Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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?

Not according to the first point I raise in the opening of this thread

“ 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.

and the material perspective is granted by the successful application of epistemology

So because it makes observation based on the materlial nature of the universe, faith is not required, but education.

exactly - education is also required for understanding god

So whilst I can go study physics for 10 years and and conclude that atoms, molecules and electrons exist based on evidence...

assuming you go to a place that actually teaches you the correct epistemology for such things

How could I therefor read every word of whatever scripture and conclude that God exists based on evidence?

If your average 7 year old picks up a PHD thesis on physics what can he understand? Not to say that a 7 year old can not be taught something about physics, but such teaching is fully dependant on a qualified teacher and not just books

 

[KennyJC]

exactly - education is also required for understanding god

Just as education is required for understanding how the position of the planets and stars affects our personal life and wether or not we will meet a tall dark and handsome lover?

Since science can often reply to demands such as "prove it", I await to see how you can prove the existence of God, or the notion that the position of stars can tell you your future.

If you can not answer my "prove it" demands, then dump your religion into the superstitious pile and stop parallelling science and religion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Just as education is required for understanding how the position of the planets and stars affects our personal life and wether or not we will meet a tall dark and handsome lover?

Since science can often reply to demands such as "prove it", I await to see how you can prove the existence of God, or the notion that the position of stars can tell you your future.

If you can not answer my "prove it" demands, then dump your religion into the superstitious pile and stop parallelling science and religion.

Here is something anecdotal - when eistein discovered something in outer space that seemed to confirm his theory of relativity it was investigated by the royal british astronomy society (at that time britain was the most powerful country in the world, and the society was highly credible, with links back to newton etc). The head speaker for the society made a press release that this was the most important discovery of the century - when the news reporters asked what it was that he had discovered the speaker was adamant that there was no way for the general public to understand the exact nature of what einstein had discovered - in other words the ontological nature of einsteins discovery was fully dependant on the epistemology of astronomy - persons who had no insight into the epistemology had no insight into the ontology - and this accepted as good science.

If you don't have the epistemological framework to perceive evidence of proof what is the point?



On top of this, if you accepted something as proof of god that is not proof of god I could cheat you

 

[KennyJC]

I had a feeling you would ignore my piece on Astrology.

The problem with your analogies comparing science to that of religion, is that science is a succession of theories supported by evidence as anybody who picks up a book on astronomy can see. It is not in the business of making a far-fetched claim and not bothering to state why it knows such a thing. The Bible on the other hand... Putting it blunty, you have to be gullible.

 

[Raithere]

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.

Of course these individuals had knowledge of the subject, one cannot advance a field without having an understanding of it's present state. But what we are discussing is "authority" and none of these individuals had any particular "authority" in their field. There were not gurus, they were not recognized leaders in their field; they were essentially unknown.

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

No, the results are objective in science. If I drop a musket ball and a cannon ball from a roof top in front of a crowd everyone can perceive the outcome.

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)

You're not saying anything new here nor are you answering my question. How does one verify this succession?

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

And those qualities are? How do you know that you cannot become god? How do you know that you aren't already god?

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?

Probably something quite different. But here's the difference, we don't stop at hypothesis. Once we've made a hypothesis we test it. Let's say the 5 year olds (from wherever) hypothesize that it's magic; that the salt disappears from existence and then reappears later. We can test that hypothesis to see if its true.

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?

Are you having trouble tracking our conversation or are you deliberately changing the subject? I ask because I have to keep refocusing your replies. My point was, "Epistemology is not necessary for perception or experience, only for belief."

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?

Okay, let's go through this in more detail.

Epistemology is an attempt to determine what knowledge is and how is can be acquired, it is an attempt to logically explain what we can know and how we can know it.

However, perception and experience are precedent to Epistemology. This is by logical necessity, for if one had no experience and no perception there would be nothing from which one could begin to build an epistemic position. Epistemology is not necessary for perception or experience. If it were as you are attempting to argue, that one need possess an epistemological position first we could never experience anything.

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.

Okay. You've given me the expected result but not the process. How does one take shelter of the "Supreme Personality of Godhead"?

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

If we monitor properly it wouldn't make a difference. If we have a set of theists using the proper application of theism and another set of theists using an erroneous application we should observe a difference. We can use atheists as the control set. If we notice a difference then we have established an effect as well as identified the correct application.

