God ought to be in our Classrooms

[Sojourner<><]

David Gould was asking how a researcher would learn. Or how did the author come to this knowledge?

I think for that one would need to read the author's own explanation.

 

[michabo]

I think for that one would need to read the author's own explanation.

And what would you look for?

 

[Sojourner<><]

And what would you look for?

If I wanted to investigate whatever is beyond this reality?

 

[michabo]

That was the original question, yes.

 

[David Gould]

So if I read a book saying that all religion was nonsense and there was no realm beyond what we can use science to detect, and the author said that he found that out in a dream, should I accept that?

If not, what kinds of methods for discovering the truth about the realm beyond the physical should I accept as being valid - and why?

 

[Sojourner<><]

That was the original question, yes.

I would look for the testimony of someone who knows a thing or two about the subject.

 

[Sojourner<><]

So if I read a book saying that all religion was nonsense and there was no realm beyond what we can use science to detect, and the author said that he found that out in a dream, should I accept that?

What you trust is your decision to make.

If not, what kinds of methods for discovering the truth about the realm beyond the physical should I accept as being valid - and why?

Reading about those truths from a trusted source would be a valid method would it not?

 

[David Gould]

Reading about those truths from a trusted source would be a valid method would it not?

How do I develop trust in that source? In other words, let us assume that I am an atheist with no belief in the metaphysical. (Easy assumption to make. )

As such, as soon as someone I trust - such as one of my friends - says, 'I had an experience with an angelic presence,' I believe that they indeed had an experience but I do not believe in angels, so my thinking is that they are misinterpreting their experience.

So, I trust people when they talk about the reality that I can experience. But I do not trust them when they talk about a supposed reality that I cannot experience and for which there is no evidence.

As an other example, I trust people like Dawkins and Dennett to give me good information about their fields of study. However, I do not trust that they have all the answers, or know the truth or anything like that. Indeed, my own investigations have led me to believe that Dennett is very wrong about free will, and that Dawkins is probably slightly too dismissive of ideas around group selection.

I do not trust what they say; I test it against other sources and against my own thinking on the matters involved.

Further, there is the problem that if two people I trust tell me two contradictory things then I have no method of testing their statements unless I use the scientific method, and ask for evidence. But that is not allowed in this new system of education, is it? So: how do I examine contradictory claims?

 

[ConservativeAtheist]

I doubt Harvard will ever take back religion.

It is after all a smart school.

 

[Sojourner<><]

How do I develop trust in that source? In other words, let us assume that I am an atheist with no belief in the metaphysical. (Easy assumption to make. )

As such, as soon as someone I trust - such as one of my friends - says, 'I had an experience with an angelic presence,' I believe that they indeed had an experience but I do not believe in angels, so my thinking is that they are misinterpreting their experience.

So, I trust people when they talk about the reality that I can experience. But I do not trust them when they talk about a supposed reality that I cannot experience and for which there is no evidence.

As an other example, I trust people like Dawkins and Dennett to give me good information about their fields of study. However, I do not trust that they have all the answers, or know the truth or anything like that. Indeed, my own investigations have led me to believe that Dennett is very wrong about free will, and that Dawkins is probably slightly too dismissive of ideas around group selection.

I do not trust what they say; I test it against other sources and against my own thinking on the matters involved.

Further, there is the problem that if two people I trust tell me two contradictory things then I have no method of testing their statements unless I use the scientific method, and ask for evidence. But that is not allowed in this new system of education, is it? So: how do I examine contradictory claims?

It isn't logical to determine that a claim is false because of some lack of evidence. In order to test a claim against other sources and your own reasoning, you have to give it an honest chance. To answer your question, you can examine contradictory claims by generating the evidence you need by testing certain claims yourself.

 

[The Nihilist]

I would look for the testimony of someone who knows a thing or two about the subject.

Sojourner, you're being silly. The question is not who can we ask who can know about metaphysics, the question is, if the metaphysical is completely inaccessable, then how can anyone possibly have access to it? And if someone claims to have access to the metaphysical, why should we think that they are anything but insane? You seem to think the question is one of how we are to practically reach the metaphysical, but it is actually a question of how it is logically possible.
Because it seems like it is not logically possible, and anyone claiming to have such access is either a liar or insane.

