Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God

The point you are missing is that no one comes to the point of surveying evidence, particularly in areas of subtle knowledge (science included) , with out becoming qualified by applying the relevant epistemology

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prince_James

Seems like you are addicted to the keyboard - to avoid creating another monstrous baby on a thread you might want to try and summarise points -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am saying the opposite - for a person in knowledge they all appear uniform, or at least the response to the same uniform phenomena - but a person who is not in knowledge sees contradictions - for instance a person may perceive that all the different paradigms for medicine (surgery, capsules, massage, accupuncture etc) are contradictory if they are bereft of an understanding that they aim at curing disease - in other words one gets hung on details in the absence of principles
Anyone who has studied world religions can see this - and those who have not tend to make superficial arguments

How do you determine whether a religion came from god or not?

Yes, very unlikely from the perspective of one who has not applied the appropriate epistemology

IN the absence of a theoretical foundation I won't budge from the stance that you are attributing a natural phenomena to some speculative treatise

You are sitting at the lotus feet / kissing the rear end of some scientific gurus when you talk about gravity - after all you didn't discover how it works by your own intelligence, you relied on the sweat of someone else

The idea is that one gets a perception of god - one does not become god - just because a religious practioner is not as opulent as god doesn't mean he is not successful

"No - god is a transcendetal figure (not to be relegated to a historical era) and can interact with anyone anytime in anyway - just becaise this is not apparent to the people in general is not surprising because the people in general don't apply the relevant epistemology to perceive this"

5000 years ago, and yes, the miracles are still happening

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

theory and theory application comes before prac

Studied them have you?

What is the use of talking about what philosophy "used" to be - what it is now is more relevant - if there are no such moral philosophers in existence what is your point?

Hence seeing without established character is useless

I don't encounter this problem when I read commentaries, but then I also endeavour to apply the appropriate epistemology too.
There are some original scriptures in Bengali, which is still a living language - as for sanskrit it is generally still adhered to because it is a very scientific language (even computer language experts marvel at the dynamics of sanskrit)

what you say of philosophy is true of religion, after al lpeople are still dying at the same rate (100%)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Am I also a bigot because I think Astrology is a crock of shit? That the magpie riddle has no relevance to luck or bad luck? That 'answered prayer' is the result of statistical outcome rather than divine intervention?

Do you at least concede that superstition exists? If so what traditions/institutions would you call superstitious?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And therein lies the crux of the problem you are attempting to address. How does one determine that one is has the correct epistemology? By what signal or evidence can one discern a true revelation or tenet from a delusion or fabrication? How does one determine whether scripture is received unadulterated or whether is has been subverted? Your prior appeal to authority towards this point is absurd considering the number and variety of claims presented. What epistemic methodology returns consistent results as applied to god?

As to a definition of god, why don't you supply us with the "correct" one for analysis rather than have me conjure one for your dissection? As an atheist I can hardly hold claim to the authority you assert.

The only value you need for science is pragmatism... it works. You need neither to accept nor even understand the deeper concepts of science in order to appreciate the validity of its observations and predictions. You need no understanding of the theories of gravity to observe that an object accelerates at 32' per second squared. You need not understand relativity to observe the lensing effect of the sun during an eclipse nor thermodynamics to drive a car nor quantum mechanics to observe the results of a double-slit experiment.

In direct contrast, religion gives us no predictable or observable results. None. Given agreement upon the methodology the onus of failure is presumed to be the applicant's rather than the method or position. Given this, how you can possibly assert any epistemic foundation towards theistic concerns is beyond my understanding but perhaps you can explain.

~Raithere

 

lightgigantic:

"Seems like you are addicted to the keyboard - to avoid creating another monstrous baby on a thread you might want to try and summarise points - "

Ha! You are correct!

"I am saying the opposite - for a person in knowledge they all appear uniform, or at least the response to the same uniform phenomena - but a person who is not in knowledge sees contradictions - for instance a person may perceive that all the different paradigms for medicine (surgery, capsules, massage, accupuncture etc) are contradictory if they are bereft of an understanding that they aim at curing disease - in other words one gets hung on details in the absence of principles
Anyone who has studied world religions can see this - and those who have not tend to make superficial arguments"

I would strongly disagree. The differences are myriad and important. One cannot synthesize the Christian, Sufi, and Taoist concepts of the divine and meet with a coherent whole, least of all the Hindu, the Zorastrianian, the pagan, the American Indian, et cetera. To claim that they all are speaking of the same thing is to take the truly simplistic approach.

"How do you determine whether a religion came from god or not?"

Irrefutable evidence of divine origin.

