Epistemic standard for spiritual knowledge?
The epistemic standard for science is whether a belief about the physical world is justified by other beliefs about the physical world and by sense data and whether the beliefs correspond to actual states of affairs in the physical world.
There is no epistemic standard for spiritual beliefs that I’m aware of. For me personally, my spiritual beliefs have to be consistent with my other spiritual beliefs and justified by my experiences and by reports throughout human history. Then an abductive inference is made as to the source of these experiences.
I am open to “ridicule.”
There is no epistemic standard for spiritual beliefs that I’m aware of. For me personally, my spiritual beliefs have to be consistent with my other spiritual beliefs and justified by my experiences and by reports throughout human history. Then an abductive inference is made as to the source of these experiences.
I am open to “ridicule.”
Comments (105)
Except in science. I was hoping to brainstorm with people here on this subject.
Interesting about the Buddhists.
I’m not disagreeing with you.
That isnt the standard of science, that is a description of broad concepts within science.
The standard is the scientific method.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
The problem with that standard is that it is equally sufficient to justify any claim. A delusion for example, is just as valid by that standard as anything else. I can work out an hypothetical example if you find that insufficient.
Now, I am not saying what you believe is a delusion, Im not even saying what you believe spiritually isnt true, Im just saying that the standard you just described cannot be used to tell the difference between something that is true and something that isnt true or a delusion.
It isnt a very good standard to find out whats true, spiritually or otherwise.
So what do we want from our standard? What makes a standard a good standard?
I would say the best standard is the one that most reliably find out whats true. Would you agree with that?
I would. I don’t know how one would even touch truth, though, when it comes to spiritual beliefs other than through abductive reasoning.
I thought you might have more to say on the first part of my last post, it seems especially relevant given you agree that the best standard is the one that most reliably finds out what is true...could you please comment on that so I know how to proceed? Is the standard you describe the best one for finding out whats true, cuz I disagree that it is.
I’m not necessarily in disagreement with you. I have what I call spiritual experiences. Interpretation of them is difficult. Jumping to conclusions is easy, and I’ve had what many would say are some very bizarre interpretations of those experiences. However, saying that it is all brain malfunction is easy, too.
Ok, I understand. So let's look at it then...
I said “the problem with that standard is that it is equally sufficient to justify any claim”
To me, that doesnt make a very good standard. Even if you are right about any given claim, it won’t be because you were using a good standard. Imagine trying to guess someone's password. You could just type random letters and still get the right password, but the method still kinda sucks even though you managed to hit the right random letters. It would be much more reliable to use just about any other way.
Does that make sense?
Yes, that makes sense.
I will use the term "religion" as a synonym for "spiritual beliefs" in this context. This ignores the issue that they may not be 100% one and the same thing, but ok, that is part of the cost of doing business.
In my opinion, the first problem is that religion covers at least two epistemically different propositions.
The first proposition is that God created the heavens and the earth, and the second one that there is something like religious law -- provided by God, because that is the connection -- which is a set of rules that we are not supposed to break.
The first proposition is a historical question. Did it really happen like that? So, question belongs to the epistemic domain of history. So, the question becomes: Can we corroborate witness depositions for this? Well no, there were no humans at that point. Hence, the question is out of reach in the historical epistemic domain.
There is actually nothing special about questions being part of the historical epistemic domain, but not answerable by it. If for the one or the other reason, there were no witnesses to an event, then the historical method will simply have to throw in the towel.
The second proposition is about religious law. Can it consistently give answers to whether a particular type of behaviour is moral or not? In other words, is religious law complete? The epistemic standard for religious law depends on the religion. Judaism and Islam are axiomatic from scriptures. Christianity is mostly ecclesiastic.
So, the epistemic standard in (Judaism and) Islam is that the justified answer to a question of morality is provided by the wide consensus of religious scholars, i.e. muftis, inasmuch as they axiomatically derive their answer from scripture. The epistemic standard in Christianity is that the answer by the Papacy -- or your other church leader -- is deemed to be correct (=consistent), even if it isn't; just ask Martin Luther.
What you say is all true to my understanding.
Ok, so its not a very good standard then right? So should you trust the conclusions you have reached using that method?
There’s no good reason to trust them, seeing as how they only touch truth by chance, and one cannot know which ones do and which ones don’t.
Right, so if that standard is the only standard you can apply to spiritual matters, what conclusions should you draw about spiritual matters?
