Epistemology: Where does revelation stand? (mystic, genesis, experience, atheist)

[Fluffy]

Is knowledge of God attainable independently of experience or does it depend on experience?

Is the information gleaned from a religious experience an example of a posteriori knowledge or is it something else entirely and if so what?

Edit: Just to add a bit of context to this thread, as an atheist I am obviously mystified by what is commonly called "religious experience" or "revelation" since it is evidently something that I have never experienced or at least never attributed to God. Hopefully, through debate, I can pick a few minds and come to a better understanding of this phenomenon.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Is knowledge of God attainable independently of experience or does it depend on experience?

Is the information gleaned from a religious experience an example of a posteriori knowledge or is it something else entirely and if so what?

As far as I know, knowledge of God depends entirely on an experience of God. That experience is the same as any experience, except that the neurological process which produces subject/object perception has been interrupted. I suppose, if one wanted to argue it, the fact that process is no longer active means that the observer and the thing observed have become perceptually identical, and hence, knowledge of God depends on a second kind of experiencing, or a third kind of knowing.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Is knowledge of God attainable independently of experience or does it depend on experience?

Is the information gleaned from a religious experience an example of a posteriori knowledge or is it something else entirely and if so what?

It sounds like experience in a tangible context of God. Like if God hacks into our perceptual mechanism for a time and commandeers it. On that account, it must be like posteriori knowledge dependent on experience.

[Fluffy]

Thanks for your responses! I too have often viewed revelation as God hacking into our mind and would rather like to know if any theists out there view it in a similar way.

However, moving from this premise, you have both taken it in different directions (which is most excellent ). Sunstone, you have said that this process overcomes the problem of the subject/object divide which does haunt other forms of experience. I think we could then safely say that, if this were accepted, that revelation would be very much unique in that it allowed us access to external information without having to percieve that information in its external form.

If this were the case, what would revelation "feel" (possibly inaccurate word) like? Would it seem exactly like pure thought and reason? So perhaps I am working through an argument in my brain and cannot reach the conclusion but then God reaches in and provides certain facts that allows me to finish my thought process. This is quite fascinating because it seems that (unless this information was so unexpected or unusual) God could manipulate our thought processes all the time. It also means that personal religious experience becomes a scientifically testable phenomena since if it can be demonstrated that person X has attained fact Y and fact Y can be confirmed as true and that person X could not have accessed fact Y then we have at least found evidence of an entirely new source of information.

Ozzie, you have claimed, conversely, that even if God were to gain control of our perception for a time our experience of him would remain a posteriori. If this were true then does that mean that religious experience is open to the same scepticism and uncertainty as other experiences? Is it still possible to claim certain knowledge of God if this is what religious experience really is?

It seems that both classifications produce advantages and disadvantages for the theist. The first manages to justify theistic claims in a way that the second does not through the merit of being able to claim a kind of knowledge that is stronger than anything we have previously encountered. It also seems to add weight to the idea that atheists cannot comprehend theism (and therefore are in a poor position to criticise it) in the same way that a blind person is in a poor position to comprehend and criticise the existence of sight. The second opens itself up to doubt but presents an account that is more coherent with other observable phenomena. It is unclear how the first actually overcomes the subject/object divide and so the second overcomes this by removing a potential reliance on such a mechanism.

[BruceDLimber]

Hi!

In the Baha'i view, experience as such is irrelevant.

Humans are totally unable to comprehend God or come up with reliable knowledge about Him! It is only via the Divine Messengers God sends to humanity that we gain any understanding of Him.

Fortunately, this knowledge has been not only very helpful, but highly positive, especially of late!

Best,

Bruce

[Seyorni]

I think temporal lobe seizures play a large part.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Sunstone, you have said that this process overcomes the problem of the subject/object divide which does haunt other forms of experience. I think we could then safely say that, if this were accepted, that revelation would be very much unique in that it allowed us access to external information without having to percieve that information in its external form.