"Yes, very unlikely from the perspective of one who has not applied the appropriate epistemology"

Which sounds much more like "unless you believe as I do". They either existed or did not.

"IN the absence of a theoretical foundation I won't budge from the stance that you are attributing a natural phenomena to some speculative treatise"

Impossible. For all (empirical) theories are anteceded, like gravity, by the examination and demonstration of physical phenoma.

"You are sitting at the lotus feet / kissing the rear end of some scientific gurus when you talk about gravity - after all you didn't discover how it works by your own intelligence, you relied on the sweat of someone else"

I did not indeed. But I can prove that it works through experimentation and even go over NEwton's laws and such and see whether they do indeed apply to reality without abandoning, or accepting, anything.

"The idea is that one gets a perception of god - one does not become god - just because a religious practioner is not as opulent as god doesn't mean he is not successful"

A perception of God to the individual? Or to the collective?

"5000 years ago, and yes, the miracles are still happening "

Such as?

"Studied them have you?"

Actually, yes. From the Harappan Civilization, through the Aryans, down to king Asoka, then the Mughals....British Raj...et cetera, et cetera. Also the mythic.

"What is the use of talking about what philosophy "used" to be - what it is now is more relevant - if there are no such moral philosophers in existence what is your point?"

There are still many moral philosophers, only they are not in the same majority. That and philosophy has become academic for the most part. That is, it is something one studies in, instead of becomes.

"Hence seeing without established character is useless'

To some extent, I shall agree with you here.

"I don't encounter this problem when I read commentaries, but then I also endeavour to apply the appropriate epistemology too.
There are some original scriptures in Bengali, which is still a living language - as for sanskrit it is generally still adhered to because it is a very scientific language (even computer language experts marvel at the dynamics of sanskrit)"

That is true, there are Bengali texts, but as we all know, languages tend to change over time, turning even the writings of a century past into a very obscure piece to many in the present day. But even so, religion tends to be entirely focused "on the past". There is rarely a religion which takes place "now" aside from cults.

"what you say of philosophy is true of religion, after al lpeople are still dying at the same rate (100%) "

So you claim death is what inspires people to religion?

 

You are a bigot if you have not actually studied or investigated astrology and make that statement simply because the conclusion disturbs your established value system

My point was that if there is a claim that is contingent on applying a process to perceive its validity, then one is blundering down the path of ignorance s they think they can write off that claim without applying the process to perceive its validity.

 

~Raithere

The only value you need for religion is pragmatism... it works. You need neither to accept nor even understand the deeper concepts of religion in order to appreciate the validity of its observations and predictions. You need no understanding of the theories of universal creation to observe that the sun rises in the east every day. You need not understand reincarnation to observe the living entity progressing from boyhood to youth to old age even in this life, nor a consensus of statistics of the mortality rate of the world to understand the inevitability of death nor the exact break down of material modes to observe the variety of effects that the mind displays.

So inother words you don't have a clear entity or object with qualities you ar eworking with when you are declaring that god is a fallacious claim? It doesn't sound like a very sound epistemology ...

I can say the same thing about religion

So in other words when you examine the nature of all religions in the world you do not see any common threads ? Generally that is one of the first things perceivable by persons who study world religion (and those that don't tend to haggle over details)

 

Prince_James

Keep it in mind!!!

They can when one has a perception of what they are responding to - for instance it should be clear from our previous discussions that god has a variety of energies, just like fire, so if one person is saying fire is hot, another is saying fire is smokey and another is saying fire is light, one willnot see any contradiction because they actually know what fire is.

Then it begs to ask what is evidence - which brings us back to the point of epistemology for perceiving evidence.

the point you ar emissing is that epistemology leads to direct perception - just like study of scientific theory leads to prac - you don't ride belief all the way

But you are just labelling a naturally occuring phenomena with your doctrinal terminology - a ball falls from the building - what does that tell me about the gravity of the planet unless I blindly believe your doctrine.

"

SO you abandoned one set of scientific feet/backsides to stand in the shade of another?

does god reveal himself to individuals or groups of people? There are instances of both, and collectively only amongst persons of the same merit.

People are perceiving the reality of god.

Did you know that the word Aryan literally means "gentleman" in sanskrit and that it was Max Meuller, endeavouring of copurse to present the rich history of india in a eurocentric paradigm, that labelled aryans as a race (determined by janma - birth), despite there being no evidence - in otherwords there are indications that your reading may have been a fact but what you are reading may not have been a fact - in other words you may have transgressed the rules of epistemology.