This would go an extremely long way in convincing many atheists that we might need to reconsider the issue. The problem is that this has been done in many different ways and using many different measures and no effects can be found. None. Nada. Zilch.

So its obvious that qualification is a prime factor

No. Apparently you missed the part where anyone can present a critique.

Peer reviewing doesn't rely on authority?

No, it doesn't. Laymen can present articles for publication and layman can critique them. This doesn't mean that any piece of garbage will be published but that it is the work that is examined, not the person submitting it. For example, recently there was an 11 year old school girl who had her science project published. Her work was rigorous enough that it withstood the scrutiny of professionals. That professionals are typically chosen to review submissions is merely a matter of expediency, not one of authority.

It just requires a standard yes/no response.

Yes. I even described it for you.

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

Ah, but many of us have. I have put many years into attempting to perceive / understand the truth of god and within religion. The problem is that in the process of distilling the truth out of religion god became one of the evaporates.

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

I'm tired of repeating myself. Go back and re-read what I have been saying. Let me know when you understand it.

Actually my point was that tentative suggestions based on evidence are very flexible

What you call a "tentative suggestion" is more properly termed a hypothesis. All hypotheses are not equal. Again, the question is, "How would we go about determining which is or is most likely to be correct?"

~Raithere

 

[Satyr]

I wonder how long it will take before some people realize that talking to a religiously infected mind is like trying to convince a drowning man to let go of his inflatable raft and swim on his own.

He isn’t gonna budge.
His entire psychological well-being is tied up in this myth.
It needs it.

There is no reason or logic to need. It’s all consuming.

 

[Raithere]

The head speaker for the society made a press release that this was the most important discovery of the century - when the news reporters asked what it was that he had discovered the speaker was adamant that there was no way for the general public to understand the exact nature of what einstein had discovered - in other words the ontological nature of einsteins discovery was fully dependant on the epistemology of astronomy - persons who had no insight into the epistemology had no insight into the ontology - and this accepted as good science.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Understanding is not dependent upon epistemology. It is a matter of semantics. Quite frankly, I don't think you know what epistemology is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

As an aside, I think your anecdote is a myth. Nowhere can I find the extended statement you present and also seeing as newspapers all over the world described and explained the discovery to the general public the next day the statement would have been demonstrably false in any case:

The Brazilian plates were developed and measured later, and Einstein himself didn't get confirmation until late October. The following month a packed joint meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society made the news public. The president of the Royal Society, J J Thomson, described the general theory as "the greatest discovery in connection with gravitation since Newton . . . Our conceptions of the fabric of the universe must be fundamentally altered."

The next day, the Times reported the meeting and summarised the theory under the heading "Space warped", launching a torrent of publicity that engulfed Einstein for the rest of his life. Within a year, more than 100 books had been written on the subject; prizes were offered for the best explanation; lecturers and discussion groups even in small villages grappled with it; an impresario tried to book Einstein for a run at the London Palladium. Endless jokes and rhymes were coined, such as the limerick: " There was a young lady called Bright/whose speed was much faster than light./She went out one day/in a relative way/and came back the previous night."
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908090012

http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25350-1886986_3,00.html
http://www.edu-observatory.org/eo/bkr/bkr.94.06

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

I wonder how long it will take before some people realize that talking to a religiously infected mind is like trying to convince a drowning man to let go of his inflatable raft and swim on his own.

He isn’t gonna budge.
His entire psychological well-being is tied up in this myth.
It needs it.

There is no reason or logic to need. It’s all consuming.

Of course.

It's kind of like working a cross-word puzzle. You're not accomplishing anything and there's not really any point to it.
But the exercise is fun none-the-less. And hey, sometimes you even get to learn a new word.



~Raithere

 

[Satyr]

Of course.

It's kind of like working a cross-word puzzle. You're not accomplishing anything and there's not really any point to it.
But the exercise is fun none-the-less. And hey, sometimes you even get to learn a new word.



~Raithere

Yeah, he taught me the word ‘epistemology’.
It seems to be an important part of his delusion. Proof, in his mind, that he’s actually being reasonable because he’s using words of reason.

Have fun punching the wall.
I’ve got more entertaining things to attend to…like watching my fingernails grow.

 

[Godless]

It seems to be an important part of his delusion. Proof, in his mind, that he’s actually being reasonable because he’s using words of reason.