I understand now that abductive reasoning isn’t very good in practical matters, and when it comes to spirituality, there is no logical or otherwise argument for these beliefs so they are not the domain of philosophy or science. They probably have no place on this forum. That said, are they harmful in any way? Why should I give them up?
Well, you want to have good reasons for your conclusions right? If you don’t have good reasons to draw conclusions, then you shouldnt have those conclusions. Thats not to say you should conclude they are false, as of course that would be another conclusion. So I think the right answer, absent a good standard about spiritual matters, is to not reach any conclusions about them. Until you get a good standard, you just don’t really know, and thats fine. Sometimes “I don’t know” is the right answer.
Ok. Conclusions cannot be drawn, but the feelings of awe and wonder are self-justifying, in my opinion, as long as one admits that one doesn’t know what they mean.
The feelings of awe and wonder are self justifying....you mean as feelings or as something else?
Also, you not only shouldnt draw conclusions about what they mean, I think you shouldnt draw conclusions about what caused them either...you just have no standard with which to do so.
Apologies, I must retire for the night.
Bear in mind, it is possible to have true beliefs without evidence, so spiritual beliefs can still be true, they just don't rise to the level of knowledge by traditional epistemic standards. Hence the centrality of "faith" in many religions.
Actually a number of religions are quite empirical. You'll find this in many branches of Hinduism. You have stages and steps in experience, for example, with meditiation, and these can even be predicted by the experts, down to order of experiences and stages and tailor fitting predictions for individuals. Now an atheist or other skeptic will say that the conclusoins are still false, those that have to do with the external world. Though how they know this is an issue, but also the main point here is that there is a huge empirical aspect to spiritual beliefs, this is often systematized based on thousands of years of experience and that it works for people. IOW promised goals can be achieved by following the practices of, and the posited entities of, certain religions. In the West people are often used to prioritizing faith, so debates between believers get skewed to faith vs. knowledge. But this is not the only type of religion, and even Western theists will base their beliefs, often in part or in the main one what they experience as participants and how it is working for them. Now skeptics will say, as I mentioned about, that even if it is 'working' and there are predictable stages and experiences, this is not knowledge. But that is based on their sense that what is posited, say God, is not real. But actually knowledge has to do with experience and working, certain in instrumental approaches to knowledge. And further I have never met anyone who does not consider conclusions reached in similar ways knowledge. Not similar as in similar to meditation or chanting, but similar in the sense of built up over time in predictable stages of experience and finding that the beliefs work.
Ok, so the feelings are self justified but are you justified in your conclusions about the source?
I can only conclude that they are private. I cannot conclude anything as to their cause, unless of course I’m thinking about my thoughts which can have an impact on feelings.
Right, so what do you believe spiritually then? You do not need spirituality for your feelings, and you certainly dont need it to justify your feelings. You actually do not need it to experience awe and wonder at all, so what exactly do you believe spirituality? It seems like an empty category to me.
“Spirituality” is just a place holder some people use for feelings of awe, wonder, etc., and for heightened or altered states of consciousness. They can call it whatever they want, I suppose.
I think equating spirituality with awe and wonder makes perfect sense.
I don’t have a problem with it.
So, in short, there is no non-prejudicial epistemic standard for spiritual beliefs that any unbiased inquirer would be induced or compelled to recognize. But this doesn't matter, because spiritual beliefs are either shared communal values or individual values, and as such they don't require any further corroboration in the scientific sense. They are simply not within the field of efficacy for the scientific method. This is why it is nonsense to say that science and religion are not compatible. It is like saying that a blowfly and and a whale are not compatible marriage partners.
The other point is that, contrary to what some people seem to think, religious beliefs are not "conclusions" unless they are fundamentalist. If they are fundamentalist then the religious believer has conflated religious belief with empirical belief. This conflation is the source of all the egregious arguments between theism and atheism.
That was my point with S about how consistency has nothing to do with coherency. He just ignored that point.
S ignores most points that were not made by him, or if he does respond he usually distorts what has been said to make it possible for him to respond, so it would be no surprise, anyway.
I think this attitude is culturally conditioned. We have carved up the territory in such a way that we deem such subjects matters of faith and feeling. Whereas in the various gnostic paths - and they are hugely varied - it is definitely a matter of knowledge, gnosis, which is 'soteriological', i.e. pertaining to salvation/liberation from the round of birth and death. Many examples could be given although they would probably be all met with the same preconceptions.
