William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig
kNoctis
driftwood

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Total Topics: 76
Total Posts: 60
#31 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Aug 1, 2010 - 2:52 AM:

180 Proof wrote:
Well, for all intents & purposes, Arkady & kNoctis, aren't all placebo-effects "the same"?


I'd say no. The social communities religions are composed of attempt to cultivate different attitudes. For example, sincere Christians ought to be more apt to cultivate love for their neighbor and fellow humans, whereas Buddhists would be more concerned with compassion for all life, Taoists and Native American religions with respect and reverence for nature, ancient Greeks for justice, etc...

-----

Mariner, I'm really only attempting to argue that the "cultural conditioning of religious experience" is false because it is of interest to me. If you thought it acceptable to state this argument with only the testimony of "scholars of all major religions, as well as by philosophers who study the subject" (post #5), then me stating that the majority of published scholars and philosophers actually don't accept it should have been enough to discredit it. Nevertheless...

Mariner wrote:
kNoctis, if you will jump into the discussion I'm having with Arkady, you should jump into it at the present, not at a prior moment.


I apologize for that. The point I was addressing was the present moment when I started typing. This thread was moving pretty fast for awhile.

Your post does not take into consideration the more recent posts between me and Arkady, in which the difference between "a god" and "the ground of being" is explained. I also explained, already, how this is not an indictment of "gods-in-general", etc. etc.


Your "ground of being" is nothing more than Meister Eckhart's "Godhead", John Hick's "Real an Sich, Plotinus' "One", or the "Religio Perennis" of the perennialists. It still doesn't explain away the fact that your position doesn't allow for any religious doctrine to be literally true. In fact it only reinforces it. This is simply a consequence of your view. Take it as you will.

Your characterization is reasonable, but I must repeat that the interaction between the two is not the same thing as an interchangeability, and much less an identity.


True, but I think it does demonstrate that the two can't be as neatly disentangled as you would like.

You might be talking about that, but nothing remotely like it crossed my mind.


I don't have any idea how you got the impression that this argument wasn't about the justification of religious belief via religious experience. I said specifically in post #6: "the best defenses of religious experience as justification for the belief in god fall to pieces when you hold (b)".

The fact that the referent of the experience is the same does not mean that the experiences are "of a general form", interchangeable, etc. etc.


Then how can it be that the "referent of the experience" is the same? There must be some common core among the different religious experiences that result in an experience of this 'generic ontological x' you're proposing. This could be soteriological - as in the case of Hick, or religious attitude - in the case of Wilfred Cantwell Smith, or religious function - in the case of Paul Knitter. Either way, wholly dissimilar practices don't result in accomplishing the same thing.

There's a reason that Christians experience Jesus or the the divine agape and not the nothingness of Zen Buddhism or Allah. They aren't having an experience of an indescribable x and then interpreting it in some culturally conditioned way. They are (putatively) experiencing the different referents which their respective religions train and direct them to experience because they are undergoing different experiences. The only possible explanation for having an experience of the same object (even if they don't know it) would be some common element to their religious experience/practice which makes that object mutually accessible.

Obviously false. I can't even imagine any argument that could lead to this. And, frankly, any word -- any word -- is enough to refute it.


It's obvious to me now that you haven't really thought a lot about this principle of yours. Your "ground of being" must be ineffable, otherwise it would be possible for one religion to have a monopoly on literal truth. Given the "trans-categorical" (pace Hick) characterization of this "ground of being", any experience of it is necessarily wholly conditioned and interpreted through a cultural 'lens' and therefore any attempt to describe it is subject to language which much be completely metaphorical and literally inaccurate.

You are apparently confusing "conditioned" with "determined". If we make this substitution, then your sentence becomes correct, but it is still a play on words, because an "experience" cannot be determined by a culture. Cultures don't have this ability.