Don't forget his other favorite word. "Ontology"

But you got to admire his zeal, to try to reason with the unreason, to try and make logic, out of the illogical, heck if he be quoting the bible, every post he made, it be boring as hell, at least he is trying to stand on his own warped little head. This guy could be a strong debater if he could be turned to the "bright" side.

Godless

 

[Prince_James]

lightgigantic:

"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?"

God, knowing such would happen, and knowing that the sinner needs a medium to sin, is responsible. If you give a murderer a knife in full knowledge that he will murder, how is one not responsible for his acts in part?

"socially, culturally - even technologically"

What archaeological evidence is there of this?

"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?"

It may indeed have an effect on the application and parameters of their knowledge, but this effect would most likely result in them living as primitives. What is the ultimate example of asceticism: A mud-bespeckled, naked mystic, covered in ash, on the side of some back road.

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

Some religions have more philosophy the others, but salting meat does not turn that meat into salt.

"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"

So then God is ambivalent to his own majesty?

"No - what evidence is there that he should?"

Whatever would he gain from an interaction? He is all ready sufficient.

"If an atheist wins the lotto, then what?"

Luck. Great luck, in fact.

"This is all external vision"

Yes? Then why are these people not devoted enough to pursue the monastic path?

"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?"

Technically, the president could order his aids to get you a passport on a whim. But no, usually one would go to the appropriate areas for such, but considering God can do as he pleases, this seems rather ridiculous to assume that God must go through "the proper avenues". If God so wished, he could take dog excrement and before he said Slim-Slim-Salabim, it'd be a Jaguar.

But no, lacking God's appearance, there is no reason to say God is still the facillitator of such a thing, anymore than I was the reason you had supper tonight.

"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"

Do you know of any specific example of someone which did get something material from God which was such a perfected person? Some swami, for instance?

"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."

So God is the master which tells us to have supreme joy, or some such things?

"Not sure what your angle is????"

That even a sage is subject to the cycle of rebirth if his spirit-practices fail, yes?

"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 "

Using mantras and such stuff? Or other means? However, could not they simply have ingenious ways of doing stuff? For I do not necessarily see the need for anything but a highly inventive means of transporting molten metal.

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

The experimental and observational data seems to accord with such.

"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."

Well the messages are pretty clear. He...sleeps with an entire village worth of girls.

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



yes"

Then is not the yogic tradition possibly dissolved?

"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"

Or perhaps they simply realize the futileness of anything but?

"“ Have you met many others like this? ”


yes"

Might you share some other stories?

"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."

Most look emancipated, filthy, and worthless. They appear closer to the homeless than to a saint. They have nothing of civilization about hem.

"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-) "

Ha ha! No. That was -hilarious-, though.

But what worth is there to be found in such a distaste for the material world we so apart of?

 

[lightgigantic]

~Raithere

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Understanding is not dependent upon epistemology. It is a matter of semantics. Quite frankly, I don't think you know what epistemology is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

so quotes like

"In other words, epistemology addresses the questions, "What is knowledge?" "How is knowledge acquired?" and, "What do people know?" "

warrants writing "wrong" three times when I say that knowledge, particularly knowledge that is subtle (like science and religion), is dependant on specialised training - and that spcialised training is an inseperable part of the epistemology of these fields?

As an aside, I think your anecdote is a myth. Nowhere can I find the extended statement

You may be required to research the reference section of any library that has the journals of the royal astronomy society.

you present and also seeing as newspapers all over the world described and explained the discovery to the general public the next day the statement would have been demonstrably false in any case:



http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25350-1886986_3,00.html
http://www.edu-observatory.org/eo/bkr/bkr.94.06

But do these discusions/ jokes and newspaper articles explain what einstein actually discovered in outerspace, which is the original premise for the anecdote, or are they merely presenting the logical ramifications of his findings?
Do these joke tellers actually have an understanding of the epistemological principles that einstein developed to establish his conclusions, or do they merely have an angle on his conclusion? (the later would amount to understanding on faith, at least from the view of the joke tellers, don't you think?)

