The Esoteric Knowledge Gambit

[LivingWordUnity]

I don't want to argue over how many people are relativists. I just want to know who here is a relativist and who isn't. I explained the reason why it makes a difference in a discussion about evidence for God.

 

[quatona]

I don't want to argue over how many people are relativists. I just want to know who here is a relativist and who isn't. I explained the reason why it makes a difference.

Just bring evidence to the table of the sort that non-relativists need for accepting something as factual. That would already be more than any Christian here has accomplished in the last few years.
There is no shortage of people here who believe that houses factually exist (i.e. aren´t relativists by the definition you provided). Talk to them. Don´t hold back your evidence, your demonstrable facts, your knowledge and your wisdom just because some crazy philosophers like me are around.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Just bring evidence to the table of the sort that non-relativists need for accepting something as factual.

I believe that the evidence is right in front of our noses. It's first of all in the fact that we exist and that there are laws in nature, many things that have an intelligent design. But I know that an atheist will reject that as evidence since their rejection of God leads them to believe that everything in the universe is ultimately all the result of meaningless dumb luck. I could tell you about some of my personal experiences, but I think you will probably just say that you don't believe it or that I was just very lucky. How about this, tell me what would convince you of God's existence.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't believe it's esoteric...the claimant does. That's why I came up with the name EKG. If I were to create a name for it based on my views of it...it would be a less polite version of horse-dooky.

Take the example of dysert from his posts in this thread...

He starts off from the basic position I outlined in my OP. The position that he's in possession of some truth/knowledge that he couldn't possibly explain to me because I'm not spiritual. He explains that it's not even knowledge that can be conveyed to me, it can only be conveyed "spiritually".

I ask him a few questions to cut through the nonsensical nature of his position...

So far, why is his position nonsensical?

You mentioned belief in god as an analogy for the EKG...I think it's a poor analogy, but maybe you can elaborate on it to connect the dots a little better. You seem to think that I don't believe in god because of your (or believers in general) inability to describe a god completely. That's not the case at all...all I need in order to rationally consider the existence of a god is some basic explanation of what a god is. I don't need the encyclopedia of gods. I'm not sure where you got this idea from...

We have metaphors for God like "Father" and "Creator" and others. In reality it's hard to explain what anything is. Metaphors are used all throughout science; waves are called waves because they act likes waves we can see; nothing is actually being "selected" in natural selection. Early models of the atom looked like small planets orbiting a big star, now we've apparently learned the electrons are at any given moment everywhere and nowhere in particular, which is extremely difficult to imagine or explain mentally, verbally or graphically.

 

[Chesterton]

...but perhaps your mention of a "doctrine" I supposedly hold is the clue here. What doctrine are you talking about? That it's illogical/irrational to hold beliefs without any evidence?

Most atheists here (perhaps all) don't have a doctrinal obligation to atheism.

But Chesterton has a doctrinal obligation to believe they do.

No, as already noted, it's the opposite. A Christian may believe in his own experience because he's experienced it, that is to say, on the evidence. You guys OTOH disbelieve him based on no evidence, based only on the doctrine you adhere to.

 

[quatona]

No, as already noted, it's the opposite. A Christian may believe in his own experience because he's experienced it, that is to say, on the evidence. You guys OTOH disbelieve him based on no evidence, based only on the doctrine you adhere to.

Tell me more about the doctrine I adhere to. I need to know these things about myself.

 

[Chesterton]

Tell me more about the doctrine I adhere to. I need to know these things about myself.

If a Christian says he has esoteric knowledge you believe you should disbelieve that fact.

 

[quatona]

If a Christian says he has esoteric knowledge you believe you should disbelieve that fact.

Want some ketchup with that - admittedly carefully arranged - word salad?

 

[The Cadet]

You guys OTOH disbelieve him based on no evidence

A disbelief requires no evidence. If I say "There is an invisible pink unicorn over there", and you say, "I don't believe you", I do not then get to demand your evidence for this disbelief.

 

[Chesterton]

Want some ketchup with that - admittedly carefully arranged - word salad?

Do you deny it's true?

 

[Chesterton]

A disbelief requires no evidence.

True, it may not require evidence, but in this case the disbelief is still based on none.

If I say "There is an invisible pink unicorn over there", and you say, "I don't believe you", I do not then get to demand your evidence for this disbelief.

Sure you can demand it.

 

[quatona]

Do you deny it's true?

It´s untrue.
Plus, even if it were true, it wouldn´t be a doctrine.