No I'm not confusing the two at all. I said "conditioned" and I meant conditioned, but determined might in fact be more accurate. There are no unmediated experiences, and my point above is that this is even more the case regarding religious experiences.

Mariner wrote:
kNoctis wrote:
But there's no way to justify the existence of something we can't literally refer to.


If this were true, before there was language, nothing existed.


This is silly. My point isn't ontological; it's epistemological.

Not at all. Histories are histories. Traditions are traditions. Rituals are rituals. None of them are doctrines. It is not a point of Christian doctrine that St. Augustine prayed for chastity, but not yet; it is not a point of Catholic doctrine that priests should not marry (that's a tradition developed over centuries of ecclesiastic development), and it is not a point of doctrine that the priests should wear purple in the mass in some days.

This vagueness in the notion of doctrine is the main reason why you are disagreeing with me. To you, "doctrine" is basically any intellectual articulation related to any part of the history or of the praxis of a religion (correct me if I'm wrong). I use the word in its dictionary sense.


Yeah. I guess I was being somewhat loose with the term "doctrine". I would say, however, that by dismissing the importance of doctrine, you're also dismissing the ritual and intellectual history and tradition among religions that so many take comfort in.

I would also argue that, whenever you figure out what the common core among religions is that you need in order for there to be a common referent of experience, you'll find something else that you're dismissing entirely without considering how it affects billions of religious practitioners.

I don't know what is "the position we've been discussing". I accept the position I've been espousing grin. But your post is more than a little confusing, I still don't know what is the objection you were raising.


I'm trying to figure out if you really believe "that religious experiences are ultimately linked to the same being (through layers of cultural and symbolic baggage", or if you were just mentioning it as a position others use to explain the diversity of religious belief resulting from religious experience. You've contradicted yourself enough times that I'm not sure, and it's a position that directly goes against the Dominus Iesus.

If you haven't noticed yet, the articulation is not crucially important, the experience is what matters. The articulation has its role (I'm not disparaging it), but it's not foundational. It is derived.


I've noticed. I just haven't agreed. First, that articulation (and resulting propositional content) is important for a lot of people. Second, and more importantly, the articulation of a religious experience is neither foundation or derived. It's a false dilemma to categorize them like that. Neither can be extracted as the crucial or most important element in a religious framework. They mutually support each other. I've said this a million times. You're dismissal of the significance articulation holds for many people and the vital role it plays in religion is off the mark.

Mariner wrote:
kNoctis wrote:
Why are all religious experiences culturally conditioned? ... Are theistic religions literally correct in their "speculative reasonings" regarding the transcendence of this ultimate, whereas pantheistic religions aren't? That seems pretty unfair to me.


It's a good thing I haven't said anything like it.


Then answer my first question. Why is it the case that "religious experiences are ultimately linked to the same being (through layers of cultural and symbolic baggage)?" You introduced this principle on an ad hoc basis to explain the diversity of religious belief from religious experience, but I think it's about time you gave a reason why anyone should accept this explanation. The notion that everyone is wrong certainly seems to explain the diversity of religious belief better than the notion that everyone is right.

To answer your question, "what of religions where the ultimate referent is not transcendent"? They are emphasizing a different aspect of the same being. (You know, by now, that "being" is just my word for it. Replace it with whatever you prefer).


Are you saying that this x is both transcendent and not transcendent? What does that even mean? It's one thing to say x is neither transcendent nor not-transcendent. It's something else entirely to say it's both.

Mariner wrote:
kNoctis wrote:
Members of different religions experience different things during their religious experiences because they have different experiences, not because they merely interpret the same thing differently.


That is tautological (so, I agree).


No it isn't. You could argue that they have the same experiences, and my point is that you must if you want to argue that they have the same referent.

You are arguing for some sort of transcendent generic referent of religious experience which means you need to identify some common core in religious experience to explain the common result.

What it does entail is that any emphasis on the symbols being used in the articulation (the "literal approach", aka "fundamentalism") will lead to confusion and, almost surely, to contradictions.