In otherwords its not unusual for a person outside the epistemological processes of knowledge to come to the point of knowledge by faith - and if a person ressolves to reject such faith they have no option but to apply the relevant epistemology to determine the validity of the claims - and if they refuse to do that then they merely offer opinions born of recalcitrance

On top of this, the evidence you have provided, that people started joking about the speed of light and its relevance to time, can also be used to confirm my original premise that without an epistemological basis there is no question of approaching truths, even very important truths that may only be perceptable to persons who have applied the relevant epistemology,

 

[lightgigantic]

Prince James

God, knowing such would happen, and knowing that the sinner needs a medium to sin, is responsible. If you give a murderer a knife in full knowledge that he will murder, how is one not responsible for his acts in part?

So whats the alternative - I mean wouldn't it make sense to put a person who is hell bent on doing the wrong thing in an environment where they suffer greatly for the performance of such deeds (ie th e material world, complete with material heavens and hells), where they can finally work out how to utilise their free will correctly? How else would you establish proper ettiquette in something that has free will? By force?

It may indeed have an effect on the application and parameters of their knowledge, but this effect would most likely result in them living as primitives. What is the ultimate example of asceticism: A mud-bespeckled, naked mystic, covered in ash, on the side of some back road.

living as primitives? So with our level of advancement, where a women is encouraged to kill her own child in the womb due the economic impossibility of raising it (something a tiger in the jungle doesn't even do) makes us more advanced?
I could ask more egs to the list but I think you have to qualify the word primitive, more than having a bit of mud on you - even if you want to use that definition NYC wouldn't be advanced because if you spend 4 hours in the outside traffic you will get covered in exhaust fume grime

So then God is ambivalent to his own majesty?

either that or our mundane concepts of majesty and opulence are meagre

"No - what evidence is there that he should?"

Whatever would he gain from an interaction? He is all ready sufficient.

what would he gain by not reciprocating?

"If an atheist wins the lotto, then what?"

Luck. Great luck, in fact.

I think you missed the point that if all opulences are granted by god, some are considered inferior and some are considered superior - like for instance even if you win the lotto, life will still be a struggle - in fact life will probably be more of a struggle - did you know that when a person wins the lotto in the states they have to sign a contract that prevents them from suing the lotto company for damages due to winning?

"This is all external vision"

Yes? Then why are these people not devoted enough to pursue the monastic path?

Where is it advocated that one should adopt the monastic path? There are heaps of instructions that one should adopt the correct path to ones material nature (ie that one should surrender to god despite whatever station of life one is in)

Technically, the president could order his aids to get you a passport on a whim.

In other words he would relegate the duty to some inferior personality in that department - Just because god controls everything doesn't mean he is required to make a personal appearance for every incident.

But no, usually one would go to the appropriate areas for such, but considering God can do as he pleases, this seems rather ridiculous to assume that God must go through "the proper avenues". If God so wished, he could take dog excrement and before he said Slim-Slim-Salabim, it'd be a Jaguar.

For what ends? To thrill the less intelligent? It certainly wouldn't make people more attracted to the idea of serving god bereft of personal material desire and ambition - on the contrary the chanels for spiritual life with get clogged up with even a higher percentage of miscreants

But no, lacking God's appearance, there is no reason to say God is still the facillitator of such a thing, anymore than I was the reason you had supper tonight.

Actually god was related to you eating your meal - it just takes dystentry or a famine for you to miss out - in other words even your eating is dependant on causes outside your ability to control.

Do you know of any specific example of someone which did get something material from God which was such a perfected person? Some swami, for instance?

Yes there are incidents - there are also many numerous more incidents of people relying on mystic yoga (which is not intrinsically theistic) or even sleight of hand (which is even less theistic) to fool people, so such "miracles" are only for inspiring the less intelligent - like for instance from jesus's plethora of miracles we can understand that he was preaching to people who were thick

So God is the master which tells us to have supreme joy, or some such things?

Actually he reveals to us how to enjoy - the problem is that we think we are already qualified in this department and just require some more money, beauty, prestige etc to complete the equation of happiness, which is actually the essence of our predicament in illusion

"Not sure what your angle is????"

That even a sage is subject to the cycle of rebirth if his spirit-practices fail, yes?

