Why "spiritual knowledge beyond logic" does not exist

[Conscious Z]

I often hear the claim on this board that a person has spiritual knowledge through personal experience that is entirely independent on any logic. In fact, that seems to be a common claim in theism generally.

However, I do not believe such knowledge is possible. In fact, I do not believe it is possible to arrive at the conclusion "god exists" based on personal experience without utilizing logic.

Here's why: Let's say Smith undergoes a certain personal experience that he finds inexplicable if god does not exist. He then concludes that god exists. Even this process can be broken down into a logical argument:

I. If experience E occured, god must exist
II. E occured
Conclusion: God must exist

So, even in this very basic example, it is apparent that there is actually some logical reasoning that is occurring. Smith has likely resorted to logic in his concoction of premise 1, and he is obviously used logic in arriving at the conclusion. Further, Smith's reasoning is just as open to scrutiny as any other argument for the existence of god. Any way Smith splits it, his conclusion has not been accepted independent of logical reasoning.

 

[TillICollapse]

Apparently grey squirrels remember where they've buried their food ... does this count as a squirrel having "knowledge" ? If so, is this squirrel's knowledge independent of any logic ?

 

[lesliedellow]

I. If experience E occured, god must exist
II. E occured
Conclusion: God must exist

Life doesn't revolve around syllogisms; it revolves around subjective estimates of probability; and mostly those probabilities are associated with everyday life - not with the truth, or otherwise, of scientific hypotheses.

 

[juvenissun]

I often hear the claim on this board that a person has spiritual knowledge through person experience that is entirely independent on any logic. In fact, that seems to be a common claim in theism generally.

However, I do not believe such knowledge is possible. In fact, I do not believe it is possible to arrive at the conclusion "god exists" based on personal experience without utilizing logic.

Here's why: Let's say Smith undergoes a certain personal experience that he finds inexplicable if god does not exist. He then concludes that god exists. Even this process can be broken down into a logical argument:

I. If experience E occured, god must exist
II. E occured
Conclusion: God must exist

So, even in this very basic example, it is apparent that there is actually some logical reasoning that is occurring. Smith has likely resorted to logic in his concoction of premise 1, and he is obviously used logic in arriving at the conclusion. Further, Smith's reasoning is just as open to scrutiny as any other argument for the existence of god. Any way Smith splits it, his conclusion has not been accepted independent of logical reasoning.

State I. may not be valid.
So it still may not be logic.

But God may still exist regardless.

 

[Conscious Z]

Apparently grey squirrels remember where they've buried their food ... does this count as a squirrel having "knowledge" ? If so, is this squirrel's knowledge independent of any logic ?

I don't know if I would characterize squirrels as having "knowledge." I think language ability is a requirement for knowledge. It is at least a requirement for knowledge-that, which is what I'm discussing here. Nevertheless, the squirrel's actions can be broken down into a logical syllogism, which means the squirrels actions can be scrutinized based on the logic therein. I am not arguing that everyone who has "spiritual knowledge" has actually undergone these logical deliberations, only that their "knowledge" is not outside the realm of logical scrutiny, and that logic is inherent in their arriving at their conclusion.

Life doesn't revolve around syllogisms; it revolves around subjective estimates of probability; and mostly those probabilities are associated with everyday life - not with the truth, or otherwise, of scientific hypotheses.

I never said life revolved around syllogisms. I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.

State I. may not be valid.
So it still may not be logic.

But God may still exist regardless.

Statements can't be valid or invalid. Arguments can be valid or invalid. I never claimed that statement 1 was true, I was only giving an example of how "spiritual knowledge" can be analyzed as a logical syllogism.

 

[lesliedellow]

I never said life revolved around syllogisms. I'm not sure what that has to do with my post.

Okay, lets put it another way. Life in not an exercise in formal logic. It is about having likes and dislikes; it is about believing some things and not others, and it is about recognising that human beings, like every other species, are driven primarily by instinct. The only thing which makes them different is that they are good at rationalising their instinctual behaviour to themselves, and telling themselves how terribly terribly rational they are.

