can travel a certain distance by logic, but when you get down to brass tacks it requires epistemology.
As for your definition of epistemology, I would argue that methodology is a sub catergory of epistemolgy because epistemology investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge. Anyway, that is the sense taht I am using the word.

How do you know which scripture is correct? How do you justify your position against those who have identical claims but refer different scriptures and "qualified persons"? How do you explain those who have heeded the "correct" scripture and hearkened to the proper mentors yet fail to find god?

So examine the first point given in the post - these points can be unpacked and explained - frankly I get the impression that th e people who respond to this, virtualy all who are atheists, just read the title and catapult into their own conceptions on the subject

“ Then why do universities apparently waste their time with 4 semesters of theory before prac? ”

They don't in my experience. In fact my science classroom experiences at all levels of education constantly integrated practice, typically prior or concurrent to the theoretical explanation.

They teach prac prior to theory? That's ....absurd - unless it was an exercise designed to make you fail and thus develop revigoured curiousity.

Epistemology examines and attempts to ascertain the validity of experience.

Experience is primary to epistemology. One need only note that if epistemology was primary to experience one could have no experience until an epistemology was established.

“ That says nothing about whether what a person is perceiving is actually great or even true ”

Hence the need for epistemology.

I would argue, hence the need for ontology

“ Therefore q's of epistemology are often addressed by training - basically your position is that you insist that a person should be able to perceive god without training ”

No, that is not my position. My questions are, "How does one know which position from which to approach god?" and "Given such a position and its correct application, how does one validate the experience or explain the lack of one?"

Once again - read the first point of the original post

“ if we don't hold science by those conditions, why do you hold religion by them? ”

Again, this is inaccurate. One does not need training prior to perception. In fact, the nature of science is that one could start from scratch, relying only upon your own perceptions and start making headway into science. The methodology of science is observation, hypothesis, testing, theory.

The same theoretical idea of progress without training is also there in religion, but how many scientists, in terms of practical everyday life, operate from a position of being trained in some paradigm of training, (whether it is university or library books) and how many start from the point of re-inventing the wheel?
One may argue one does not need training to enter in to science, but its just like there are two ways to touch your nose - the easy way and the hard way.

“ “The proof of an epistemology lies in application - is it illogical to say that you can understand something before you apply something, or is our mind so vast and unlimited that we can understand anything without the slightest need for application? ” ”

Understanding and assessing validity are not the same thing.

Assessments of validity are completely fallible (although they are very often required before epistemology) - like a high school drop out may perceive more validity in drinking beer than studying physics - which is fine but it doesn't help him understand an electron

“ I am trying to actually unpack what you are saying here by examining the logical premises you are relying on - its difficult why you give a special status to the notion that "god is created by human society" (social structure a) when it is at least just as equally logical to say that "human society was created by god" (social structure b) - in otherwords its not clear what are the logical premises you are relying on to establish that social structure b is an abstraction of social structure a - inother words you are just stating your opinion. ”

Again, there is no need for this level abstraction or complexity, no need to delve into the sociological constructs this early in the model.

well it does seem to be th eunderpinning for your conviction that god doesn't exist

As to premise, one need only examine individual human psychology and behavior. The tendency to anthropomorphize is very well established. It is ubiquitous and IMO unavoidable. We only have our own point of view from which to perceive the Universe. That this "colors" what we see and how we interpret the world should not be any surprise.

This is only a tentative suggestion - for instance there is also the argument that th e reason we athropomorphise is because god is a person - it would perhaps clutter up this thread to discuss it, but that is the general nature of tentative suggestions - one person can say this evidence indicates this, and another person can use the same evidence to establish th eother - inother words tentative sugestions are not a good vehicle for arguments that require evidence. Therefore evidence requires epistemology and not logic (although logic may compliment one coming to the point of applying epistemology)

“ Doesn't say anything about the existence or non existence of a correct theology, only that you have had the misfortune of applying a few wrong ones, or alternaively, you weren't properly established in the correct epistemolgy for granting the ontology of religion. ”

Your response is as I predicted. And I again I ask; What then is the correct epistemology? How does one determine the correct epistemology and the correct application? Does one simply continue trying position after position, application after application at random until one falls upon it?

Again there is the original post, which begins on this point

 

[Raithere]

How on earth do you assert an authority in a field of knowledge without relying on the authority of persons who have applied the process of knowledge - for instance don't physicists often assert the authority of physics?

As pertains to scientific debate, no. The history of science demonstrates a continuing and progressive overturning of accepted theories or "authority".

As for your definition of epistemology, I would argue that methodology is a sub catergory of epistemolgy because epistemology investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.

You still have to give argument for your epistemology.

So examine the first point given in the post

Okay.

"1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession"

Questions:
1. How does one establish that scripture is knowledge (as opposed to opinion, conjecture, fantasy, deception, or delusion)?
2. How does one verify the qualification(s) of the teacher? Many people claim such qualification and their teachings often conflict.
3. How does one verify disiplic succession if there is more than one claim to it.

They teach prac prior to theory? That's ....absurd - unless it was an exercise designed to make you fail and thus develop revigoured curiousity.

Not in the least. It's designed to make it apparent to the students that the field of science is accessible to all. The basic method of science is very simple; observation, hypothesis, testing, theory. A hands on / demonstrative approach is far and away superior to mere instruction... for any subject.

The same theoretical idea of progress without training is also there in religion, but how many scientists, in terms of practical everyday life, operate from a position of being trained in some paradigm of training, (whether it is university or library books) and how many start from the point of re-inventing the wheel?
One may argue one does not need training to enter in to science, but its just like there are two ways to touch your nose - the easy way and the hard way.

Actually it is imperative that one be thoroughly familiar with the application of science from the ground up, jumping in from a position of theory alone almost always results in poor understanding and lots of errors. Witness the plethora of "alternative" pseudo-scientific garbage and, sorry to say, your own poor understanding of the process.

Luckily, after the ground-work has been established science has a method for making available the results of other's observations in such a way that one can analyze the results and conclusions as well as duplicate the experiment down to the last detail. Proper scientific reporting contains not only a precise description of the application and the results but expounds in depth upon the scope, assumptions made, possible errors, considered refutations, and alternative conclusions for its own results. This then is run through a gauntlet of peer review, harsh critical analysis and refutation prior to any consensus of plausibility.

No theology even begins to approach this harsh level of revealing self-analysis and critical review. No theology even passes the first round of verification required for even the most hypothetical of scientific results. Even given the methodology you describe the broad disagreement between alternative theologies would instantly remand each to the barest of unestablished hypothesis.