How much of contemporary, or even academic, affairs are governed by morality? On the contrary you are considered more prestigious if you labour harder than an ass to enjoy the liberties of a pig

So are large portion of science is potentially fallible, particularly in institutionalised cases that stand to profit from a tight ring of agreement on certain values (such as eurocenticism for instance)

IN the picture of eternity 5000 years ago is recent news - still, suppose there was someone who was sincere about pursuing religion or knowledge of god - would it be impossible for them to locate resources helpful to their search?

old age, disease and death curb the view that we can enjoy in this world eternally - so at least it is a cause for a second thought

 

I freely admit that I have not studied Astrology or know all the details of it. But it is obvious that the position of the stars around Earth at the time of your birth has no effect on your future. It is obviously superstition.

Same with religion. I admit I don't know the details of scripture, but know enough to know that it is largely fiction and obviously knows nothing about the creator of the universe.

Being knowledgeable about religion/astrology is different to having faith in it.

 

Kenny JC, you are a buffoon. (spoken in a strong french accent).

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jan.

 

I don't think so. Perfect knowledge of Astrology does not inevitably lead to a belief that the stars predict everyday human affairs. Perfect knowledge of religious scripture does not inevitably lead to belief in sky fairies. I'm sure it's perfectly possible that an atheist could be a professor in theology.

If I'm wrong, please state why...

 

All I see here are examples of material physics at work. Are you going to demonstrate at some point how religious epistemology consistently affects human behavior or provides evidence for the existence souls, god, an afterlife, or one's condition beyond death? Or perhaps you can demonstrate that revelation has provided humanity with a consistent and useful base of knowledge or even a single verifiable fact that could not be known through mundane empirical methods.

In no such words.

I'm flexible enough to work with or provide any number of epistemological positions and definitions of god. But in this instance you are the one making the claim, therefore the onus lies on you to provide both argument and evidence to support your conclusion. It makes no sense for me to present a definition only for you to respond that it is incongruous with yours.

Indeed, you can say anything you like. But until you support your assertions what reason do we have for agreeing with them or even tentatively entertaining the notion you might be right? Your declaration is that there is an epistemology and method that reliably reveals evidence of god. Very well, then please demonstrate this assertion or be remanded to the myriad other unfounded and unsupported claims people have made throughout the ages.

Remember, you chose to play at logic. Therefore you must play by the rules of logic. Show us evidence then of a religious epistemology that provides consistent results and how these results evince the existence of god.

I do indeed. Of course, that common thread is so self-evident that many people mistake its cause. Quite simply, it is our shared humanity that accounts for those similarities that we do find. It is the same reason we find common threads throughout art and literature, across geographies, cultures, languages, and vast epochs of time. It is why we can be moved by a Homeric epic 2800 years after it was written and why we can relate to 12,000 year old cave-paintings.

It is this that recommends religion as a topic of study... even for an atheist.

~Raithere

 

LightGigantic:

"They can when one has a perception of what they are responding to - for instance it should be clear from our previous discussions that god has a variety of energies, just like fire, so if one person is saying fire is hot, another is saying fire is smokey and another is saying fire is light, one willnot see any contradiction because they actually know what fire is."

Yet there is always then the possibility that the "knower of the fire" is just encompassing a small portion of the elephant, just as the other sages.

"Then it begs to ask what is evidence - which brings us back to the point of epistemology for perceiving evidence."

Evidence for God in this instance must be in such a way as all could perceive it as such. That is to say, actually physical, scientifically verifiable, repeatable, miracles. Which not only point to a "source of great power" but to God. That is to say, must be of such character as to -only- stem from the divine.

"the point you ar emissing is that epistemology leads to direct perception - just like study of scientific theory leads to prac - you don't ride belief all the way"

So are you claiming that if one accepts the epistemology, we shall be able to meet a man who died 5,000 years ago (Krishna)?

"But you are just labelling a naturally occuring phenomena with your doctrinal terminology - a ball falls from the building - what does that tell me about the gravity of the planet unless I blindly believe your doctrine. "

It tells much, actually. For it begins to show that "objects dropped from a height fall to the Earth" which implies that the Earth has a force which it exerts itself upon the ball. Contrast this with the support of water given to an object floating ontop of it.

"SO you abandoned one set of scientific feet/backsides to stand in the shade of another?"

Not at all. For whether or not Newton's laws are true depend on their application as demonstrated objectively. That is to say, if they cannot be experimentally verified (which they can be very easily) one cannot claim they are true. One mayn't want to do so, but if one does, one can go and see whether Newton was right relatively easily.

"does god reveal himself to individuals or groups of people? There are instances of both, and collectively only amongst persons of the same merit."

Examples of contemporary accounts of communal manifestation verified by outside sources?

"People are perceiving the reality of god."

