The Esoteric Knowledge Gambit

[KCfromNC]

Well the fact of the matter is that most spiritual truths cannot be comprehended by those who are "natural".

Then all you have to do is find a way to demonstrate that you are supernatural. If you can't, then we can apply your claim here to show there's no reason to think that you can comprehend spiritual truths.

 

[The Cadet]

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

Well... Yeah. Rejecting a claim does not carry with it a burden of proof. If I say

Sure you can demand it.

Okay, where's your evidence that:

• Allah
• Shiva
• The Flying Spaghetti Monster
• Pixies
• Invisible Unicorns
• Skull-juggling telepathic walruses on Pluto
• Any number of other bizarre or supernatural claims

Are not real/true?

The burden of proof is not that hard to understand.

 

[Chesterton]

It´s untrue.

Then on what grounds do you disbelieve it?

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

It's a belief, likely part of a set of beliefs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then on what grounds do you disbelieve it?

If they've presented evidence, and I don't believe it, then chances are I've explained why the evidence is insufficient.

If they haven't provided any evidence, then I don't believe based upon a lack of evidence.

 

[Chesterton]

If they've presented evidence, and I don't believe it, then chances are I've explained why the evidence is insufficient.

If they haven't provided any evidence, then I don't believe based upon a lack of evidence.

Well there you go. Lots of overlapping names could apply to your doctrine. Scientism comes to mind.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well there you go. Lots of overlapping names could apply to your doctrine. Scientism comes to mind.

Misguided accusations of "scientism" are often made by people who refuse to have their claims subjected to any sort of scrutiny. Asking someone how they know something to be true is not scientism.

 

[Chesterton]

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).

I don't know, if you really see it that way I can't argue, but it did bother me when you said "ploy" as if anyone who couldn't explain themselves was lying. Not that I think a Christian couldn't ever lie or anything, but I honestly think there may be cases where it's true that it's just hard to explain things. I can even think of an example of knowledge which one Christian may have trouble understanding, which another Christian claims to "get", but still has a very hard time explaining to the other Christian.

 

[Chesterton]

Misguided accusations of "scientism" are often made by people who refuse to have their claims subjected to any sort of scrutiny. Asking someone how they know something to be true is not scientism.

How is it misgiuded? Demanding demonstrable evidence as an absolute requirement is scientism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How is it misgiuded? Demanding demonstrable evidence as an absolute requirement is scientism.

I already explained how it's misguided: Asking someone how they know something to be true is not scientism.

 

[Chesterton]

I already explained how it's misguided: Asking someone how they know something to be true is not scientism.

No one said it was.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No one said it was.

Um yeah, you sort of implied that.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

We've already mentioned a couple reasons why it may be difficult, but if you believe it's because the evidence is poor that's fine.

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)?

Because of my doctrines.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I already explained how it's misguided: Asking someone how they know something to be true is not scientism.

How did you get scientism out of my post?

Is it because I cite a lack of evidence as a reason for not believing a claim that has no evidence?

 

[Chesterton]

Um yeah, you sort of implied that.

I also gave a link to the wiki on scientism, seems to describe what we're talking about pretty good. Just read the first paragraph and tell me where I'm wrong.

 

[Ana the Ist]

We've already mentioned a couple reasons why it may be difficult, but if you believe it's because the evidence is poor that's fine.

Because of my doctrines.

What doctrine would that be?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I also gave a link to the wiki on scientism, seems to describe what we're talking about pretty good. Just read the first paragraph and tell me where I'm wrong.

"Demonstrable" evidence is where you're wrong. The kind of evidence we should expect will change depending upon the claim.

 

[Chesterton]

How did you get scientism out of my post?

Is it because I cite a lack of evidence as a reason for not believing a claim that has no evidence?

As I mentioned there are other terms for what your beliefs are based on, like atheisim, materialism, naturalism, what have you. I don't want to label you, but there must be something to describe your position.

 

[Chesterton]

What doctrine would that be?

Christian doctrine.

"Demonstrable" evidence is where you're wrong. The kind of evidence we should expect will change depending upon the claim.

But you're complaining that EKG is not demonstrable to you, aren't you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

How did you get scientism out of my post?

Is it because I cite a lack of evidence as a reason for not believing a claim that has no evidence?

I didn't get scientism out of it, but Chesterton is claiming that it exemplifies scientism.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

You've mentioned two "if"'s. If you can demonstrably discredit him that's one thing. If you merely disbelieve him because he can't prove his claim, that's another.

But mere belief, no matter how sincere or strong, is not equivalent to knowledge.

Neither is mere lack of belief, or disbelief.