Assessments of validity are completely fallible (although they are very often required before epistemology) - like a high school drop out may perceive more validity in drinking beer than studying physics - which is fine but it doesn't help him understand an electron

This is a ridiculous example. You're not really trying to assert that the high-school drop out you describe has chosen beer drinking over physics as the result of a considered comparison of epistemologies are you? You're not talking about logical or epistemic validity here, your reference is to value alone; ethics not epistemology.

well it does seem to be the underpinning for your conviction that god doesn't exist

No, quite the reverse. This is a conclusion I reached after my realization of atheism. Not believing in god it became necessary for me to be able explain religion. Luckily, once belief in the existence of god is not an occluding factor the explanation became readily apparent.

As an aside I do not believe that god does not exist, this is a strong atheistic position. I do not believe in the existence of god (weak atheism). More precisely, I believe that god is a term that doesn't have a standard definition and that most definitions of god are either explicitly false or so general as to contain little meaning.

Ironically however, I do not discount spiritual experience. Though I disagree stridently with the methodology you present and I am strongly irreligious. I find religion to be a purely sociological and political phenomenon that relates only obliquely to the subjective experience and contains none of its value or meaning. It is the subjective experience that contains value. But the associated experiences of revelation, inspiration, epiphany, comprehension, awe, and wonder simply cannot be related no matter how perfect the teaching or the teacher might be. In this I concur with the Buddhists and the Daoists; one must move beyond mere doctrine.

This is only a tentative suggestion - for instance there is also the argument that th e reason we athropomorphise is because god is a person

It is more than a tentative suggestion, it is well founded in psychology and is apparent in every-day observation. Or do you assert that we anthropomorphize intimate objects and natural phenomena because they are people too?

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

~Raithere

As pertains to scientific debate, no. The history of science demonstrates a continuing and progressive overturning of accepted theories or "authority".

But who does the overturning of theories exactly ? Aren't they also established in the field of study?

Okay.

"1 - Knowledge conveyed through scripture must be received from a qualified person in disciplic succession"

Questions:
1. How does one establish that scripture is knowledge (as opposed to opinion, conjecture, fantasy, deception, or delusion)?

by applying the instructions to verify the validity of its claims.

2. How does one verify the qualification(s) of the teacher? Many people claim such qualification and their teachings often conflict.

The same way you verify the qualifications of a doctor - by examining their practice - numerous indications are given in scripture eg "A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world."

3. How does one verify disiplic succession if there is more than one claim to it.

Not sure what you mean by more than one claim - its not restricted to one line of succession - on the contrary it tends to appear more like a tree with many branks connected to the root - in other words the connection is valid if it is connected to the root.

“ They teach prac prior to theory? That's ....absurd - unless it was an exercise designed to make you fail and thus develop revigoured curiousity. ”

Not in the least. It's designed to make it apparent to the students that the field of science is accessible to all. The basic method of science is very simple; observation, hypothesis, testing, theory. A hands on / demonstrative approach is far and away superior to mere instruction... for any subject.

Maybe you can give me an example - I find it very difficult to believe that people would be trained by throwing them into rooms with bunsen burners when they don't even know what a bunsen burner is.

Actually it is imperative that one be thoroughly familiar with the application of science from the ground up, jumping in from a position of theory alone almost always results in poor understanding and lots of errors.

Isn't this imperative also theory?

Witness the plethora of "alternative" pseudo-scientific garbage and, sorry to say, your own poor understanding of the process.

Prac and theory go together, but prac is contingent on theory (and prac leads to further theory etc )

Luckily, after the ground-work has been established science has a method for making available the results of other's observations in such a way that one can analyze the results and conclusions as well as duplicate the experiment down to the last detail.

The same applications are available there in spiritual life - follow a process and you get a result - it is of utmost importance that one follows without addition or subtraction - otherwise you get a different result

Proper scientific reporting contains not only a precise description of the application and the results but expounds in depth upon the scope, assumptions made, possible errors, considered refutations, and alternative conclusions for its own results.

The same thing is given in scripture and numerous scriptural commentaries

This then is run through a gauntlet of peer review, harsh critical analysis and refutation prior to any consensus of plausibility.

who does the peer reviewing? Are they established authorities - in otherwords how relevant is the the peer reviewing of a person outside the established epistemology? How is this different when an atheist passes views on the application of theistic epistemologies?

No theology even begins to approach this harsh level of revealing self-analysis and critical review.

On what authority do you make this statement?

No theology even passes the first round of verification required for even the most hypothetical of scientific results.

Do you know how to verify the validity of a theistic process?

Even given the methodology you describe the broad disagreement between alternative theologies would instantly remand each to the barest of unestablished hypothesis.

You seem to be advocating that with religion you either have to accept everything that goes down in the name of it or reject everything (in other words one either has blind belief or blind doubt)- since the first is obviously absurd you opt for the second - If however one is familiar with the processes and knows what to look for (comes from a foundation in theory that is grounded in practice) then they can determine the validity/invalidity of a claim or even the gradations of validity

This is a ridiculous example. You're not really trying to assert that the high-school drop out you describe has chosen beer drinking over physics as the result of a considered comparison of epistemologies are you? You're not talking about logical or epistemic validity here, your reference is to value alone; ethics not epistemology.

the point is - how one reacts to testimony is determined by one's values

Ironically however, I do not discount spiritual experience. Though I disagree stridently with the methodology you present and I am strongly irreligious. I find religion to be a purely sociological and political phenomenon that relates only obliquely to the subjective experience and contains none of its value or meaning. It is the subjective experience that contains value. But the associated experiences of revelation, inspiration, epiphany, comprehension, awe, and wonder simply cannot be related no matter how perfect the teaching or the teacher might be. In this I concur with the Buddhists and the Daoists; one must move beyond mere doctrine.

Which gets back to the general principles you apply to determine that one social structure is an abstraction from another????
In other words why are you so sure that it is human society that generates and establishes conceptions of religion and not religion that generates and establishes human society conceptions???


“

This is only a tentative suggestion - for instance there is also the argument that th e reason we athropomorphise is because god is a person ”

It is more than a tentative suggestion, it is well founded in psychology and is apparent in every-day observation. Or do you assert that we anthropomorphize intimate objects and natural phenomena because they are people too?

You missed my point - I don't contend the assertions of psychology, but what you assert these assertions to signify are not absolute
Therefore it is a tentative suggestion - if x occurs in situation z, does that necessarily mean x occurs in situation y ? - if there is no clearly established relationship between z and y it is a tentative suggestion and not really evidence - in other words what evidence do you have that the conception of god as a person is true or false?
if god is a person, and if god does occupy a superior ontological position than ourselves (of course given your value system, you will have to hypothetically accept these things) couldn't the anthromorphization of subjects that are not divine be interpreted as an artificial substitute for his existence?