Yes, although if a person who has amassed spiritual credits does not lose them at death - for instance if I am a successful artist (material qualification) I lose that when I die, but if I am 1% spiritual, next life I start at 2% - so when a spiritualist tends not to suffer like an ordinary gross materialist - at the very least they are commonly awarded at least the human form of life next

"What is the destination of the man of faith who does not persevere, who in the beginning takes to the process of self-realization but who later desists due to worldly-mindedness and thus does not attain perfection in mysticism?" (Bg. 6.37

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Son of Pṛthā, a transcendentalist engaged in auspicious activities does not meet with destruction either in this world or in the spiritual world; one who does good, My friend, is never overcome by evil.

BG 6.41: The unsuccessful yogī, after many, many years of enjoyment on the planets of the pious living entities, is born into a family of righteous people, or into a family of rich aristocracy.

BG 6.42: Or [if unsuccessful after long practice of yoga] he takes his birth in a family of transcendentalists who are surely great in wisdom. Certainly, such a birth is rare in this world.

due to our misfortune, of course when we hear such things we tend to try and calculate how much is the bare minimum required to qualify as a transcendentalist
theres a whole thread on this topic
http://www.webcom.com/~ara/col/books/YM/poy/p2c6.html

"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 "

Using mantras and such stuff? Or other means? However, could not they simply have ingenious ways of doing stuff? For I do not necessarily see the need for anything but a highly inventive means of transporting molten metal.

Obviously you are not familiar with metal smelting - it was more than hot lead - it was an alloy that, if to be made today, can only be done in huge industrial plants - none of which exist in any archeological finds - at the least it tends to suggest that the people were not running around with spears chasing rabbits all day

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

The experimental and observational data seems to accord with such.

So in other words according to the current theories the current theories are correct?

"“ And is not this the present state of much of the world today? ”
yes"

Then is not the yogic tradition possibly dissolved?

Much of the world doesn't mean all of the world - even in winter you can find things to eat - if you know how

"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"

Or perhaps they simply realize the futileness of anything but?

rock n roll wrestlers and the like aren't futile?

Might you share some other stories?

If the current topics make it appropriate to bring them up as points of discussion

"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."

Most look emancipated, filthy, and worthless. They appear closer to the homeless than to a saint. They have nothing of civilization about hem.

There is a common saying, the more something is polished on the outside the more it indicates the inside is hollow - while I understand what you are saying, and its not true to say that filth indicates purity, there is a whole concept of cleanliness that is totally absent in the west - even in terms of just passing stool - the western invention of a smearing technique is repilsive, and in fact a grand laugh, to a person who understands thenecessity of taking bath after evacuating.
I imagine there are similar fallacies with your concept of worth

Ha ha! No. That was -hilarious-, though.

But what worth is there to be found in such a distaste for the material world we so apart of?

whats the worth of being any more part of it than absolutely required
Such a liberated person is not attracted to material sense pleasure but is always in trance, enjoying the pleasure within. In this way the self-realized person enjoys unlimited happiness, for he concentrates on the Supreme.

BG 5.22: An intelligent person does not take part in the sources of misery, which are due to contact with the material senses. O son of Kuntī, such pleasures have a beginning and an end, and so the wise man does not delight in them.

BG 5.23: Before giving up this present body, if one is able to tolerate the urges of the material senses and check the force of desire and anger, he is well situated and is happy in this world.

etc etc

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

Since science can often reply to demands such as "prove it", I await to see how you can prove the existence of God, or the notion that the position of stars can tell you your future.

If you can not answer my "prove it" demands, then dump your religion into the superstitious pile and stop parallelling science and religion.

The problem is not with my proof - the problem is with your lack of qualification to perceive the proof

You come across as highly antagonistic to theism, which is not the intrinsic quality of an atheist, merely the type of atheism you represent

For instance suppose there was a scientifically antagonistic high school drop out from the middle of texas who said the following in regard to electrons,

"Since my pa and my ma can often reply to demands such as "prove it", I await to see how you can prove the existence of electrons.

If you can not answer my "prove it" demands, then dump your science into the superstitious pile and stop parallelling your Since science can often reply to demands such as "prove it", I await to see how you can prove the existence of God, or the notion that the position of stars can tell you your future.

If you can not answer my "prove it" demands, then dump your religion into the superstitious pile and stop parallelling your electrons and knowledge.

How would you respond to such a person?

Your answer may enable me to work out how to deal with you

 

[lightgigantic]

~Raithere

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic

Of course these individuals had knowledge of the subject, one cannot advance a field without having an understanding of it's present state. But what we are discussing is "authority" and none of these individuals had any particular "authority" in their field. There were not gurus, they were not recognized leaders in their field; they were essentially unknown.