And many more are not. In what way is this miraculous?

"Did you know that the word Aryan literally means "gentleman" in sanskrit and that it was Max Meuller, endeavouring of copurse to present the rich history of india in a eurocentric paradigm, that labelled aryans as a race (determined by janma - birth), despite there being no evidence - in otherwords there are indications that your reading may have been a fact but what you are reading may not have been a fact - in other words you may have transgressed the rules of epistemology."

Yes, I am quite aware that Aryan translates as "gentleman", "superior man", or "noble man". But actually, the Aryans as a race has been proven by the fact that the Brahman and Kshatriya castes of Northern India are of a "caucasoid group" according to mitochondrial DNA analysis (http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/nov102000/1182.pdf#search='Aryan%20Genetics%20India') and according to the Y-Chromosome testing European (specifically Eastern-European) types are found in the higher castes at a much higher level (http://www.friendsofsouthasia.org/textbook/Archaeogenetics_Key_Studies.html). Considering the Aryan homeland is actually considered to be the Black Sea (probably surrounding it in Asia Minor, the Ukraine, and even Western Persia) this is not at all surprising. Even an Indian website declares this to be so, despite being controversial: http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20010730/science.shtml

It is nationalist propaganda perpetuated by an extremely biased Indian "science" met with a "white-guilt" Leftist movement in the social sciences that deny the reality of the Aryans as a race of people which birthed -both- modern Europeans and the Indians and Persians. That is to say, Europeans did not create India - and Max Meuller never suggested such, by the way - but that Europeans and India were created by the same people. In essence, we are sibling peoples, united in a common race, and even with a common religion. For instance, you are aware that Tyr (Germanic), Zeus (Greek), the Dagda (Celto-Irish), and Dyaus Piter (Vedic) are etymologically the same? That is, they all stem from one word and one concept, shared amongst us all. Similarly, it is very likely that Western Paganism is related to the Hindu/Zorastrian schism as to whether it is the Devas or the Asuras which are the Gods and the Titans respectively. The only difference is that sense then we have adopted a Semitic religion, which has erased the strong cultural and religious ties the West and India shared.

Though this is mostly a tangent. It is important, however, to stress this connection.

"How much of contemporary, or even academic, affairs are governed by morality? On the contrary you are considered more prestigious if you labour harder than an ass to enjoy the liberties of a pig"

Sadly, you are correct in this regard. The heroic and the just are not held to the same standards as they hopefully were held to be in the past.

Also, just as an aside, it is fitting that Socrates and Arjuna should share a warrior heritage. Socrates was, in his time, considered the bravest of the Athenians by all his friends of great reknown, and well respected for the degree which he fought without regard for himself and with ever care to the well-being of his comrades and the destruction of their common enemies. Similarly, Arjuna was a warrior-prince par excellence.

"So are large portion of science is potentially fallible, particularly in institutionalised cases that stand to profit from a tight ring of agreement on certain values (such as eurocenticism for instance)"

I agree. There can be corruption (and often is) in science. Although I shall not note this in terms of "Eurocentrism".

"IN the picture of eternity 5000 years ago is recent news - still, suppose there was someone who was sincere about pursuing religion or knowledge of god - would it be impossible for them to locate resources helpful to their search?"

From the point of eternity, 5000 years is indeed as a blink of an eye, but to humans it is nearly the full extent of our history, and therefore, distant to us to an extreme extent. Similarly, yes, I would claim that it would be almost impossible in the present day to "pursue religion or knowledge of God" considering the sources we have left and what has happened to them.

"old age, disease and death curb the view that we can enjoy in this world eternally - so at least it is a cause for a second thought "

So kama in the morning, artha at mid day, dharma at dusk, and moksha at night?

 

In summation:

To find proof of God one must first believe in him.

How convenient.
I must first submit so as to appreciate.
I must first get drunk and then see the ghosts.
You must first forgo reason so as to come to a higher reason.

 

The egocentric arrogance of theists is a force of nature. Incredible.

 

So many words. So little substance.

 

So, my gentle theist types. Do you have anything remotely comprehensible or useful to say about your god? Anything that illuminates any aspect of reality that common sense can't help with equally well?

Can you even do it in less than a three page diatribe?

 

I wonder if they ever recognize a conflict of interest between what they believe and what is in their interest to believe.

For such “humble”, “meek” creatures they certainly have high hopes and they fancy themselves so important as to be created in the image of a super-being, deserving of eternity and being on the side of ‘good’ and justice.


The revenge of the weak.
Strength is punishable and weakness a higher strength.

 

It's not limited to theists. No sir.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, but it is characteristic.