Again this is just a tentative suggestion, but it relies on the same evidence that you utilise for your tentative suggestion - the grounds of one tentative suggestion can easily be manipulated to produce an opposite one

 

[Prince_James]

Lightgigantic:

"It empowers us in ways we want to act - yes - not to say that god wants us to be sinful - we want to be sinful - unless god provides us an opportunity to be sinful, how is it possible otherwise? (Its an issue of free will)"

Does not this imply that God complies with sin?

"How do you know anything about history? (without a connection to the testimonies of credible sources)
Well the vedas are etenal (they don't vary even a syllable beween cosmic devastations) and the commentaries on them (puranas) are what is really significant for us because they teach practical application - so the puranas are accepted as temporal, and thus they deal specifically with certain issues of certain ages - there are even puranas which elaborate on the future of kali yuga - you can read about it in the 12 canto of SB - there are also different processes for doferent ages - for instance what worked to grant god consciusness in satya yuga willnot work in kali yuga etc etc"

With history, we generally have arcaeology and many contemporary accounts to verify things. With scriptures such as the Vedas, we have little else. Similarly, what they present is necessarily absurd, with all sorts of magic and other things going on as a regular course. Moreover, it is of great suspicion that none of these things happen now, and like most religions, the puranas and such come around to talk about how miserable life is, when really, they are simply looking back to a mythic past.

It is a common theme in all religions that everything should happen in the past, because clearly religion does not happen today, and therefore, there would be no way to root it in the present, because everyone would know it is false.

"The only uncertainty is whether we actually want god or not - its not like he is playing hard to get - its us that have the trouble drumming up enough sincerity to perservere with integrity"

If he is a conscious entity driven by opulences and whim, how is that not an uncertainty right off the bat?

"lol - on the contrary we run that risk- nitya bandha"

A state of eternal apathy towards God?

"So is god so cheap that he can be beckoned for an appearance by a person who neglects his instruction and even existence - like for instance in some places they have "pray to god" day - and the rest of the year it seems to be "do as I damn well please" - and even then how many of those that pray to god on that day are praying for the purity of self to properly perceive him?"

A great many beg and beg for such things, and receive nothing. But yes, it is rare to find a true devotee of a relgiion ourside of the clergy, but even then, few get anything from God whatsoever, and the ones tha tod, can be rationalized to have gotten nothing at all.

"Just like you see someone else and reciprocate in such manners, so can god - if you can give someone something, why can't god?"

So then you have something from God?

"They arrive at the point of perfection, namely by being conscious of the perfectly perefect, god. - even in normal affairs a doofus can become a PHD by dint of education and training"

So an imperfect being is supposively perfected by this system?

"They enable the spirit to be uncovered - yes"

And if the person does not uncover the spirit through such things?

"interesting - there was a science of weaponry however where weapons would be invested with mantras - of course this is a subtle science, practically extinct now, although you see traces of it visible in tantra and voodoo - BTW I have seen many things including a young child bitten by a cobra on the brink of death revived to life in a matter of 20 minutes by mantra (its common practice for irretrievable sbake bit evictims in remote vilages to be put on rafts on the ganges on the off chance that a tantric may spot them and cure them )- how do you explain that, or any number of phenomena?
Of course this is all just to answer the q of authenticity - I don't advocate that voodoo or tantra is a suitable discipline for the spiritually ambitious - merely that it indicates the common disciplines of an ancient ere"

Much of the magic of India and the Orient revolves around hypnosis. Hypnosis has been shown to be quite capable of many things. They also tend to use drugs and potions of various sorts, many which have been perfected over the centuries enough to treat things as common as say, cobra bites and the like.

But you have personally witnessed an invocation in the form of a mantra cure someone of a snake bite?

"But the point is how do they establish historic and scientific facts if they are not 100% to begin with - what gives science the privledged status to determine authenticity, since it is based on theories that they hold as axiomatic (like the uniformity of time and space cannot be proven - but it is advocated as a theory - and hence astronomy, archeology etc become accepted as credible on this principle)"

The uniformity of time and space is not considered axiomatic so much as there is no evidence at all presented to suggest that the universe was dramatically different in past epochs in regards to natural laws and other such things. Indeed, causality would seem to demand a necesssary homogeny throughout time.

But as to why science has the status necessary for determining such things? Because it deals with the empirical realm in the most reliable way possible. The scientific method is designed for presenting things in light of empirical truth.

Even if science wasn't as good as it is, it still has more proof for its claims than religious books.

"Regardless of the picture - you still have westerners trained in western thought telling how the world is or should be - hence it is post post modernism"

They go out of their way to include all sorts of historians, many of which don't know their ass from their elbow.

"Rational Objective according to western values no doubt?"

In so much as it is secular and without recourse to religious doctrines and such, yes.

"Therefore there is the concept of disciplic succession - whichis kind of integral to what I posted originally about epistemology - it would be proven to fail if people were no longer developing attarction to krishna and instad developing attractiomn to his inferior nature (which admittedly happens from time to time - but not to the extent of rendering the whole system collapsed - ie destroys the appropriate and successful epistemology) "

What would his "inferior nature" be a reference to?

"Where does krishna say that balancing on a cane and the like is evidence of being the spiritual science he periodically comes to re-establish? He is more interested in the living entity reviving their relationship with him in love, and in fact declares in several places that the pursuit of mystic yoga is for the less intelligent"

This is true. Krishna did not say that. But when so degraded is the tradition, how are we to assume that it is not completely lost?

"Doesn't say anything about whether a person is perceiving long term benefit in favour of short term benefit
Maybe you are basing your observations on american christianity - but that's the general symptom of kali yuga - not too intelligent"

No, in all traditions, really. Rarely do we find young, brave, vigorous, succesful people, whom are also religious. Instead, we find old, sick, weak people, far beyond their prime, who probably have had children, et cetera, et cetera, who are interested in religion. It is either that or the person grew up in a highly religious enviroment. When people are at their best, they seem not to care.

"Maybe they are just not looking hard enough - admittedly what you are saying is true - theer are many frauds, but generally that is the way of the world - for everything that exists theer are numerous cheap imitations bandied about for persons who are not willing to pay the proper price for the proper article - the first point is to gather the knowledge for the article one is looking for - that is the best way not to be cheated"

Perhaps indeed I am not looking hard enough, but what does it say about the tradition when it is hard to pick out even one strong example?

"lol - are you saying I am weak?
well even if you are, there are many strong persons in spiritual life
To what extent have you examined the prowess of religionists anyway? "

No, I was not implying you specifically were weak, only that most religious people are. That is to say, the old, the infirm, et cetera, are more likely religious.

But as to my investigations, I have indeed looked into whom the religious are. They are usually old, or poor, or sick. Or they are addicts, or have money trouble, or are thugs or some other such nonsense. But even you have admitted that many whom are religious seek it out when they are old and the like, so clearly you see this is more often so.

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince_James

Does not this imply that God complies with sin?