That's a pretty broad definition of fundamentalism. It paints anyone who has a religious experience and asks "what did I experience" a fundamentalist.

It also entails that the way out is to consider the symbols as... symbols. As temporary, precarious ways to refer to something else. As things which would be foolish to look at as "literal truth".


Agreed. It would be foolish to look at them as literal truths because those symbols would be literally false.

it's also interesting to see the beginnings of the derailment in a (so far) civilized debate appear so early. Psychologization of the interlocutor is a bad sign. I think our dialogue will not reach more than two other rounds, unfortunately.


Well, I meant no offense by it. I only mentioned it because I argued the same point as you a few years ago, and in hindsight I realized that I had some emotional attachments which were preventing me from seeing both sides clearly. If that's not the case with you, then I am wrong and am sorry.

Mariner wrote:
Arkady wrote:
How does Jesus fit into this? So, Jesus was as much the son of the Great Spirit, as of Yahweh?


But Jesus is indeed the son of the Great Spirit.


See, this doctrine supposes that Christianity, above all other religions, was founded by a divine being, in person. That alone raises the authority of Christianity above all other religions. But if all religions equally point to the same ultimate, ground of being, or whatever, then none can have any special status among the other. It's one or the other.

Edited by kNoctis on Aug 1, 2010 - 4:50 AM. Reason: another monster
Mariner
Longing
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil

Total Topics: 72
Total Posts: 1580
#32 - Quote - Permalink
0 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Aug 1, 2010 - 9:56 AM:

Arkady wrote:
...what you're doing: trying to explain away all "other" religions in terms of the belief system of his new religion.


A good moment for you to make another attempt at figuring out what I'm doing.

***

Maw wrote:
I meant that sex aside, a Religious Experience isn't accessibly to everyone, though Craig should have to define what exactly he means by a religious experience. Is it a vision? Some sort of feeling? Simply praying? All that and more? He never actually goes far into that. Nevertheless stating that not only can proofs of God lead you away from him, but that you can know God outside of proofs, puts him in the position that allows him to say, "You may have bested my four other proofs through sound logic, but you can never take away my personal experience of God, so I don't lose." It just seems like a very fallacious argument.


It is not an argument for God. It can't be a fallacious argument if it isn't an argument. (If he presents it as an argument, then he's guilty of what you're accusing him of).

You are not noticing that this also puts him in the position that he "does not win". You can accept all of his proofs for God, but it won't be enough. (This is why proofs of God can lead you away from him; by deluding you into thinking that you have the real thing).

As for "knowing God outside of proofs", I thought we had agreed that this is the only way you can know anything -- chairs, steaks, etc.

I would think that if people simply can't access God then why make that an argument apart from all other arguments as the surefire way to know God? It would be like stating (for continuities sake), "Sex is great and if you have sex you'll know it's great apart from all other arguments" despite not everyone having that accessibility.


Sure, I agree. But note how your reasoning is conditional -- if people can't access God.... This has to be shown before the conclusion can be accepted. It is Craig's belief (and I know that because it is the belief of all religions, even chauvinistic ones who refuse access to outsiders) that all people can have religious experiences, i.e., access God, even if imperfectly. Imperfect access is still access.

Well as I said above I think the definition of a religious experience would change from person to person. What some might regard as a religious experience others might regard as an obvious natural phenomenon.


And why can't it be both? Religious experiences may be inspired by, derived from, or even constituted of obvious natural phenomena.

***

kNoctis wrote:
It still doesn't explain away the fact that your position doesn't allow for any religious doctrine to be literally true. In fact it only reinforces it. This is simply a consequence of your view. Take it as you will.


I haven't denied this, kNoctis. What I've said is that "literal truth" is irrelevant. They are all true, and they can't all be "literally true". They are true because they derive from actual experiences; and they are not "literally true" because their medium of expression (words) cannot convey the fullness of the experience. They are, as I said, windows. A colored window is still a window, and lets you look inside. A window painted in black is no longer a window.