 

[Conscious Z]

Okay, lets put it another way. Life in not an exercise in formal logic. It is about having likes and dislikes; it is about believing some things and not others, and it is about recognising that human beings, like every other species, are driven primarily by instinct. The only thing which makes them different is that they are good at rationalising their instinctual behaviour to themselves, and telling themselves how terribly terribly rational they are.

I never said life was an exercise in formal logic. I never said anything regarding what life is "about." So, again, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my post.

 

[Architeuthus]

I often hear the claim on this board that a person has spiritual knowledge through person experience that is entirely independent on any logic.

It's an unfalsifiable claim; you can't disprove knowledge based on private experience. Nor is it accessible to an epistemological analysis: you can't prove that people use syllogisms in producing such knowledge.

Equally, knowledge based purely on private experience isn't much use in conversation.

 

[lesliedellow]

I never said life was an exercise in formal logic. I never said anything regarding what life is "about." So, again, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with my post.

Because religion is about the messy business called life. The new atheists seem to have it stuck in their head that it is about a failed science, which is why they are forever trying to insist that it be subject to the tenets of science.

 

[Conscious Z]

Because religion is about the messy business called life. The new atheists seem to have it stuck in their head that it is about a failed science, which is why they are forever trying to insist that it be subject to the tenets of science.

None of this has anything to do with anything in my post.

 

[lesliedellow]

None of this has anything to do with anything in my post.

Yes it does, because the knowledge being talked about comes from living with the presence of God, and for that to even be possible you have got to believe that he exists in the first place, Existential knowledge does not come from any kind of logical deduction. If you say that you know Fred Bloggs, you do not mean that you have caught occasional site of him, then decided that they were unlikely to have been hallucinations, and finally concluded that he probably exists. That sort of reasoning might have its place in a scientific laboratory, and perhaps some other academic disciplines, but not outside of them.

 

[Conscious Z]

Yes it does, because the knowledge being talked about comes from living with the presence of God, and for that to even be possible you have got to believe that he exists in the first place, Existential knowledge does not come from any kind of logical deduction. If you say that you know Fred Bloggs, you do not mean that you have caught occasional site of him, then decided that they were unlikely to have been hallucinations, and finally concluded that he probably exists. That sort of reasoning might have its place in a scientific laboratory, and perhaps some other academic disciplines, but not outside of them.

But my knowing that Fred Bloggs exists is reducible to a set of assumptions I make about the usefulness of my senses. While I may not consciously have those thoughts, my knowledge that he exists based on my seeing him can be reduced to a logical syllogism involving the reliability of my senses and the most likely conclusion based on what I've seen. If someone were to press me on why I believe Fred Bloggs exists, I could respond by saying something like "I've seen him clearly on multiple occasions, and the most likely explanation for that is that he exists." Similarly, personal "experience" with god is reducible to similar logical arguments.

Simply because one's knowledge comes about through his senses does not mean its justification is independent of logic.

 

[lesliedellow]

But my knowing that Fred Bloggs exists is reducible to a set of assumptions I make about the usefulness of my senses. While I may not consciously have those thoughts, my knowledge that he exists based on my seeing him can be reduced to a logical syllogism involving the reliability of my senses and the most likely conclusion based on what I've seen. If someone were to press me on why I believe Fred Bloggs exists, I could respond by saying something like "I've seen him clearly on multiple occasions, and the most likely explanation for that is that he exists." Similarly, personal "experience" with god is reducible to similar logical arguments.

Simply because one's knowledge comes about through his senses does not mean its justification is independent of logic.

You miss the point. A claim to know Fred Bloggs is not a claim to have knowledge about him. I know some things about the lady who lives in Buckingham Palace, but I cannot claim to know her, and, if I could make that claim. it wouldn't mean that I had a set of logical propositions which I could set forth for general consumption by people who didn't even believed she existed.

