The Esoteric Knowledge Gambit

[dysert]

Why should we use the Bible as a standard in the first place?

I would use the Bible as the standard because I place no credence in any of the other "holy books". It comes down to the exclusivity of the Christian faith.

 

[dysert]

The way you describe this spiritual knowledge, it sounds like something that you imagine is floating through the air...something that exists externally...something that exists independent of a person or a mind capable of perceiving it. Is that about right?

To you, a believer, it's as if you have an antennae capable of picking up this knowledge. Metaphorically, you're tuned in to this spiritual frequency that this kind of knowledge is being "broadcast" upon. Would you agree?

I don't want to put words in your mouth...this is just the picture you're creating in my mind with the way you've described it so far.

No, I don't think spiritual truth is "broadcast". Instead it's a point-to-point system of delivery. I could be given spiritual truth that another believer is not given. All spiritual truth, however, must be consistent with biblical teaching.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lets say an angel (or an apparently supernatural being, luminous etc) appeared to you and said "hide", and you hid, and thus escaped an unforseen tragedy.

How would that be shareable empirical knowledge, and not tin foil hat territory....?

Even if 9 (lets say , know it or not, be you convinced, deterred etc) it really happened...

I never included the word "empirical" in the OP for a reason Growing. Whenever I personally confront the EKG I give the believer as much wiggle room as possible.

If it was knowledge such as you described, I would expect them to tell me an angel appeared to them and told them to hide. Quite simple really.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would use the Bible as the standard because I place no credence in any of the other "holy books". It comes down to the exclusivity of the Christian faith.

Why should we give the Bible any more credence than other holy books?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I don't think spiritual truth is "broadcast". Instead it's a point-to-point system of delivery. I could be given spiritual truth that another believer is not given. All spiritual truth, however, must be consistent with biblical teaching.

You don't see this kind of thinking as a teeny tiny bit circular?

One has to believe in the bible to receive this spiritual knowledge...

One can only verify this spiritual knowledge through the word of the bible...

I'm guessing now that this "knowledge" comes to you as words, since you can verify it with the words of the bible. Do you hear the words as if a voice speaks to you? Or do they come to you as if you're thinking them?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why should we give the Bible any more credence than other holy books?

Lol cuz once you do....you get in tune with the spiritual knowledge, obviously.

 

[The Cadet]

Has anyone here heard of "ego death"? It's an experience that typically happens while on extremely high doses of strong psychadelics (LSD, Mescaline, etc.) where your ego essentially shuts down. That is to say, you experience something, but you do not experience being there to experience it. This... is extremely difficult to explain well. All of our words for describing experiences are based around someone experiencing it. Someone saw. Someone thought. Someone experienced. But there's nobody there. "You" aren't there to experience it (again, your ego, your sense of self, is not there), and yet it is being experienced.

This is something which is phenomenally hard to explain, and I don't expect that anyone who hasn't experienced it can really do it justice, myself included. That said, you know how this differs from the OP? I tried to explain it, I didn't simply assume that there's no way anyone else could understand it. And I didn't refuse to admit that I could be wrong. On the other hand, this:

You may deem it a poor claim, but please don't call it a ploy. You have no idea whether "knowledge works that way". Even if God appeared to me in person and I try to tell you about it, you will dismiss it.

This is very unreasonable. You haven't presented the claims, you haven't done anything to explain them, and you haven't heard my response. And still, you insist that I will reject them, and that this rejection will be unjustified? Why? That's very unreasonable.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Lol cuz once you do....you get in tune with the spiritual knowledge, obviously.

I think we have a demonstration of EKG right here.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Has anyone here heard of "ego death"?

 

[quatona]

At this point I see only two options:
Either accept each and every esoteric truth claim, or reject them all.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I never included the word "empirical" in the OP for a reason Growing. Whenever I personally confront the EKG I give the believer as much wiggle room as possible.

If it was knowledge such as you described, I would expect them to tell me an angel appeared to them and told them to hide. Quite simple really.