Then how can it be that the "referent of the experience" is the same?


If you and I watch a movie and get different ideas of it, does it mean that we have not watched the same movie?

There's a reason that Christians experience Jesus or the the divine agape and not the nothingness of Zen Buddhism or Allah.


Do you want me to search for quotations of saints which talk about the nothingness of the soul before God?

I have St. John of the Cross in my shelf. Let me know if you need it.

Your "ground of being" must be ineffable, otherwise it would be possible for one religion to have a monopoly on literal truth. Given the "trans-categorical" (pace Hick) characterization of this "ground of being", any experience of it is necessarily wholly conditioned and interpreted through a cultural 'lens' and therefore any attempt to describe it is subject to language which much be completely metaphorical and literally inaccurate.


The "wholly" is an overstatement, as is the "completely". But the "literally" is -- literally grin -- correct. And irrelevant.

My point isn't ontological; it's epistemological.


And my point is that when you talk about "justification", you must go from discourse to real life.

Actually, that is my main point in this thread, from my first post here. I know that you want to bring the discussion back to the level of words only, but I'm just pointing out that, if this happens, then we lose sight of what the words are referring to.

I would say, however, that by dismissing the importance of doctrine, you're also dismissing the ritual and intellectual history and tradition among religions that so many take comfort in.


I'm not dismissing it. I'm clarifying it. Putting it into a context.

You've contradicted yourself enough times that I'm not sure


What an odd phrase.

You can just tell me where, then.

...and it's a position that directly goes against the Dominus Iesus.


Show me, then. It's not hard to pinpoint contradiction (apparent or real). You quote a sentence of mine, quote a sentence of Dominus Iesus, and request clarification.

That would be much more productive than just saying "contradiction, contradiction".

You're dismissal of the significance articulation holds for many people and the vital role it plays in religion is off the mark.


Haven't dismissed it.

I'm looking forward to saying that I haven't dismissed it in my next post.

Why is it the case that "religious experiences are ultimately linked to the same being (through layers of cultural and symbolic baggage)?" You introduced this principle on an ad hoc basis to explain the diversity of religious belief from religious experience, but I think it's about time you gave a reason why anyone should accept this explanation. The notion that everyone is wrong certainly seems to explain the diversity of religious belief better than the notion that everyone is right.


Hehe. My first post talked about how experience eludes any argumentation, and is required for us to know anything, from chairs to God. And you then require arguments, an explanation, as to why the religious experience across several religions have the same referent.

The analogy of the movie may help. Buddhist texts are recognizably about God, and so are Taoist texts, etc. I know it because I recognize God there. I've seen the movie. You haven't, you are just reading the movie critics, and so you can't recognize anything.

I know you'll cry "foul", and compare me to Craig (or worse), but one thing you can't say is that you didn't know it. It was explained in my first post here.

Also, when I invoked "scholars of all religions, and philosophers interested in the subject", I was emphasizing that this is not a weird idea of mine. It can be, of course, a weird idea of us, but it is not of mine. You then subjected this sentence to an informal poll, among your readings, and decided that it is wrong based on the count of heads. A curious method, but if you like it, that's fine with me.

Are you saying that this x is both transcendent and not transcendent? What does that even mean? It's one thing to say x is neither transcendent nor not-transcendent. It's something else entirely to say it's both.


It is both transcendent and immanent.

That's a pretty broad definition of fundamentalism. It paints anyone who has a religious experience and asks "what did I experience" a fundamentalist.


Ugh. Again the confusion between experience and doctrine. And again the will to put words in my mouth. And again the ridiculous conclusion.

If you don't understand, ask about it. You will have to admit that you're not understanding some of the things I'm saying, instead of running away with them to reach a ridiculous conclusion and then attributing it to me. It's no big deal. I admit when I don't understand something you said ("what an odd phrase", etc.), and ask for clarification. Do the same.