Not in the sense that he gives it his stamp of approval

With history, we generally have arcaeology and many contemporary accounts to verify things. With scriptures such as the Vedas, we have little else. Similarly, what they present is necessarily absurd, with all sorts of magic and other things going on as a regular course. Moreover, it is of great suspicion that none of these things happen now, and like most religions, the puranas and such come around to talk about how miserable life is, when really, they are simply looking back to a mythic past.

Archeology is incredibly fallible - even in issues of contemporary history it has become clear that who ever wins the war writes history (ask any person who has done a thesis on something related to WW2).
The general principle you seem to be advocating is that if there is a historical accountof something vastly different from our current understanding it is obviously false (despite even vrude archeological evidence that things were vastly different - justconsider the mere fact that if you are examining ancient history it is a given thatyou are studying religion - in the sense that all the excavated communities were centralised around some place of worship - now consider what archeologists would dig up if we suddenly disappeared fromour metropolisis? In other words do you expect that societies that are centralised around principles of economic development over many thousands of years and societies that are centralised around principles of religiousity for many thousands of years would manifest the same symptoms - of course you could easily say no, being highly immersed in the current social paradigm of godlessness, but if you hypothetically accepted that god existed and thus reciprocated with sincere worshippers, what then?

It is a common theme in all religions that everything should happen in the past, because clearly religion does not happen today, and therefore, there would be no way to root it in the present, because everyone would know it is false.

On the contrary religion does happen today - maybe the results are not flourishing so well, due to the current social upheavels of kaliyuga - otherwise why are people maintaining their religious practices in such vast numbers despite being apparently isolated by many hundreds if not thousands of years? What else can be seen to persist for such an era that is composed of merely imagination?

If he is a conscious entity driven by opulences and whim, how is that not an uncertainty right off the bat?

I never said he was driven by opulences - on the contrary being driven by opulences is the characteristic of the conditioned living entity

BG 7.5 Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.

"lol - on the contrary we run that risk- nitya bandha"

A state of eternal apathy towards God?

Yes - technically it is not eternal - but its not like we have an expiry date on when we will officially tire from meddling with the mundane atmosphere

A great many beg and beg for such things, and receive nothing. But yes, it is rare to find a true devotee of a relgiion ourside of the clergy, but even then, few get anything from God whatsoever, and the ones tha tod, can be rationalized to have gotten nothing at all.

What is the evidence that someone has gotten something from god that is valuable? IN otherwords if a person was rich and religious would that indicate successful reciprocation?
On the contrary Iwould saythat there are numerous persons outside the official ecclesiastical ranks who are sincere. It s not like the question god will ask you when you die is "Where you are priest?"

So then you have something from God?

Yes. Why not - in one sense everythingis from god anyway - but besides such things which are given even to atheists, there are somethings that can be personally bestowed by god (obviously it wouldn't be something as mundane as a new car)
One common example is 10.10
To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me.

"They arrive at the point of perfection, namely by being conscious of the perfectly perefect, god. - even in normal affairs a doofus can become a PHD by dint of education and training"

So an imperfect being is supposively perfected by this system?

Yes because they attain their constitutional position as an eternal servant of god - actually its not really a process of attaining but a process of uncovering, but it still requires some training

And if the person does not uncover the spirit through such things?

Then you have happiness in the 8 400 000 species of life in the medium of birth, death, old age and disease

Much of the magic of India and the Orient revolves around hypnosis. Hypnosis has been shown to be quite capable of many things. They also tend to use drugs and potions of various sorts, many which have been perfected over the centuries enough to treat things as common as say, cobra bites and the like.

But you have personally witnessed an invocation in the form of a mantra cure someone of a snake bite?

Yes- its quite common in the village areas of bangladesh and west bengal - but actually all these things are not really spiritual - they are subtle material activities - like for instance scientific medicine can also cure a snake bite too - it just indicates how people can achieve the same results in previous ages without relying on our current scientific paradigms (it also , admittedly ,enables a lot of people to get away with nonsense)- further examples arethe metal pegs that hold the large stones (whichare in themselves mysteries of geography) in inca cities - it has been ascertained that the metal pegs were poured into the grooves of the rocks - current scientifc knowledge of iron smelting cannot actually create mobile metal smelters than could be utilised for recreating such an architectual phenomena. Nowadays such applications (tantra) are usually called upon to acquire the partner of ones dreams (or alternatively get rid of the partner of one's nightmares) - cursing and charming - again , which are entirely useless for spiritual progress

The uniformity of time and space is not considered axiomatic so much as there is no evidence at all presented to suggest that the universe was dramatically different in past epochs in regards to natural laws and other such things. Indeed, causality would seem to demand a necesssary homogeny throughout time.

But as to why science has the status necessary for determining such things? Because it deals with the empirical realm in the most reliable way possible. The scientific method is designed for presenting things in light of empirical truth.

Even if science wasn't as good as it is, it still has more proof for its claims than religious books.

I guess science gets itself into severe problems when it extrapolilates - actually extrapolilation is an unavoidable process of all enquiry, and it works fine for the relative sphere, and is definitely superior to direct perception, but it is highly fallible when dealing with subjects that are beyond our powers of empiricism and direct perception - the assumption of the uniformity of time and space is one such example

What would his "inferior nature" be a reference to?

Name fame adoration - the conviction that I am this body and everything related to it is mine, as opposed to the conviction born of realisation of god's superior nature that "I am eternally the servant of god and have accepted this material existence due to illusion"

This is true. Krishna did not say that. But when so degraded is the tradition, how are we to assume that it is not completely lost?

When the value of religion is assessed by its ability to accommodate our material desires, even in the name of altruism, charity, kindness, benevolence etc - all this is ignorance of some grade or other

No, in all traditions, really. Rarely do we find young, brave, vigorous, succesful people, whom are also religious. Instead, we find old, sick, weak people, far beyond their prime, who probably have had children, et cetera, et cetera, who are interested in religion. It is either that or the person grew up in a highly religious enviroment. When people are at their best, they seem not to care.

Maybe this is true of the contemporary western world, and its avenues of ever increasing influence through out asia - but not everywhere - for instance some times young boys in india run away from home togo to the himalayas to become yogis - admittedly quite a few also go to Mumbai to chance it in the Bollywood film industry - there are also many temples that have large flourishing communities of young monks, between the ages of 20 and 30 (500+)- there are many places in asia that have an ingrained cultural respect for persons practiciing celibacy - for instance they willnot be charged on public transport (they will also be heavily assaulted if it is suspected they are having illicit connections too -lol)- but all this is gradually on the decline due to the attractive glare of materialistic culture.

Perhaps indeed I am not looking hard enough, but what does it say about the tradition when it is hard to pick out even one strong example?