I am coming to the conclusion that most of our discussions are about ressolving issues of the defintions of words (a common impediment to net discussions due to the absence of non verbal signifiers - ever noticed how the net tends to generate more arguments than ressolve?)
If a person is authorised it means they are qualified - they are properly credible - this doesn't mean that an institutional rubber stamp makes one qualified - having the foundation of knowledge and related knowledge skills (ie epistemology) is what makes one qualified - this is why I say there are established authorities in epistemology (regardless if one got "authorised" inside or outside the instituition) - this authority can be quantified by examining the performer

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

No, the results are objective in science. If I drop a musket ball and a cannon ball from a roof top in front of a crowd everyone can perceive the outcome.

so when you responded to "me"

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

In other words, the results are purely subjective.

you are not applying any instructions to verify the validity of the claim?
What exactly do you mean to say?

You're not saying anything new here nor are you answering my question. How does one verify this succession?

well the first is to see if it actually exists - ie its documented.
One also checks the connection between the root and the branch

“ 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 ”

And those qualities are? How do you know that you cannot become god? How do you know that you aren't already god?

First you have to establish a definition of god - most standard defintions of god do not place him under the sway of illusion - if we are under the sway of illusion then we are not god - this is one eg of testing the root (scripture) connection to the branch (proposed siddhanta)

Probably something quite different. But here's the difference, we don't stop at hypothesis. Once we've made a hypothesis we test it. Let's say the 5 year olds (from wherever) hypothesize that it's magic; that the salt disappears from existence and then reappears later. We can test that hypothesis to see if its true.

Thus the knowledge becomes qualified and an epistemology is developed - in other words for the next experiment performed to test magic/evaporation you are working out of an established body of work (ie the results of the previous experiment) and thus we have now violated the definition of prac being performed in the absence of 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? ”

Are you having trouble tracking our conversation or are you deliberately changing the subject? I ask because I have to keep refocusing your replies. My point was, "Epistemology is not necessary for perception or experience, only for belief."

But if a bunsen burner requires training to operate, and training is a sub catergory of epistemology, your statement is fallacious

“ 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? ”

Okay, let's go through this in more detail.

Epistemology is an attempt to determine what knowledge is and how is can be acquired, it is an attempt to logically explain what we can know and how we can know it.

However, perception and experience are precedent to Epistemology. This is by logical necessity, for if one had no experience and no perception there would be nothing from which one could begin to build an epistemic position. Epistemology is not necessary for perception or experience. If it were as you are attempting to argue, that one need possess an epistemological position first we could never experience anything.

And isn't examining the binary print out from a blood test to determine the quality of blood a way of seeing - I mean its not like the nurse has different eyeballs.

“ 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. ”

Okay. You've given me the expected result but not the process. How does one take shelter of the "Supreme Personality of Godhead"?

Of course this is a big subject and the next big one that comes after ressolving the criteria for point 1 - but here it is in short
BG 18-65 Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.
More is there under point 3 and 5 of the original post

“ 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 ”

If we monitor properly it wouldn't make a difference. If we have a set of theists using the proper application of theism and another set of theists using an erroneous application we should observe a difference. We can use atheists as the control set. If we notice a difference then we have established an effect as well as identified the correct application.

The point is that you have no means to determine what distinguishes a theist from an atheist
- you also have no basis for the claim that if someone prays to god, god is duty bound to reciprocate
- you also don't seem to comprehend how exclusive and rare such a person is whom god reciprocates with instantaneously
- you also don't understand that "getting the goods from god" is a sentiment valued by the gross materialist

This would go an extremely long way in convincing many atheists that we might need to reconsider the issue. The problem is that this has been done in many different ways and using many different measures and no effects can be found. None. Nada. Zilch.

Logic however will not convince one that god exists - epistemology will

"One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God." (B-Gita 18.55)

Logic can only bring one to the point of applying the epistemology - otherwise once again its just like trying to see the president without adhering to the presidents instructions how to see him

“ So its obvious that qualification is a prime factor ”

No. Apparently you missed the part where anyone can present a critique.

yes but only the critques by qualified person warrant listening to

“ Peer reviewing doesn't rely on authority? ”

No, it doesn't. Laymen can present articles for publication and layman can critique them.