I only mentioned it because I argued the same point as you a few years ago, and in hindsight I realized that I had some emotional attachments which were preventing me from seeing both sides clearly.


I think your emotional attachments only grew in the meantime. You were much less prone to misinterpretation then.

See, this doctrine supposes that Christianity, above all other religions, was founded by a divine being, in person. That alone raises the authority of Christianity above all other religions. But if all religions equally point to the same ultimate, ground of being, or whatever, then none can have any special status among the other. It's one or the other.


Not at all. There is no point of doctrine in Taoism, in Buddhism, in North American Animism, etc., that says "the event of Christ cannot happen". They don't put God (or whatever) in a straitjacket, they don't forbid him/her/it from doing anything. You are right that Christianity claims to have a historical foundation, and it is therefore different from the others, especially from non-Abrahamic ones. But a Zen Buddhist who heard about the story of Christ would not automatically conclude that it is false based on doctrinal incompatibility. He would examine the evidence for the story, and if he was convinced that the story was accurate, if he became converted to it, he would insert his own prior beliefs into the framework of Christianity. If he was not convinced of it, then he'd attribute the existence of Christianity to historically flawed arguments, but he would not deny (when reading about Christ or the saints) that they had existential wisdom of a sort, even if they were intellectually deluded guys. Western mysticism is also mysticism, and the Zen Buddhist would know that.

Note that I nowhere said that all religions equally point to the same ultimate. I said they point to the same ultimate, and I said they point to different aspects of it. The "equally" is your contribution.
Arkady
How's the chili?
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 4500
#33 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Aug 1, 2010 - 10:00 AM:

Mariner wrote:
A good moment for you to make another attempt at figuring out what I'm doing.

Believe me, I am trying, Mariner. You can be somewhat...inscrutable, at times. You can help me out by actually replying to some of the points I made in my previous post...
Mariner
Longing
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil

Total Topics: 72
Total Posts: 1580
#34 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 1, 2010 - 10:12 AM:

Arkady wrote:

Believe me, I am trying, Mariner. You can be somewhat...inscrutable, at times. You can help me out by actually replying to some of the points I made in my previous post...


I did that. Pointing out that you were again attributing to me something that I didn't say (and even explicitly denied).

You also asked this:

What is the difference between "doctrines" and "metaphysical propositions" in your view (a distinction you've made before)? Is the Christian End of Days and events described in Revelations similarly a "doctrine"? If so, when these eschatological doctrines disagree, how to determine which (if any) is correct?


Doctrines are the articulation of religious experience.

Metaphysical propositions are the articulation of speculative reasoning about metaphysics.

(Note, speculative reasoning about metaphysics can be based on religious experience, but that does not conflate the two things. A man can concoct a doctrine without speculative reasoning of any sort).

The Day of the Lord (in Judaism) is equivalent to the End of Days (in Christianity), and it is a doctrine. When they disagree, the disagreement is worse than disagreements at the level of doctrine; they are disagreements at the level of interpretation of doctrines. Eschatological documents are always obscure. People can take away many different doctrines from the Apocalypse (Book of Revelations). Which is correct, if any? I have no idea. This is not a religious experience. This is the articulation of John's experience, as-seen-by-the-reader-through-the-pages-of-a-book, far removed from the source. A guy who finds something in the Apocalypse in the 19th century, reading it as some kind of Da Vinci's code thriller, may be right (or not), but his activity is not "a religious experience" just because it happens while reading the Bible.

(Granted, it is possible for a religious experience to use the Book of Revelations as its substrate, but the converse is not true -- not all experiences using the Book of Revelations as a substrate are, by definition, religious).
jorndoe
Investigator
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada, Denmark

Total Topics: 71
Total Posts: 3643
#35 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Aug 1, 2010 - 10:49 AM:

Mariner (#32) wrote:

As for "knowing God outside of proofs", I thought we had agreed that this is the only way you can know anything -- chairs, steaks, etc.