Yes - we have undergone a change of social paradigms

BG 3.21 Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.

No, I was not implying you specifically were weak, only that most religious people are. That is to say, the old, the infirm, et cetera, are more likely religious.

But as to my investigations, I have indeed looked into whom the religious are. They are usually old, or poor, or sick. Or they are addicts, or have money trouble, or are thugs or some other such nonsense. But even you have admitted that many whom are religious seek it out when they are old and the like, so clearly you see this is more often so

Are you talking about religious authorities or religious practioners?
Any fool can claim to be a religious practioner, in the sense that they are noble to the degree that they endeavour to pursue spirituallife, but what of the persons who actually establish the soundness of religion due to their personal behaviour?
Actually this is the prime difference between western societies and eastern ones - I have literally encountered hundreds of persons who I would consider saintly (and I don't just mean persons who agree with my philosophical doctrine - once I briefly met an 80 year old buddhist who came down from the himalayas and who was proudly exhibiting how he was more healthier and strong than me - he lives in freezing high altitude conditions ) - admittedly they are harder to find in western countries because the entire populace tends to be socialised around "vikarmic" principles- but besides this it is an error top judge a sadhu by ones material vision.


"Being situated in his original Kṛṣṇa conscious position, a pure devotee does not identify with the body. Such a devotee should not be seen from a materialistic point of view. Indeed, one should overlook a devotee's having a body born in a low family, a body with a bad complexion, a deformed body, or a diseased or infirm body. According to ordinary vision, such imperfections may seem prominent in the body of a pure devotee, but despite such seeming defects, the body of a pure devotee cannot be polluted. It is exactly like the waters of the Ganges, which sometimes during the rainy season are full of bubbles, foam and mud. The Ganges waters do not become polluted. Those who are advanced in spiritual understanding will bathe in the Ganges without considering the condition of the water."

Actually one sees a saintly person with the ears - in other words you hear what they have to say as a basis for making decisions

 

[Raithere]

But who does the overturning of theories exactly ? Aren't they also established in the field of study?

Well, in 1906 it was a 26 year old Swiss patent clerk, 47 years prior it was an English Naturalist, 193 years before that it was an undistinguished bachelors graduate away from college closed due to plague, and 85 years before it was a young Italian medical student. More often than not the answer is, "No." or as Galileo (my last example) put it, "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual".

by applying the instructions to verify the validity of its claims.

In other words, the results are purely subjective.

The same way you verify the qualifications of a doctor - by examining their practice - numerous indications are given in scripture eg "A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world."

Excellent! I must begin to gather my disciples.

Not sure what you mean by more than one claim - its not restricted to one line of succession - on the contrary it tends to appear more like a tree with many branks connected to the root - in other words the connection is valid if it is connected to the root.

Certainly you are aware that religions and even subsets within a particular religion often disagree with one another. But still you haven't answered my question; how does one verify this succession? Even assuming the veracity of the originating revelation, few religions can demonstrate an unbroken historical succession. How would one be able to tell authentic from forgery (aside, of course, from applying each and every one)?

Maybe you can give me an example - I find it very difficult to believe that people would be trained by throwing them into rooms with bunsen burners when they don't even know what a bunsen burner is.

Sure; take a glass of hot water and stir in a cup of salt. Then leave the glass in a sunny window for a couple of days and describe what you observe. See if you can come up with an explanation as to where the salt went and how it returned.

Of course they're taught how to use one but being taught what a Bunsen burner is and how to use it hardly constitutes the epistemology of science nor does it make one an expert in scientific theory.

Isn't this imperative also theory?
...
Prac and theory go together, but prac is contingent on theory (and prac leads to further theory etc )

Not in science, no. Theory is contingent upon practice or, more accurately, the results of experiment. In science, theory must account for all verifiable results. If the results come up different the theory must change, not the experiment.

The same applications are available there in spiritual life - follow a process and you get a result - it is of utmost importance that one follows without addition or subtraction - otherwise you get a different result

How can you be sure that your application is in error and not that the process is wrong? Why don't you give me an example.

The same thing is given in scripture and numerous scriptural commentaries

Granted I'm not particularly fluent with Hindu scripture so perhaps I've missed it but I'm quite surprised. I find it rare or non-existent in most religious works. Religion often talks about the errors and uncertainties of people (particularly 'other' people) but rarely of its own.

"Sampson slew 10,000 heretics that day with one stoke of his mighty blade. Well, at least that's what his brother Ed told me, I wasn't actually there myself."

"Here's the prayer for good health. In a study of 427 subjects it had an effectiveness of 5% with a margin of error +/- 7%."

who does the peer reviewing? Are they established authorities - in otherwords how relevant is the the peer reviewing of a person outside the established epistemology?

The way the journals today work the initial reviews are done by people knowledgeable in the field though they are not necessarily people of great note. Once published however, critique is open to everyone. If you have a well written, cogent argument against a published work it is quite likely they will publish your critique as well.

On what authority do you make this statement?

You're all wrapped up in authority, aren't you? You do understand that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy? I need no authority, if you disagree prove me wrong. Show me the process whereby religious ideas are rigorously tested and either modified or abandoned if they don't withstand review.

Do you know how to verify the validity of a theistic process?

Personally, I would need to see something revealed as a result of that process that could not have originated otherwise and with enough regularity to be more than coincidence.

You seem to be advocating that with religion you either have to accept everything that goes down in the name of it or reject everything

Not at all. Religions contain many ideas that I find extremely acceptable. I've even kept them a part of my personal philosophy. However, seeing as I refute the main premise religion asserts, I do so for reasons completely different than religious argument provides.

the point is - how one reacts to testimony is determined by one's values

Testimony is notoriously suspect and unreliable evidence. But yes, decisions are always determined by ethics. Your example still falls short for me. Unless you're trying to imply that atheists are atheists because they are immoral.

Which gets back to the general principles you apply to determine that one social structure is an abstraction from another????

Once again, I am not drawing social structures into my explanation, this occurs on an individual level. Religion is obviously social in nature... it is public; the very fact that scripture exists defines it as social because there would be no need to write it down if there was no intention to communicate. Experience however, is not social. It is this I am talking about.

couldn't the anthromorphization of subjects that are not divine be interpreted as an artificial substitute for his existence?

Or it could be because the pixies have cursed us. Do you see the problem? Do you see the difference between my explanation, the one you presented, and the pixie explanation? Given these three explanations, how would we go about determining which is most likely to be correct (which is most valid)? Can we find a way to rule any of them out?

~Raithere

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"Not in the sense that he gives it his stamp of approval"

Isn't that rather like saying "one doesn't approve of gladitorial matches", but then one builds a colliseum specifically to house said games? "I don't apporove, but I'll go let you do as you want".