OK lets say it happened. But according to your standards of evidence, it wasnt a real experience.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Assuming I know what you mean by "expressed through the senses"... It is a spiritual truth that I have the Holy Spirit indwelling me. I just expressed that through typing and you're learning it through reading. Is that the kind of example you're looking for?

Of course I realize there are many faiths and many "holy books" behind those faiths. When I use the term "believer", though, I'm exclusively referring to believers in Jesus Christ as the only way to God. Here we go with the exclusivity of the Christian faith, but I think it is exclusive. It's really a non sequitur to ask about contradictory spiritual "truths" in those other faiths since I don't think they would receive spiritual truth any more than you would. (No offense intended.)

No offense taken, I'd rather you be honest with what you believe.

Now, I'm curious about what you meant by this....

"For this, it doesn't matter how smart you are you'll never gain this type of knowledge as a non-spiritual person because spiritual knowledge can only be conveyed spiritually. It's almost like trying to describe colors to a man born blind."

You just gave me a bit of "spiritual knowledge" (you told me you have the holy spirit within you) and it didn't require me being a spiritual person at all.

True, I don't believe this knowledge that you gave me (no offense intended)...but it's still knowledge that you're clearly capable of sharing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

OK lets say it happened. But according to your standards of evidence, it wasnt a real experience.

I'm not sure what you mean by this....

Are we imagining that it happened or not?

 

[quatona]

OK lets say it happened. But according to your standards of evidence, it wasnt a real experience.

No, according to my standards of evidence it isn´t intersubjective evidence.

 

[Dre Khipov]

No, @FrumiousBandersnatch isn't disqualifying such things. Notice that she is talking about a situation in which corroborative evidence is lacking. She isn't suggesting that we cannot revise our understanding in light of new information.

I think I was responding to the claim that the "quality of the evidence is the decisive factor". My point is that it's not, and it never was. Again, string theory doesn't have the "quality of evidence" that FrumiousBandersnatch would take as a standard. They have a possible model as an explanation.

But the point is, it didn't stop thousands of brilliant people taking the possibility seriously without outright dismissal.

Likewise, if we demarcate based on corroboration factor, then there are plenty of corroborated claims that at not taken seriously by science. I've mentioned alien abductions as one example. Just because something is corroborated doesn't mean that it qualifies as adequate explanation.

Again, it's not about "quality of evidence", and it's not about these rather slippery demarcations. It has to do with quality of explanations and models that such explanations paint.

I think you are confusing "evidence" with "data."

No, I think you are bringing in "data" in attempt to confuse the discussion. I'm talking about evidence. Data is a statistical approach to evidence, and generally refers to some statistical number or recurrences one is referring to.

Evidence can come in many forms, and corroboration is not the factor. If we take historical evidence, at times all we have is a single and uncorroborated account of a claim. Sure, I agree that the claim that someone got up and flew away after being killed is not to be treated as the same kind of claim like someone died and didn't get up.

BUT if the unusual claim fits well into the overarching model presented as an explanation that works, then it can be taken seriously by people who would search further evidence to provide support for such model.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think I was responding to the claim that the "quality of the evidence is the decisive factor". My point is that it's not, and it never was. Again, string theory doesn't have the "quality of evidence" that FrumiousBandersnatch would take as a standard. They have a possible model as an explanation.

But the point is, it didn't stop thousands of brilliant people taking the possibility seriously without outright dismissal.

Likewise, if we demarcate based on corroboration factor, then there are plenty of corroborated claims that at not taken seriously by science. I've mentioned alien abductions as one example. Just because something is corroborated doesn't mean that it qualifies as adequate explanation.

Again, it's not about "quality of evidence", and it's not about these rather slippery demarcations. It has to do with quality of explanations and models that such explanations paint.

Ummm.. I think you pretty much just conceded that it is about the quality of the evidence with your alien abductions example.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Ummm.. I think you pretty much just conceded that it is about the quality of the evidence with your alien abductions example.

No. Concessions isn't something you can decide on my behalf, and I've said several times that it's not about the quality of evidence.