 

[michabo]

I would look for the testimony of someone who knows a thing or two about the subject.

How did they know?

Surely it isn't an infinite string of people reading books and then writing their own books which just restate the first person.

How do you even determine who knows something about the subject and who just thinks they know but are mistaken?

 

[David Gould]

It isn't logical to determine that a claim is false because of some lack of evidence.

It isn't logical to assume that it is true if there is no evidence, either.

If you make a claim, you need evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it should be discarded.

But in this new world that you are advocating, evidence does not enter into it, does it, because that would be going back to the scientific method, which cannot examine supernatural claims (supposedly).

In order to test a claim against other sources and your own reasoning, you have to give it an honest chance.

I have no idea what you mean by that. I do not give claims that have no evidence to support them 'an honest chance' because there are an infinite number of such claims.

To answer your question, you can examine contradictory claims by generating the evidence you need by testing certain claims yourself.

Which is the scientific method. Which leaves us kind of stuck, doesn't it, as the whole point of this discussion was trying to work out what method other than the scientific method could be used to examine the universe ...

 

[Sojourner<><]

How did they know?

Surely it isn't an infinite string of people reading books and then writing their own books which just restate the first person.

How do you even determine who knows something about the subject and who just thinks they know but are mistaken?

It depends on the context. In regards to religious beliefs of whatever is 'beyond', I would read the testimonies that are considered important by religious scholars. I would also want to know why they are considered important. But even then I wouldn't consider them true or false without some way of knowing. It's when the same sort of things start to happen in your own life that you can begin to relate to these stories.

 

[The Nihilist]

It depends on the context. In regards to religious beliefs of whatever is 'beyond', I would read the testimonies that are considered important by religious scholars. I would also want to know why they are considered important. But even then I wouldn't consider them true or false without some way of knowing. It's when the same sort of things start to happen in your own life that you can begin to relate to these stories.

Sojourner, you're missing the point. Because the metaphysical is inaccessable, we can reject out of hand any claims to have reached the metaphysical as the work of either madmen or liars. Moreover, if it happens to us, then we know that we too are madmen.
To get around this, you have to establish a way in which it could be logically possible to reach the metaphysical.

 

[michabo]

It depends on the context. In regards to religious beliefs of whatever is 'beyond', I would read the testimonies that are considered important by religious scholars. I would also want to know why they are considered important. But even then I wouldn't consider them true or false without some way of knowing. It's when the same sort of things start to happen in your own life that you can begin to relate to these stories.

You're still passing the buck. How do these scholars verify testimony?

Why not come right out and tell us how someone could verify that a metaphysical experience is true? What do you look for when you try to see if they are "true or false"?

 

[Sojourner<><]

You're still passing the buck. How do these scholars verify testimony?

Why not come right out and tell us how someone could verify that a metaphysical experience is true? What do you look for when you try to see if they are "true or false"?

For example... I used to be an agnostic. I didn't deny the possibility of God's existence, but I would persistently conclude that I just didn't know one way or the other. I read the scriptures wondering 'what if'? But I never concluded anything. Some time later during hard times I had some dreams that unmistakably came true a day or so later. How can one deny these things? There were alot of other things that happened in my case that I can't logically deny. It's through these experiences that the truths in scripture have been proven for me, and now it would be irrational for me to say that Christianity is false.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Sojourner, you're missing the point. Because the metaphysical is inaccessable, we can reject out of hand any claims to have reached the metaphysical as the work of either madmen or liars. Moreover, if it happens to us, then we know that we too are madmen.
To get around this, you have to establish a way in which it could be logically possible to reach the metaphysical.

I don't think metaphysics much less natural physics have ever followed man's rules.

 

[michabo]

Some time later during hard times I had some dreams that unmistakably came true a day or so later. How can one deny these things?

I'm not trying to deny anything. How can one conclude anything from these things - that's the question we're asking.

So... What are you saying about methods of sorting out legitimate metaphysical claims from illegitimate claims? We use dreams or something?

 

[Sojourner<><]

I'm not trying to deny anything. How can one conclude anything from these things - that's the question we're asking.

So... What are you saying about methods of sorting out legitimate metaphysical claims from illegitimate claims? We use dreams or something?

All I'm saying is that a person can know that at least some of these claims are true because of personal experience.