"Archeology is incredibly fallible - even in issues of contemporary history it has become clear that who ever wins the war writes history (ask any person who has done a thesis on something related to WW2)."

Archaeology tends to look towards the remaining things which show what happened. Moreover, that some historical accounts may be biased is indisputable, and that is why we try to find things from as many sources as possible, and incorporate actual findings from the sights of certain events.

"The general principle you seem to be advocating is that if there is a historical accountof something vastly different from our current understanding it is obviously false (despite even vrude archeological evidence that things were vastly different"

Vastly different? In what way?

"In other words do you expect that societies that are centralised around principles of economic development over many thousands of years and societies that are centralised around principles of religiousity for many thousands of years would manifest the same symptoms - of course you could easily say no, being highly immersed in the current social paradigm of godlessness, but if you hypothetically accepted that god existed and thus reciprocated with sincere worshippers, what then?"

Considering that the myths and stories of past ages, where God was present, invariably speaks about man's propensity to fall into his current state, and the inevitability of that result, then no, I do not think there'd be any difference. That i sto say, it seems the natural state of man is as it is now, and this is bolstered by religious texts always stressing that man is essentially fated for this situation because of it.

"On the contrary religion does happen today - maybe the results are not flourishing so well, due to the current social upheavels of kaliyuga - otherwise why are people maintaining their religious practices in such vast numbers despite being apparently isolated by many hundreds if not thousands of years? What else can be seen to persist for such an era that is composed of merely imagination?"

That man is comforted by stories, thinks that magic and prayers can bring physical results, and that his culture demands that he participate in all sorts of religiously-themed things, does not a reality of God make. That is to say, human beings are prone to the making of myths and the anthromorphizing of natural forces, as well as fearful of death. Considering most people do not even know the first thing about philosophy nor science, it is not surprising that they are convinced of claims for such and such Gods.

"I never said he was driven by opulences - on the contrary being driven by opulences is the characteristic of the conditioned living entity

BG 7.5 Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna, there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature."

So God is "above" his opulences?

"Yes - technically it is not eternal - but its not like we have an expiry date on when we will officially tire from meddling with the mundane atmosphere"

And God could not have the reverse? An indefinite period of apathy towards man?

"What is the evidence that someone has gotten something from god that is valuable? IN otherwords if a person was rich and religious would that indicate successful reciprocation?"

If they were rich without effort, yes. If rich with human effort, no. Consider the story of Alladin. He finds a genie and gets three wishes. That would be a great example of a supernatural cause to something.

"On the contrary Iwould saythat there are numerous persons outside the official ecclesiastical ranks who are sincere. It s not like the question god will ask you when you die is "Where you are priest?""

The devotion of the layman seems to be lacking compared to those amongst clergy, specifically, monastics. When you have dual-loyalities to a life outside of something, it is difficult to pursue that with the fullest extent of one's time. Not many men who own a business, have a wife and children, have a drink with friends at the bar, et cetera, have the time to be on the same spiritual level as a mountain hermit.

"One common example is 10.10
To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me."

Well, this was a bit different than what I was going at. But let me ask you this:

Do you have anything equivalent to the (not listed in quotes for space reason) car you mentioned? That is to say, have you anything tangible to say "wow, God gave me this"?

"Yes because they attain their constitutional position as an eternal servant of god - actually its not really a process of attaining but a process of uncovering, but it still requires some training"

Question: What is entailed in being a "servant of God"?

"Then you have happiness in the 8 400 000 species of life in the medium of birth, death, old age and disease"

Clearly then, many sages have not attained to this spirit level through spirit practices, and just continue on in normal things?

"Yes- its quite common in the village areas of bangladesh and west bengal"

Do you know where a person might witness such a thing specifically? Like, have you knowledge of a specific tantric that can do such things? For instance, might he be able to cure an animal, so that one could bring in a cobra, have the cobra bite the animal, and then have that animal recover, though he would normally die? That is, I would like to test these methods.

"further examples arethe metal pegs that hold the large stones (whichare in themselves mysteries of geography) in inca cities - it has been ascertained that the metal pegs were poured into the grooves of the rocks - current scientifc knowledge of iron smelting cannot actually create mobile metal smelters than could be utilised for recreating such an architectual phenomena."

The large stone walls? Or are you referencing something else? Similarly, are you claiming they used "magic" for this?

"I guess science gets itself into severe problems when it extrapolilates - actually extrapolilation is an unavoidable process of all enquiry, and it works fine for the relative sphere, and is definitely superior to direct perception, but it is highly fallible when dealing with subjects that are beyond our powers of empiricism and direct perception - the assumption of the uniformity of time and space is one such example"

Is it so? Because we have even viewed the past fifteen-billion years ago (through the Hubble Deep Field) and everything seems like it always has been.

"Name fame adoration - the conviction that I am this body and everything related to it is mine, as opposed to the conviction born of realisation of god's superior nature that "I am eternally the servant of god and have accepted this material existence due to illusion""

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were referencing Krishna's inferior nature, possibly in relation to him having sex with all the cowgirls.

"When the value of religion is assessed by its ability to accommodate our material desires, even in the name of altruism, charity, kindness, benevolence etc - all this is ignorance of some grade or other"

And is not this the present state of much of the world today?

"Maybe this is true of the contemporary western world, and its avenues of ever increasing influence through out asia - but not everywhere - for instance some times young boys in india run away from home togo to the himalayas to become yogis - admittedly quite a few also go to Mumbai to chance it in the Bollywood film industry - there are also many temples that have large flourishing communities of young monks, between the ages of 20 and 30 (500+)- there are many places in asia that have an ingrained cultural respect for persons practiciing celibacy - for instance they willnot be charged on public transport (they will also be heavily assaulted if it is suspected they are having illicit connections too -lol)- but all this is gradually on the decline due to the attractive glare of materialistic culture. "

Considering they grew up in an extremely religious culture, it isn't surprising that some youths go away to become yogis. Yet at the same time, the yogi is also known as a great wizard, so I would imagine that at least some of them go off to the himalayas.

"BG 3.21 Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues."

Yet why do we no longer find these great men who are not religious? What is the cause of this disinterest amongst men of respect and honour?

"Are you talking about religious authorities or religious practioners?"

Serious religious practitioners, beyond the common "oh yes, I believe in God" types.

"Actually this is the prime difference between western societies and eastern ones - I have literally encountered hundreds of persons who I would consider saintly (and I don't just mean persons who agree with my philosophical doctrine - once I briefly met an 80 year old buddhist who came down from the himalayas and who was proudly exhibiting how he was more healthier and strong than me - he lives in freezing high altitude conditions )"

Have you met many others like this?

"admittedly they are harder to find in western countries because the entire populace tends to be socialised around "vikarmic" principles- but besides this it is an error top judge a sadhu by ones material vision."