At the 'heart of Zen' is a breakthrough generally designated Prajñ?. Prajñ? is definitely 'knowing' and knowing a particular way. The problem in interpreting that is that in current culture, knowledge *is* 'propositional' i.e. comprising words designating some thing or some state-of-affairs. But Prajñ? is not within the scope of such discursive knowledge, so can't be understood discursively, hence the emphasis in Zen on disciplined practice and being pushed by the teacher to attain satori (insight or awakening).
The Prajñ? attained by Buddha is said to be salvific - the point of that understanding is precisely liberation from samsara, the never-ending round of birth and death. Certainly that can be interpreted in a microcosmic sense as meaning liberation from the ups and downs of emotionality but in the cultural context of Buddhism, it really does mean liberation from being subject to birth in other realms.
Quoting Janus
It requires the williningness to commit, to take the question seriously enough to dedicate yourself to it. And that is what 'belief' really comes down to. It's not propositional - it's dispositional. (And it's immaterial to Buddhists whether you believe them or not; unlike Christians, they're not inclined to try and save you in spite of yourself.)
Yes, I understand that so-called Prajñ? is an altered state of consciousness. So, it is an example of knowing how and knowing with, but not knowing that, as I explained those terms in Noah's other thread.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, it requires faith, just like any other religion, in other words. Faith,according to my schema is a kind of knowing; namely knowing with. Faith is a kind of "Anthropotechnology" (Sloterdijk) whereby we can come to know things in the sense of knowing by acquaintance or familiarity or Heidegger's "being-with". We come to know things in a novel, even radically different, way.
Hallucinogens I would count as an Anthropotechnology. So are the arts, the humanities and science itself.
So, you are saying that we can have a set of consistent and coherent empirical beliefs that are justified by sense data, and then another set of consistent and coherent religious beliefs that are not justifiable by sense data, that do not cohere with, and yet are consistent with, the first set, but only insofar as they do contradict the latter? If so, then I agree.
That's where the cultural conditioning shows up. One way in which Buddhism differs from mainstream Christianity is with the emphasis on practice-insight. When you engage in the practices, then they open different perspectives. It is empirical in a sense, although with the major caveat that in this case, subject and object are the same thing. But as far as most are concerned 'ah, that is religion, faith, belief, we know about that'.
In any case, in answer to the question in the OP, there are very rigorous epistemological criteria in Buddhism, so it can be rightfully referred to as an 'inner science'.
Or one could just take acid as a shortcut to get a glimpse of the subject-object dissolution. The effects are temporary, though. It would be much cooler to go there by willing it at any given time.
Except that the word 'science' suggests inter-subjective corroborability which is not possible in Buddhism, since we are talking about "inner states" and not about anything publicly available. In my view your claiming that counts as a kind of fundamentalism; conflating the empirical with the faith-based, That kind of conflation does no favour to either domain; it just perpetuates the wrong-headed idea of incompatibility between domains of knowing that do not cohere with one another.
Hence my first remark in this thread about 'domains of discourse and practice'. Western culture defines that in a particular way. and then we 'map' against that. You often critique 'scientism' and 'reductionism', but the only alternative you see is 'personal' and a matter of 'feeling'. So what I'm trying to do here is provide some alternatives, although you seem very determined to roadblock them. :wink:
Check out the paisley gate.
We can only "map" domains as they are recognizable to us. How else could we do it? "Western culture", per se, doesn't define anything, individuals do, and of course individuals define things from within their cultural paradigms, otherwise they would not be understood.
You think I maintain a dichotomy between "scientism and reductionism" and the "personal which is merely a matter of feeling". This is not true at all. Reductionism is not necessarily scientism; rather it is a method that works very well, even though it may be falsely claimed to be the only valid kind of understanding. I don't agree with that; I think there are holistic understandings too. And "the alternative" is not merely "personal", it is cultural. So, what Zen monks believe about their altered states of consciousness is not merely "personal" it is culturally conditioned. Zen Buddhism just is a culture.
My contention has been that it is only in relation to empirical (and logical and mathematical) matters that definitive inter-subjective corroboration in a cross-cultural sense is possible. That is the salient point and to that you have offered no counterexample or counterargument.
“After the ecstasy, the laundry.”