Laymen like who? High school drop outs bereft of scientific understanding and training?
How about shabo speaking desert tribesmen?

This doesn't mean that any piece of garbage will be published but that it is the work that is examined, not the person submitting it.

Hence observations of an authorities performance is the way to determnine authority

For example, recently there was an 11 year old school girl who had her science project published. Her work was rigorous enough that it withstood the scrutiny of professionals. That professionals are typically chosen to review submissions is merely a matter of expediency, not one of authority.

Therefore she fulfilled the epistemological conditions for authority

“ It just requires a standard yes/no response. ”

Yes. I even described it for you.

Your description indicated otherwise
namely a lack of epistemology
in other words your peer reviewing would be equivelent to the shabo tribesmen

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

Ah, but many of us have. I have put many years into attempting to perceive / understand the truth of god and within religion. The problem is that in the process of distilling the truth out of religion god became one of the evaporates.

Then you came to the point of being an atheist because you no longer perceived the value of the process to perceive god - in otherwords it is not sufficient for a thing to be fictional simply because a person loked for it and didn't find it - particularly if there are high doubts in their epistemological processes for looking

“ Actually my point was that tentative suggestions based on evidence are very flexible ”

What you call a "tentative suggestion" is more properly termed a hypothesis. All hypotheses are not equal. Again, the question is, "How would we go about determining which is or is most likely to be correct?"

And you say you are tired of repeating yourself?

I thought the answer would have been obvious by now

By applying the correct epistemology of course!

 

[lightgigantic]

Kenny

I had a feeling you would ignore my piece on Astrology.

The problem with your analogies comparing science to that of religion, is that science is a succession of theories supported by evidence as anybody who picks up a book on astronomy can see. It is not in the business of making a far-fetched claim and not bothering to state why it knows such a thing. The Bible on the other hand... Putting it blunty, you have to be gullible.

Interesting ....

 

[Raithere]

warrants writing "wrong" three times when I say that knowledge, particularly knowledge that is subtle (like science and religion), is dependant on specialised training - and that spcialised training is an inseperable part of the epistemology of these fields?

No, it's really not. Epistemology has proceeded apace but largely quite separate from science. While science is an empirical methodology one neither needs to understand empiricism nor be an empiricist to be able to use and understand science and certainly not to perceive its results.

Nor have you even begun to establish your position that this is so with theology, despite the fact that this was the reason you started this thread. Actually, I don't think you've even stated your epistemological position. From what you've posted I would have to say that you are actually an empiricist with the codicil that one must have faith in order to observe... and perhaps with a bit of rationalism tossed in. At least that's what you seem to be saying.

The anecdote you keep repeating doesn't ring true nor can I find any such quotation. I should just ask you to cite your reference since that is the proper form when presenting quotations but you probably don't have one. And regardless it's just another example of your endless appeals to authority since whether Thompson said it or not the statement is untrue.

The discovery during the eclipse is really rather simple. Stars situated behind the Sun were visible around its edge during the eclipse (they had to wait for an eclipse to block the light of the Sun so they could see them). If space was 'flat' this would be impossible since light travels in a straight line. But Einstein predicted that the mass of the Sun bends space enough that the light would travel 'around' the sun and be visible to us. It was, which confirmed his theory.

All in all I do think that posted warranted my response.

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

~Raithere

No, it's really not. Epistemology has proceeded apace but largely quite separate from science. While science is an empirical methodology one neither needs to understand empiricism nor be an empiricist to be able to use and understand science and certainly not to perceive its results.

Yes if one has faith in empiricism one can get the benefits of it - like I can say jokes about the speed of light and not really be aware of the empirical epistemologies that establish them

Nor have you even begun to establish your position that this is so with theology, despite the fact that this was the reason you started this thread.

Yes the same is true of theology - the statement "god exists" can be utilised by one with or without awareness of the relevant epistemology for perceiving him

The anecdote you keep repeating doesn't ring true nor can I find any such quotation. I should just ask you to cite your reference since that is the proper form when presenting quotations but you probably don't have one. And regardless it's just another example of your endless appeals to authority since whether Thompson said it or not the statement is untrue.

Try March 1905

The discovery during the eclipse is really rather simple. Stars situated behind the Sun were visible around its edge during the eclipse (they had to wait for an eclipse to block the light of the Sun so they could see them). If space was 'flat' this would be impossible since light travels in a straight line. But Einstein predicted that the mass of the Sun bends space enough that the light would travel 'around' the sun and be visible to us. It was, which confirmed his theory.