 

[TillICollapse]

I don't know if I would characterize squirrels as having "knowledge." I think language ability is a requirement for knowledge. It is at least a requirement for knowledge-that, which is what I'm discussing here. Nevertheless, the squirrel's actions can be broken down into a logical syllogism, which means the squirrels actions can be scrutinized based on the logic therein. I am not arguing that everyone who has "spiritual knowledge" has actually undergone these logical deliberations, only that their "knowledge" is not outside the realm of logical scrutiny, and that logic is inherent in their arriving at their conclusion.

Hmm ... okay, this somewhat lets me know in what context you are using "knowledge", and it also clarifies as to where I thought you were going with your OP (which it appears is a direction you're not going after all). So I have no further comment then

 

[Conscious Z]

You miss the point. A claim to know Fred Bloggs is not a claim to have knowledge about him.

It is at least a claim that you know he exists, which is sufficient for my purposes. When people say "I know Jesus," it implies that they also know he exists.

I know some things about the lady who lives in Buckingham Palace, but I cannot claim to know her, and, if I could make that claim. it wouldn't mean that I had a set of logical propositions which I could set forth for general consumption by people who didn't even believed she existed.

Well, your knowledge that she exists would actually be reducible to some logical reasoning. I am not saying that everyone who knows the Queen of England exists has undergone such reasoning, but their belief is at least reducible to such reasoning.

 

[Joshua260]

I think I agree with you, Conscious Z. It seems that there's some underlying logic in there that is not too easily discerned.

 

[zippy2006]

I often hear the claim on this board that a person has spiritual knowledge through personal experience that is entirely independent on any logic.

1. That usually just means that either the premises that led to the conclusion or else the stand-alone propositions are not accessible to unaided reason, and instead are revealed. So there is no common premise that would allow them to lead you to the same conclusion syllogistically.
2. Not all revealed knowledge requires syllogistic reasoning. The beatific vision is by definition not syllogistic. Furthermore, God can reveal a proposition without providing a syllogism, and can even bypass the syllogism, "God revealed this, therefore it is true." That is to say, he can reveal in a non-discursive manner. You might also be interested in the Reformed epistemological concept of a "properly basic belief."

 

[zippy2006]

*mispost*

 

[Conscious Z]

1. That usually just means that either the premises that led to the conclusion or else the stand-alone propositions are not accessible to unaided reason, and instead are revealed. So there is no common premise that would allow them to lead you to the same conclusion syllogistically.

This does seem to be the reasoning behind the divine revelation claim, so I want to work through this. Let's say Smith says to Jones "I had divine experience E, and the most likely explanation is that it is from god, therefore god exists," or something to that effect. Even if Jones were to grant that Smith did in fact have experience E, it still seems as though the premise that god is the most likely explanation can be played out in the public arena. It's possible that I'm not considering something about certain types of experiences, but Smith were to have had a vision or a dream or just a set of coincidences play out in his life, it seems as though Smith could convey those experiences to Jones at least well enough for Jones to understand them and evaluate what the most likely cause was, just as Smith can. In other words, it doesn't seem like access to the qualitative aspect of these experiences is required in order to evaluate these experiences. That seems to be the important point here.

1. Not all revealed knowledge requires syllogistic reasoning. The beatific vision is by definition not syllogistic. Furthermore, God can reveal a proposition without providing a syllogism, and can even bypass the syllogism, "God revealed this, therefore it is true." That is to say, he can reveal in a non-discursive manner. You might also be interested in the Reformed epistemological concept of a "properly basic belief."

I am somewhat familiar with the idea of properly basic beliefs, but I'm not sure that those are the sorts of cases I'm talking about here. However, it is worth nothing that much has been written defending the idea of properly basic beliefs. As such, it at least seems that logic is useful in defending the rationality of holding such beliefs.

I'm referring primarily, however, to the sorts of experiences you responded to above. I have no idea what the beatific vision is -- I'll look it up and get back with you.

 

[Davian]