Quality of evidence has little bearing on the claims about alien abductions, and these being taken seriously. In fact, the "quality of evidence" of alien abduction is very much the same as the quality of evidence for a String Theory. "Quality of evidence" is a slippery slope, because there is no clear demarcation in what you'd consider quality evidence and what is not. If you appeal to intuition, then you end up rejecting science. But the problem remains - the is no clear and cut demarcation on "quality of the evidence" in science. If there is, then you have to specify what would be a quality evidence and what wouldn't be, and I'll show you a dozen of scientific cases where plentiful scientific concepts slide through on much less.

Again, the science deals with quality of explanation (even if the explanation is yet to be fully realized), because explanations is what it's all about and not evidence. Evidence comes to play, but quality explanations don't really depend on it. If explanation is elegant enough, people would accept it based on very loose evidence.

If someone walks into a hospital with a horn stuck up their butt, claiming that they have experienced an attack of the unicorn... it wouldn't matter as much that the horn is an animal horn, or whether it was lodged 10 inches deep, or whether it did any internal damage. All of these things are secondary to the explanation and how such explanation fits in our understanding of reality, and whether it can potentially expand it in some meaningful way.

Likewise, such interpretation and willingness to accept a claim and explanation tends to be subjective... even in science. Some scientists may look at alien abduction as a viable possibility worth considering. Majority don't, because they don't see any present means to use evidence or the model to expand our knowledge and understanding.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. Concessions isn't something you can decide on my behalf, and I've said several times that it's not about the quality of evidence.

Quality of evidence has little bearing on the claims about alien abductions, and these being taken seriously. In fact, the "quality of evidence" of alien abduction is very much the same as the quality of evidence for a String Theory. "Quality of evidence" is a slippery slope, because there is no clear demarcation in what you'd consider quality evidence and what is not. If you appeal to intuition, then you end up rejecting science. But the problem remains - the is no clear and cut demarcation on "quality of the evidence" in science. If there is, then you have to specify what would be a quality evidence and what wouldn't be, and I'll show you a dozen of scientific cases where plentiful scientific concepts slide through on much less.

I'm not seeing the "problem" you're referring to. A doctor who diagnoses cancer based on her "gut feelings" is obviously relying on weaker evidence than a doctor who makes a diagnosis on the basis of medical history, signs, symptoms, and relevant test results.

Again, the science deals with quality of explanation (even if the explanation is yet to be fully realized), because explanations is what it's all about and not evidence.

But to show that an explanation actually works you need evidence.

 

[Dre Khipov]

I'm not seeing the "problem" you're referring to. A doctor who diagnoses cancer based on her "gut feelings" is obviously relying on weaker evidence than a doctor who makes a diagnosis on the basis of medical history, signs, symptoms, and relevant test results.

You are talking about a methodology here and not the evidence. Some methodology is obviously stronger, but it's not available to the same degree for all claims and sciences... especially in theoretical field where one has to convenience a workable model without having a wealth of previous statistical data that a doctor in your example would have. Some scientists need to explain a phenomenon by going on next to none when it comes to direct statistical data.

But to show that an explanation actually works you need evidence.

Evidence is still a form of a subjective claim. You'll never have "evidence". What you have in any case is a claim of evidence, and you have to show how it works in a model you present that explains the evidence. Evidence doesn't explain the model. Again, it's not about the evidence, it's about how the evidence fits into the overarching explanation.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are talking about a methodology here and not the evidence. Some methodology is obviously stronger, but it's not available to the same degree for all claims and sciences... especially in theoretical field where one has to convenience a workable model without having a wealth of previous statistical data that a doctor in your example would have. Some scientists need to explain a phenomenon by going on next to none when it comes to direct statistical data.

How else is evidence acquired if not by some method? When applied to certain questions, some methods produce better evidence than others.

Evidence is still a form of a subjective claim. You'll never have "evidence". What you have in any case is a claim of evidence, and you have to show how it works in a model you present that explains the evidence. Evidence doesn't explain the model. Again, it's not about the evidence, it's about how the evidence fits into the overarching explanation.

In other words, it's about how well the evidence supports the model. Thank-you.