If they cannot even tend to their bodies and their lives, why should one follow them? Indeed, could not that weakness and other such things, even be the cause of their religiousness, one must wonder? And if so, is it not rather irrational if one does not have such a body, to follow it?

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince_James

Isn't that rather like saying "one doesn't approve of gladitorial matches", but then one builds a colliseum specifically to house said games? "I don't apporove, but I'll go let you do as you want".

Soif I build a building and people decide to have gladitorial battles in there - despite me going to great extents to make it clear that I don't want these fights going on in there, what then - inotherwords if a person decides to be sinful in this world, which they have th eopportunity to do, despite god being very clear that is not what he impressed by, where does the onus of responsibility lie?

"The general principle you seem to be advocating is that if there is a historical accountof something vastly different from our current understanding it is obviously false (despite even vrude archeological evidence that things were vastly different"

Vastly different? In what way?

socially, culturally - even technologically

Considering that the myths and stories of past ages, where God was present, invariably speaks about man's propensity to fall into his current state,

In otherwords you can't even theoretically leave the premise you work on as stated above - if people were naturally more spiritually endowed than our current fine pious examples of humanity, would the differences merely account to "mythical accounts" - inotherwords are you saying that the character of a persons, when transformed on a social scale of communities and populations, bears no effect on the application or even parameters of their knowledge?

That man is comforted by stories, thinks that magic and prayers can bring physical results, and that his culture demands that he participate in all sorts of religiously-themed things, does not a reality of God make. That is to say, human beings are prone to the making of myths and the anthromorphizing of natural forces, as well as fearful of death. Considering most people do not even know the first thing about philosophy nor science, it is not surprising that they are convinced of claims for such and such Gods.

So inotherwords there is no philosophy in religion? Obviously we are not reading the same books

So God is "above" his opulences?

yes - so are you too - if you are rich and lose all your money you still continue to exist - a person may commit suicide out of depression due to attachment to the opulence, but that is illusion

And God could not have the reverse? An indefinite period of apathy towards man?

No - what evidence is there that he should?

"What is the evidence that someone has gotten something from god that is valuable? IN otherwords if a person was rich and religious would that indicate successful reciprocation?"

If they were rich without effort, yes. If rich with human effort, no. Consider the story of Alladin. He finds a genie and gets three wishes. That would be a great example of a supernatural cause to something.

If an atheist wins the lotto, then what?

The devotion of the layman seems to be lacking compared to those amongst clergy, specifically, monastics. When you have dual-loyalities to a life outside of something, it is difficult to pursue that with the fullest extent of one's time. Not many men who own a business, have a wife and children, have a drink with friends at the bar, et cetera, have the time to be on the same spiritual level as a mountain hermit.

This is all external vision

Well, this was a bit different than what I was going at. But let me ask you this:

Do you have anything equivalent to the (not listed in quotes for space reason) car you mentioned? That is to say, have you anything tangible to say "wow, God gave me this"?

two ways to answer this
1) establish how anyone gets a car that is not received from god (in otherwords does the receivership of something material, like a car, require god's personal appearance - for eg - suppose you need a passport application form, is it appropriate to requestthe president to fetch one for you on his way to the white house, even if you knew him personally?
2) personally receiving things from god is something that happens uncommonly on the perfectional stage of spiritual existence amongst millions of such perfected persons - its not something that tends to be visible between the reciprocations of god and some clod (like myself) who is still struggling to determine proper attachment to him

Question: What is entailed in being a "servant of God"?

God is the master - what he wants I do - of course this sounds like a direction for misery by material vision , but then we only have experience of material masters - like for instance most have us have never had a boss that is simply happy and completely satisfied with us just to watch us eat nice food.

Clearly then, many sages have not attained to this spirit level through spirit practices, and just continue on in normal things?

Not sure what your angle is????

The large stone walls? Or are you referencing something else? Similarly, are you claiming they used "magic" for this?

All I can say is that they obviously had reference to some highly technical means for their architecture - and such references can be found in ancient vedic scriptures

Is it so? Because we have even viewed the past fifteen-billion years ago (through the Hubble Deep Field) and everything seems like it always has been.

assuming there is a uniformity of time and space,which would make the readings accurate

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were referencing Krishna's inferior nature, possibly in relation to him having sex with all the cowgirls.

lol - that is your inferior nature - actually what you are referencing is a desciption in the tenth canto of SB - for a person who is not at least theoretically aware of the implications of gross sinful sexual life and thus has a determination otherwise, it is not reccomended that one not read past the second canto, lest they make statements like the above.

And is not this the present state of much of the world today?

yes

"BG 3.21 Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues."

Yet why do we no longer find these great men who are not religious? What is the cause of this disinterest amongst men of respect and honour?

Lack of intelligence to know what are the qualifications of a great person - eg rock -n- roll wrestlers, a rock singer who is a drug addict - a movie actress who has gone through more partners than you have underwear etc etc

Have you met many others like this?

yes

"admittedly they are harder to find in western countries because the entire populace tends to be socialised around "vikarmic" principles- but besides this it is an error top judge a sadhu by ones material vision."

If they cannot even tend to their bodies and their lives, why should one follow them? Indeed, could not that weakness and other such things, even be the cause of their religiousness, one must wonder? And if so, is it not rather irrational if one does not have such a body, to follow it?

They're not tending totheir lives? Iwould saythat a person who works 12 hours a day is not tending to their life, because they will probably die 40 years earlierthan they were supposed to.
A sadhus is not a derelict - its a saintly person who has actually no taste for material things due to the higher state of experiencing a taste for spiritual things (now I guess that brings an image to your mind of fat african american woman jumping up in down in some churchin the south - sigh-)

 

[lightgigantic]

~Raithere

Well, in 1906 it was a 26 year old Swiss patent clerk, 47 years prior it was an English Naturalist, 193 years before that it was an undistinguished bachelors graduate away from college closed due to plague, and 85 years before it was a young Italian medical student. More often than not the answer is, "No." or as Galileo (my last example) put it, "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual".

So in otherwords the patent clerk new nothing but patenting before they discovered e=mc2? Inotherwords did these persons start from a point of zero knowledge about science as it was currently established before they overturned the dominant paradigms of the age? Even humble reasoning requires an epistemology to operate out of, particularly in regard to subtle knowledge.

“ by applying the instructions to verify the validity of its claims. ”

In other words, the results are purely subjective.

So when you want to test the validity of a scientific claim by carrying out the experiment to objectively perceive it, it is subjective?

Excellent! I must begin to gather my disciples.