Yes, well, life must go on. Personally, I find the act of empathizing and walking in others’ shoes to be spiritual, not just thinking how I would feel if I were in that situation, but really trying to understand the other and take enjoyment in what they enjoy, or sad how they would be sad, etc. That’s how I now break down the subject-object barrier. I try to “be” them for a little while. One cannot do this all the time, but one can always “conjure” it.
I was speaking specifically about how Noah was describing spirituality.
Spiritual beliefs may not be empirically falsifiable/verifiable, it does not follow that they lack meaning. Meaningful unverifiable beliefs are anything but empty. Rather, they are chock full of connections with/to the world and/or ourselves.
Hannah Gadsby
Something tells me that you may find something in her.
That would be true if those were the only matters agreed upon cross-culturally. They are not.
I will Google her. Thank you
Hope you like her.
Why couldn't a spiritual belief be based upon a justified true belief just as a physical one? The earth was created in 6 days if I have a justification for it, I believe it, and it's true. The variation is in what we take to be a proper justification, but that standard is always subjective as far as I can tell.
The Red Sea parted if I have a justification for it (the Bible says so), I believe it, and it's true.
Note that I was speaking about "definitive inter-subjective corroboration" not mere "agreement".
It was a black swan scenario, I think Janus. Sorry to be nitpicky. Came with the hardware I was born with. Hear me out here, I think you'll agree.
All definitive inter-subjective cross cultural corroboration is built upon some sort of prior agreement. Not all of those agreements are empirical matters. There is much cross cultural agreement regarding how people ought be treated and/or governed(for example). Those people are more than capable of intersubjective cross cultural collaboration. I'm being reminded of "We Are The World"...
Noah, I like your honesty here. The bravery, knowing the potential for ridicule...
The end times thing has been going on since the death of Jesus. On a regular basis - throughout the history of 'Western' civilization - many believers in the God of Abraham have been looking at what's going on in their lives and saying the same thing...
Looking at the world through the lens of that book - especially if one believes what it says; especially if one believes that all of it is the word of the almighty God; especially if one believes that there is a war between God and Satan; especially if one believes the world and humankind has predetermined destiny and that ending that is foretold in the Bible; especially if one already believes these things...
They will be looking for signs of the end. What I'm saying here is that that has always been the case since Jesus' death, and shows no sure sign of ever being any different. The time period actually foretold within the book has long since passed. People continue to look nonetheless.
My mistake. Sarcasm can lose it's umph when presented with written word alone. It's easily mistook for sincerity. That's my default position. Trusting that a speaker believes what they are saying.
What I was originally arguing against is that there is not any kind of propositional knowledge that, to stick to the example, so-called Zen masters have access to that we ordinary mortals do not. At the most they have access to extraordinary altered states of consciousness and the intuitions and feelings that may come with those. I don't think something can be counted as propositional knowledge if there is no way to test its predictions definitively by observation.
Another example may serve. We can test whether someone is a competent pianist by observation (in the broadest sense including watching and listening) and may even be able to grade their level of technical proficiency using observable criteria, but we cannot precisely determine their degree of musicianship, even though connoisseurs may largely agree on it. The Zen case of agreeing and certifying that someone is enlightened may be similar to this latter example involving expert connoisseurship.
I don't see how this follows. Upon what basis do you assert the scientific method is the only valid justification ? The OP asks for an epistemologic standard, not for a declaration of what you find a proper justification. Whether you accept the faith based justification is another matter, but in any event, your knowledge is JTB based.
No worries
I'll go this far...
I know based upon my own driving experience, my own understanding of math and physics, and a strong sense of spatial relations that there are forces acting upon this world that are completely unexplainable by those frameworks. What happened to me is physically impossible by those standards, and yet... it most certainly did happen.
:smile:
:smile:
This is doubtful. Unless the connoisseur leaves his criteria vague, it is likely an AI program can distinguish such things as musicianship and Zen mastership. As long as we can agree on our standards of beauty, it can be objectively measured. What beauty is, I'll concede is in the eye of the beholder, but whether something meets the arbitrary standard we've agreed upon is not.
How isn't this synonymous with declaring yourself a person of faith?
What do you mean?
I've experienced a couple things like that, when I was tripping on LSD. My memories of those experiences are extraordinarily vivid, such that I am incapable of doubting that I did experience those events. I won't go as far as to say that in consequence of those events, which would normally be considered to be physically impossible, that "there are forces acting upon this world that are completely unexplainable by those frameworks", though. Not if you are referring to physical forces, that is.