I would call this kind of argumentation a case of severely mobile goalposts.
Personally, I have no particular reason for disbelief in the existence of the computer I'm typing on right now.
Comparatively, what about certain conceptions denoted "God" (an arguably ambiguous term in the first place, from reading the thread)?
jorndoe
Investigator
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 06, 2008
Location: Canada, Denmark

Total Topics: 71
Total Posts: 3643
#36 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Aug 1, 2010 - 11:28 AM:

Mariner (#34) wrote:

The Day of the Lord (in Judaism) is equivalent to the End of Days (in Christianity), and it is a doctrine. When they disagree, the disagreement is worse than disagreements at the level of doctrine; they are disagreements at the level of interpretation of doctrines. Eschatological documents are always obscure. People can take away many different doctrines from the Apocalypse (Book of Revelations). Which is correct, if any? I have no idea. This is not a religious experience. This is the articulation of John's experience, as-seen-by-the-reader-through-the-pages-of-a-book, far removed from the source. A guy who finds something in the Apocalypse in the 19th century, reading it as some kind of Da Vinci's code thriller, may be right (or not), but his activity is not "a religious experience" just because it happens while reading the Bible.

A natural inquiry then is:
Barring logical inconsistencies, are there means to decide among such differing religious interpretations of scriptures, or are such questions undecidable (by nature, inherently)?
Maw
Archimedean nihilist
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 29, 2010
Location: Lost Carcosa

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 1062
#37 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Aug 1, 2010 - 11:51 AM:

Mariner wrote:
It is not an argument for God. It can't be a fallacious argument if it isn't an argument. (If he presents it as an argument, then he's guilty of what you're accusing him of).


He presents it first as an argument, then states it is not an argument, then states that it is a proof. Either way it presents a bit of a fallacy for a debate.

And why can't it be both? Religious experiences may be inspired by, derived from, or even constituted of obvious natural phenomena.


Well then how could people differentiate them? A man may see three bolts of lightening strike near the same area and deduce that it was a sign from the Trinity. While another man may see the same thing and simply find it nature at her most wondrous. Again it depends how one defines a religious experience and which of the many Gods from the many religions one attributes it to.

When it comes down to it I think the Argument from Personal Experience and how he presents it, is inappropriate for a debate for the existence of God.
Mariner
Longing
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil

Total Topics: 72
Total Posts: 1580
#38 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 1, 2010 - 1:28 PM:

jorndoe wrote:
Personally, I have no particular reason for disbelief in the existence of the computer I'm typing on right now.


What you have to picture (and I know it is a difficult imaginative effort) is someone who feels just like that about the god(s) he worships.

You also have to picture a seeing man trying to explain to a blind man (or, more to the point, a man who refuses to open his eyes) what is a landscape. Verbal descriptions of the landscape and of its internal coherence would help, no doubt about it, but the best way to persuade him is to convince him to open his eyes.

Note, by the way, the close relationship between this situation and the Parable of the Cave. A study of that (which is less overtly religious than our themes here, but is still religious) would pay off nicely.

A natural inquiry then is:
Barring logical inconsistencies, are there means to decide among such differing religious interpretations of scriptures, or are such questions undecidable (by nature, inherently)?


Well, in the particular case of eschatological doctrines, "the proof is in the pudding". If what is predicted (based on analysis of "a scripture") happens, then the interpretation was correct, and not otherwise. Unfortunately, eschatological doctrines, by their nature, can only be "verified" at the end of times. Which leads me (at least) to conclude that they are not very important. Others disagree.