Good luck. Hope you can keep your pants on when all the young blonds start to throng around you

Certainly you are aware that religions and even subsets within a particular religion often disagree with one another. But still you haven't answered my question; how does one verify this succession? Even assuming the veracity of the originating revelation, few religions can demonstrate an unbroken historical succession.

then few are properly qualified to establish epistemology - there is a distinct connection between the reliability of the disciplic succession and the reliability of its teachings - as for the differences between sects, that requires an understanding of what is a detail and what is a principle (something atheists tend to get snagged on all the time when they make a pretense of studying scripture)

How would one be able to tell authentic from forgery (aside, of course, from applying each and every one)?

The same way one detects any other forgery - by having knowledge of the qualities that determines truth from falsity - for instance if a religion advocates that you can become god it can immediately be dismissed

Sure; take a glass of hot water and stir in a cup of salt. Then leave the glass in a sunny window for a couple of days and describe what you observe. See if you can come up with an explanation as to where the salt went and how it returned.

So if you gave this experiment to a group of 5 year olds from the amazon jungles, as opposed to persons who are already established in the epistemology of evaporation and salt, what would they say?

Of course they're taught how to use one but being taught what a Bunsen burner is and how to use it hardly constitutes the epistemology of science nor does it make one an expert in scientific theory.

If one cannot use a bunsen burner without training what makes you think one can venture into scientific claims, which utilises bunsen burners, without training?

“ Isn't this imperative also theory?
...
Prac and theory go together, but prac is contingent on theory (and prac leads to further theory etc ) ”

Not in science, no. Theory is contingent upon practice or, more accurately, the results of experiment. In science, theory must account for all verifiable results. If the results come up different the theory must change, not the experiment.

How does one gather evidence without applying an epistemology for gathering evidence? What does the binary print out from a blood test, or even a break down of its chemical constituients, indicate to a person who doesn't know the first theoretical thing about chemical constituents of human blood?

“ The same applications are available there in spiritual life - follow a process and you get a result - it is of utmost importance that one follows without addition or subtraction - otherwise you get a different result ”

How can you be sure that your application is in error and not that the process is wrong? Why don't you give me an example.

Here's a simple example from Srimad Bhagavatm 11.2.42

Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things — these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

Granted I'm not particularly fluent with Hindu scripture so perhaps I've missed it but I'm quite surprised. I find it rare or non-existent in most religious works. Religion often talks about the errors and uncertainties of people (particularly 'other' people) but rarely of its own.

"Sampson slew 10,000 heretics that day with one stoke of his mighty blade. Well, at least that's what his brother Ed told me, I wasn't actually there myself."

Personally I also have trouble with the one stroke bit

"Here's the prayer for good health. In a study of 427 subjects it had an effectiveness of 5% with a margin of error +/- 7%."

I would argue that praying to god and monitoring the results does not indicate anything unless one also examines the persons who are doing the praying - in other words praying to god for things is not intrinsic to the correct epistemology for perceiving him - this is the type of false teaching advocatde by cheap christian types - I have read an interview with Townes (christian scientist who helped pioneer the laser cooling of atoms) who said he abhorred the notion of praying to god for material things, even for success in his scientific experiments - basically it is obvious to any serious spiritual practionerthat it undermines the precept that god is the master and we are the servant (whichis in itself an unattractive proposal to a person who's only experience of masters are the material variety ....)

The way the journals today work the initial reviews are done by people knowledgeable in the field though they are not necessarily people of great note. Once published however, critique is open to everyone. If you have a well written, cogent argument against a published work it is quite likely they will publish your critique as well.

So its obvious that qualification is a prime factor

You're all wrapped up in authority, aren't you? You do understand that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy? I need no authority, if you disagree prove me wrong. Show me the process whereby religious ideas are rigorously tested and either modified or abandoned if they don't withstand review.

Peer reviewing doesn't rely on authority? Like if I write a critique on ozone thinning refering to the "Speeglefintheisis of Tropopseudo militant Insurgents" wouldn't you check my resume?
For instance when you say "No theology even passes the first round of verification required for even the most hypothetical of scientific results" on what authority do you say that? It gets more suspect when you answer the next question ...

“ Do you know how to verify the validity of a theistic process? ”

Personally, I would need to see something revealed as a result of that process that could not have originated otherwise and with enough regularity to be more than coincidence.

It just requires a standard yes/no response.
Try answering these
Do you know how to verify the validity of safety shutdown features in nuclear reactors?
Do you know how to carry out the required safety checks for space shuttle 7 days before blast of?
Do you know how to translate balinese into japanese?
Do you know how to verify the validity of a theistic process?

They are all very specific and require a specific answer

“ the point is - how one reacts to testimony is determined by one's values ”

Testimony is notoriously suspect and unreliable evidence. But yes, decisions are always determined by ethics. Your example still falls short for me. Unless you're trying to imply that atheists are atheists because they are immoral.

I am implying atheists are atheists because they do not perceive the value in applying the process to perceive god.

“ Which gets back to the general principles you apply to determine that one social structure is an abstraction from another???? ”

Once again, I am not drawing social structures into my explanation, this occurs on an individual level. Religion is obviously social in nature... it is public; the very fact that scripture exists defines it as social because there would be no need to write it down if there was no intention to communicate. Experience however, is not social. It is this I am talking about.

Science also has its social bodies too - is science then a social construct - inotherwords just because something is visible in a social framework, doesn't mean it was caused by a social framework

“ couldn't the anthromorphization of subjects that are not divine be interpreted as an artificial substitute for his existence? ”

Or it could be because the pixies have cursed us. Do you see the problem? Do you see the difference between my explanation, the one you presented, and the pixie explanation? Given these three explanations, how would we go about determining which is most likely to be correct (which is most valid)? Can we find a way to rule any of them out?

Actually my point was that tentative suggestions based on evidence are very flexible - I didn't expect this tentative suggestion to make you believe anything, because tentative suggestions don't have that potency. Instead Iwas trying to ndicate how you can draw one tentative suggestion, I can draw another, and you can draw a third, which frankly seems a bit wild.

From here you are shifting to another tentative suggestion which leads down the alley of evidence of god and the hackneyed FSM etc etc - my point however was to illustrate that tentative suggestions are just that - tentative - and no doubt the fluid substance of debate sincethey are so flexible - actual evidence however, requires the application of epistemology,otherwise one can spend eternity with tentative suggestions

 

[KennyJC]

Actually I agree with your statement, except the message you put in brackets, which isn't actually inferred on the thread (but perhaps indicates why the theistic epistemology never worked for you)

So scripture should not be interpreted at all but accepted as being literal?

Physics also has faith as a premise for those outside the successful application of epistemology

a) Atoms, molecules and electrons exist

and

b) books about them are true

Yes but the subject of physics is based purely on the materialist perspective. So because it makes observation based on the materlial nature of the universe, faith is not required, but education.

So whilst I can go study physics for 10 years and and conclude that atoms, molecules and electrons exist based on evidence... How could I therefor read every word of whatever scripture and conclude that God exists based on evidence?