I know the difference between a hallucination as a result of ingesting LSD and a normal everyday driving experience where suddenly things quickly became not. I do not base any belief I have about unexplained forces of nature on experiences of tripping.
Fireworks are cool to watch though.
:wink:
An Evangelical Fundamentalist, for example, would declare himself a foundationalist, asserting truth is founded in the Bible and that it can't be challenged, just as you say sense data is foundational in terms of it yielding truth.
If you’re asking me if I have faith in my senses, then you may have a point. That’s why I check in with my wife. She’s my eyes and ears on a lot of things. I suppose that is faith, so if that’s your point, then point granted.
Well, living my life by my and my wife’s senses work better than following the Bible in the practical world. It works, and I would really doubt that an Evangelical Fundamentalist does anything differently. They just have another kind of truth as well.
But I don’t think Evangelical Fundamentalism works very well if one wants to be an astrophysicist.
To reset the discussion: The OP asks what the epistemic standard is for spiritual knowledge, and I've asserted it doesn't vary from spiritual knowledge to physical knowledge. It all rests upon what we consider proper justifications. I understand that you rely upon your senses and the reported senses of others as your justification for holding a belief, but the faithful resort to checking the claims of the Bible. While very different worldviews, both rely upon the same epistemic standard.
This begs the question of what constitutes a valid justification. The fundamentalist would claim that astrophysics is a failed enterprise because it holds to the preposterous belief that the universe began from some sort of Big Bang hundreds of millions of years ago when it is well established the world is only a few thousand years old and that it began with a six day creation event. In order to satisfy the fundamentalist that the scientist's conclusions are valid, he would need to find an astrophysicist that arrived at conclusions consistent with the Bible's.
I don’t have a good argument as to how there is a theoretic difference between scientific knowledge and spiritual or religious knowledge. One might say that science often makes accurate predictions, while the Bible has made none. Also, technology seems to work. So, one could argue that one appears to satisfy the truth condition while the other does not, but that wasn’t what I said in the OP.
Also, the topic was spiritual knowledge, not religious fundamentalism. Were you deliberately trying to confuse me with this category error, or was it an honest mistake on your part?
It's not a category error. It's a definitional issue, where you wish to limit the definition of spiritual knowledge as that which is received in a mystical manner as opposed to through sacred documents.
As you've defined spiritual knowledge (vague notions of awe and wonder), I'm wondering how you define that as "knowledge" at all. It sounds like you're describing an emotion. It's like seeing a robin hopping around on the ground and feeling happy.
If, though, it's sort of like receiving prophecies and you insist those prophecies are revelations of truth, that would satisfy the JTB criteria. And isn't that what biblical knowledge allegedly is, with prophets receiving truth from atop a mountain?
I granted you this.
Quoting Hanover
Why couldn’t this be spiritual? Emotion can be spiritual, especially as consciousness to me is inherently spiritual.
Quoting Hanover
It is a category error in so much as what I intended to mean by “spiritual.” Insofar as you didn’t know what I was talking about, and you define it another way to include religious fundamentalism, it is not a category error.
This is a good point, and I think @Wayfarer would agree.
Who said it does?
(Another thing we have in common, I've just noticed, is that we have both made 7.9 K posts. I checked and you have made 7,864 and I have made 7,876. Just 12 posts the difference. It's a scary thought, wasting all that time, isn't it)?
(My partner often complains about my 'playing with my invisible friends'. I do see her point, and it is strangely habit-forming and time-consuming, but on the other hand, I tell her, it is a philosophy forum, there's plenty more nefarious online activities that people could get up.)
Yeah, mine too. but she spends her share of time texting and sometimes even facebooking :yikes:, the first of which I avoid except when absolutely necessary (I prefer to communicate audibly about everyday matters at least) and the second of which I avoid like the plague.
To be serious, though, I think it is a great way to improve your writing skills (both typing and expression), and your critical thinking and grasp of philosophical concepts and their history, and it also offers windows into just how other more or less thoughtful and intelligent people think, as well as introducing you to ideas and texts you otherwise may never have become aware of. So it can't be all bad!
In my more optimistic moments I like to think of the philosophy forums as the modern day equivalent of the agora. No doubt the agora also had its share of bigots, bullies and buffoons; since despite what romantic dreams might lead us to believe there is no perfection in this world!