As for doctrines in general, no, I wouldn't say that they are undecidable by nature. Some of them can be ruled out by an analysis of the foundational experience (or of the corresponding texts, if the experience was somehow consigned to writing -- but this is more problematic, of course). Anyone who said that his interpretation of the Christian experience led him to kill everyone around him would be wrong when linking his decision to the original experience, and demonstrably so.

But in the particular case of "reasonable but differing interpretations" (and defining what is "reasonable" is a judgment call), then I would say that the interpretations are not "decidable by argumentation". They are decidable by an act of will (which is why they have adherents), but whether this is enough to be called "decidable" is questionable.

Note that your question, at least how it's phrased (referring to "scriptures"), pertains to tensions "within religions", and not to tensions "among religions".

***

Maw, I'll have a look at the link and come back to you. But as for the matter of distinguishing between "obvious natural phenomena" and "religious experiences", what I said when I asked why it couldn't be both is that this effort of "distinction" is misguided. Sometimes, you cannot distinguish between them.

The thread I mentioned earlier ("Stabby, the pious?") starts with the description, by Stabby, of a poker game in which he got the eight of spades at a particularly auspicious moment smiling face. He (with atheistic leanings, to say the least -- read the thread for his own words) decided to take that as a motivation to re-evaluate the "God question". Others wouldn't agree with him. But can you say that he's wrong, that God had nothing to do with the eight of spades being there, and that you know that for sure?

I can't. Note, if I separate myself momentarily from my religious beliefs, I couldn't say he's right, either. I'd have to remain in doubt. That's the reasonable position, for one who hears of the experience once, twice, or n-th removed from its source.
kNoctis
driftwood

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Total Topics: 76
Total Posts: 60
#39 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 1, 2010 - 2:54 PM:

Arkady wrote:

You can help me out by actually replying to some of the points I made in my previous post...


nod
kNoctis
driftwood

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 07, 2005

Total Topics: 76
Total Posts: 60
#40 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Aug 1, 2010 - 3:16 PM:

Mariner wrote:


They are, as I said, windows. A colored window is still a window, and lets you look inside. A window painted in black is no longer a window.


They are more like stained glass windows, which are pretty much impossible to see through.

Mariner wrote:
If you and I watch a movie and get different ideas of it, does it mean that we have not watched the same movie?


No, and I wouldn't say it did. What I would say is that if we both watched the same movie, then our act of watching it was probably similar in more ways than if you watched a movie and I watched a live basketball game. So here again the analogy doesn't quite work, because people certainly share quite a number of experiences in common when watching a movie. What's the common core of religious experience that people share when experiencing the same ground of being?

Do you want me to search for quotations of saints which talk about the nothingness of the soul before God?

I have St. John of the Cross in my shelf. Let me know if you need it.


You can. I don't care. There's a difference between the nothingness of the soul before God, and Nothingness. That's kind of obvious.

The "wholly" is an overstatement, as is the "completely".


Read it again. I gave reasons for my position. Rational debate works on addressing premises, not conclusions, otherwise our discussion is limited to "no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is"

My first post talked about how experience eludes any argumentation, and is required for us to know anything, from chairs to God. And you then require arguments, an explanation, as to why the religious experience across several religions have the same referent.


?!? It can be true that we require experience to know anything, while at the same time be false that religious experiences across religions have the same referent. They have little, if anything, to do with each other.

Buddhist texts are recognizably about God, and so are Taoist texts, etc. I know it because I recognize God there. I've seen the movie. You haven't, you are just reading the movie critics, and so you can't recognize anything.


Thanks for (incorrectly) identifying my reading habits.

Look, if you would please, where you say that I'm misunderstanding you and putting words in your mouth, clarify what and how I am misunderstanding your position. If I've attempted to address your distinctions between experience and doctrine (which I have), and if my points are irrelevant, then address those points and explain how and why they're irrelevant. It's better than just expecting me to decode your posts.

If not, then I'm tired of this discussion.


Edited by kNoctis on Aug 1, 2010 - 3:37 PM. Reason: spelling it out
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.