 

[Job8]

Well the fact of the matter is that most spiritual truths cannot be comprehended by those who are "natural". So in that sense it is indeed "esoteric knowledge", but not in the Gnostic sense. In the biblical sense, the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit, because they are foolishness to him.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't want to argue over how many people are relativists. I just want to know who here is a relativist and who isn't. I explained the reason why it makes a difference in a discussion about evidence for God.

You mean, moral relativists?

 

[Ana the Ist]

So far, why is his position nonsensical?

We have metaphors for God like "Father" and "Creator" and others. In reality it's hard to explain what anything is. Metaphors are used all throughout science; waves are called waves because they act likes waves we can see; nothing is actually being "selected" in natural selection. Early models of the atom looked like small planets orbiting a big star, now we've apparently learned the electrons are at any given moment everywhere and nowhere in particular, which is extremely difficult to imagine or explain mentally, verbally or graphically.

He's not claiming that he has difficulty understanding this magical realm of knowledge...he's claiming I'll have difficulty understanding it (or more specifically, that I cannot understand it at all).

His comparison is that of trying to explain colors to a blind man. The problem is that he's describing a very specific type of knowledge with that analogy...perceptual knowledge. Perceptual knowledge doesn't necessarily refer to anything external in reality. If this was the claim made by the EKG...or by dysert himself, then I'd have no real problem with it. I'd dismiss it without any evidence...just like I dismiss mind-readers or people who can "talk to the dead"...but at least his claim wouldn't be utter nonsense. That's not the claim that he or the EKG makes though...

He's saying that this magical knowledge he has (that I don't have) relates to reality, truth, facts. That's a completely different kind of knowledge from something that's purely perceptual. He's speaking about conceptual knowledge regarding reality. Are you starting to see why the claim is absurd now? How can he claim to know a fact/truth (concepts) without any means of conveying that concept (like words, pictures, etc)?

Imagine that you believed evolution to be true...would it be possible to hold a concept of evolution without words to describe it? Even if you're terrible at describing it...I don't see how one can claim to have knowledge of a concept without having any means of conveying that concept (even just to yourself).

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, as already noted, it's the opposite. A Christian may believe in his own experience because he's experienced it, that is to say, on the evidence. You guys OTOH disbelieve him based on no evidence, based only on the doctrine you adhere to.

Well I have to actually be presented with some evidence in order to disbelieve something based on the evidence. If a christian believes something based on his personal experiences (for example, he believes that he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ)...he's going to have to relate that personal experience to me. Once he does, and I explain why his personal experiences aren't good evidence, I'm no longer rejecting his claim based upon any doctrine...am I? Christians make these claims all the time but they rarely present their "evidence" for them...and I suspect the reason why is similar to the reason why I tend to reject such claims...we both know the evidence is poor at best.

If you need an example to help you with this...suppose I made the claim that based upon personal experience, I can read people's minds. You asked me what "personal experience" I'm referring to...and I say that I'm not going to share something so personal with you. Are you rejecting the claim because of your doctrines? Or is it based upon the evidence (of which I haven't presented any)?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am thinking there's subjective rationality (what we honestly believe to be the case) and objective rationality (what is the case). Science and religion are both subjective.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If a Christian says he has esoteric knowledge you believe you should disbelieve that fact.

If a Christian cannot show that he genuinely knows what he claims to know, or if his claims are discredited, then would it absurd to doubt that he possesses such knowledge? I don't doubt the sincerity or strength of his belief. But mere belief, no matter how sincere or strong, is not equivalent to knowledge.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, as already noted, it's the opposite. A Christian may believe in his own experience because he's experienced it, that is to say, on the evidence. You guys OTOH disbelieve him based on no evidence, based only on the doctrine you adhere to.

What doctrine would that be?

 

[Eudaimonist]

See post 95 in this thread.

My post was unclear. I wasn't objecting to the idea that relativists of the sort described below exist.

"The relativist claims that there is no fact of the matter about whether the Copernican theory or the geocentric view is justified by the evidence, 'for there are no absolute facts about what justifies what' (Boghossian 2006a: 62) while the anti-relativist attempts to show the unintelligibility or the implausibility of such a claim." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

And some of them might even endorse the following claim about their views: Relativists deny that anything can be known to be real. They even deny that we can know that the material world is real.

Though that strikes me as a potential overstatement. However, I don't doubt that this sort of view has existed either. (Full disclosure, I'm not a relativist and could be considered hostile and uncharitable towards relativism.) What I'm asking for is some justification for the claim:

But the fact is that relativism is the dominate [dominant?] philosophy of the modern age.

As far as I am aware, that is not a fact, and it is not true. I could be mistaken, but I'd like know what backs up that claim of fact.


eudaimonia,

Mark