Now how do you get from this to explaining why all the science books have to be rewritten

All in all I do think that posted warranted my response.

I disagree
Using the quote from the link you recommended

"In other words, epistemology addresses the questions, "What is knowledge?" "How is knowledge acquired?" and, "What do people know?" "

I am talking about How is knowledge acquired and What do people know.
You insist that I talk about What is knowledge.

My working definition od epistemology is more generous than yours because I am fulfilling 2 of the criteria while you are fulfilling 1

 

[Raithere]

Try March 1905

That would be very odd indeed since the eclipse occurred in 1919.

Now how do you get from this to explaining why all the science books have to be rewritten

Because it proved they were wrong. Science books at that point assumed that time and space were Euclidian or "flat" and absolute. Einstein demonstrated that time and space are flexible and relative.

I am talking about How is knowledge acquired and What do people know.
You insist that I talk about What is knowledge.

No. I'm asking you to found your argument. You've failed to state your epistemological position is, much less provide argument that it is valid. For instance:

Does theistic knowledge come directly from god or does it become innately apparent to the properly oriented consciousness?

How does one verify this knowledge? What do you compare it against to ascertain its validity?

How do you found appeal to authority as a valid logical arguments rather than a fallacy?

Since Tu quoque (You too) is a logical fallacy, how do you found the necessity and validity of faith.

Is all knowledge founded this way or do other epistemological positions bear different but equally valid fruit?

If so does one form of knowledge supersede the other if they conflict or does a conflict mean that one conclusion is in error? If so, how does one determine which?

~Raithere

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Try March 1905 ”

That would be very odd indeed since the eclipse occurred in 1919.

I found the article while doing research 14 years ago - If you want to find it, which I doubt you do, you seem to have enough information to locate it.

“ Now how do you get from this to explaining why all the science books have to be rewritten ”

Because it proved they were wrong. Science books at that point assumed that time and space were Euclidian or "flat" and absolute. Einstein demonstrated that time and space are flexible and relative.

This is where it gets incomprehensible for the lay man,hence the statement from the head of the royal british astronomy society


“

I am talking about How is knowledge acquired and What do people know.
You insist that I talk about What is knowledge. ”

No. I'm asking you to found your argument. You've failed to state your epistemological position is, much less provide argument that it is valid. For instance:

I take it you haven't spent much time considering what I posted as the opening for this thread, since all your queries are answered there

Does theistic knowledge come directly from god or does it become innately apparent to the properly oriented consciousness?

Disciplic succession implies what? An infinite chain into nothingness? Knowledge comes from god through the chain of disciplic succession.(see point 2 in the opening)

Properly orientating one's consciousness is the prerequisite for receiving such benefit from the disciplic succession (indicated in points 3, 5 and especially 6)

How does one verify this knowledge? What do you compare it against to ascertain its validity?

declared in point 4, defined in point 2

How do you found appeal to authority as a valid logical arguments rather than a fallacy?

Basically there are three authorities presented in the epsitemology- scripture, the history of saintly people in general, and the specific saintly person one is learning through - all of these three should line up and not have divergent claims

- the test of the authority lies in bearing the fruit, which is explained in point 4

- in otherwords if I say you can achieve something by performing a process (you can read a pulse if you study first aid), logic does not reveal the fruits of the process, but enables one to come to the point of applying the process (it is only after doing the course thatyou can actually determine to what degree the process enabled you to read a pulse)

Since Tu quoque (You too) is a logical fallacy, how do you found the necessity and validity of faith.

You will have to explain yourself here - I am familiar with the fallacy but not its application to this scenario

Is all knowledge founded this way or do other epistemological positions bear different but equally valid fruit?

If you have a more correct epistemology for perceiving the existence of god I welcome you to forward it - there are less correct epistemolgies for perceiving god, but I don't think you really want me to submit them too

If so does one form of knowledge supersede the other if they conflict or does a conflict mean that one conclusion is in error? If so, how does one determine which?

I can think of several epistemologies for perceiving god, but this one is th e most simplest to understand and easiest to apply.
Anyway I don't see how me elaborating on those other epistemologies will benefit this thread.

~Raithere