If this were the case, what would revelation "feel" (possibly inaccurate word) like? Would it seem exactly like pure thought and reason? So perhaps I am working through an argument in my brain and cannot reach the conclusion but then God reaches in and provides certain facts that allows me to finish my thought process. This is quite fascinating because it seems that (unless this information was so unexpected or unusual) God could manipulate our thought processes all the time. It also means that personal religious experience becomes a scientifically testable phenomena since if it can be demonstrated that person X has attained fact Y and fact Y can be confirmed as true and that person X could not have accessed fact Y then we have at least found evidence of an entirely new source of information.

I first need to qualify the word "God" here. When I use that word, I don't mean anything much like the Abrahamic God. I merely use the word as a sort of placeholder for "the subjective sense, perception, or feeling that one is experiencing Ultimate Reality." So, as far as I'm concerned, one can call that experience "God", "Tao", "Ultimate Reality", "Higher Consciousness", "The Grand Fruballer", or anything else one feels will do as a name for it.

To elaborate, the key quality of such an experience, so far as I understand it, is that there is an interuption in the process(es) that create a subject/object divide in our perception. And, of course, everything that both logically and experimentally follows from that, such as a sense, perception, or feeling of connectedness to all things; a sense, perception, or feeling that one is experiencing an ultimate reality; and so forth.

As to your second paragraph, I am unaware of any experience of deity (or the Grand Snookums, Ultimate Reality, etc.) that actually imparts previously unknown facts to the person having the experience. To be sure, many people would vehemently disagree with me about that, and perhaps they are right. But I cannot find any conclusive evidence that mystical experiences impart previously unknown knowledge.

On the other hand, there seems to be much evidence for asserting that mystical experiences can radically reorganize information. Facts always known take on an entirely new significance. But more than just facts taking on an entirely new significance, a person's sentiments can also radically change. For instance, a person who was prejudiced against Blacks might, following a mystical experience, drop his prejudices as if they were worn out clothing and instead see Blacks as individuals and kin to himself. Or, an abusive person might see their prior behavior for what it is: abusive. Or, someone who was afraid of death might abruptly loose that fear. Or, someone who hasn't loved before might start loving. But these changes don't come about, so far as I know, because someone is presented with any new facts, but instead come about because someone is seeing what they've always known in a radically new light, a new perspective, a new paradigm, a new way of looking.

Having said all that, I can assure you that some people will disagree with me. For instance, one person reported a mystical experience in which they learned that angels are all around us, only in a different dimension (as they put it). If true, that would be a new bit of knowlege. A new fact. But how do we verify whether that's true or not? Indeed, it cannot be intersubjectively verified, and so, it is problematic to call it a new fact.

I hope this helps to answer your questions.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

It also seems to add weight to the idea that atheists cannot comprehend theism (and therefore are in a poor position to criticise it) in the same way that a blind person is in a poor position to comprehend and criticise the existence of sight.

The implicit distinction you've made here between atheists and theists could be a bit misleading. So far as I know, most theists are not mystics and do not claim to have had a transcendental or mystical experience. However, some atheists are mystics and do claim to have had a transcendental or mystical experience. So, a more accurate distinction might be between those theists and atheists on the one hand who are mystics and those theists and atheists on the other hand who are not mystics.

The word "mystic" comes from the same Greek word that gives us "mute". That does not seem to be an accident: mystics often find words completely inadequate to describe their experiences, and so they remain mute about those experiences. Even the Buddha is said to have stated that "Enlightenment cannot be taught". And instead of trying to teach us what enlightenment or nirvana was, the Buddha merely taught a path to it. So, you might indeed be right that a non-mystic would have as difficult of a time accurately criticizing a mystical experience as a blind person would have accurately criticizing sight. Of course, human nature being what it is, very few of us are daunted by our ignorance alone from criticizing what we don't have an honest clue about.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

It is unclear how the first actually overcomes the subject/object divide...

The self (i.e. the subject in the subject/object divide that haunts normal perception) is not a thing, but a process. A neurological process. And like any process, it can be interrupted. So, the subject/object divide is not "overcome" so much as it is simply interrupted.

So far as I know, it can be spontaneously interrupted (or interrupted for no apparent reason), interrupted by certain drugs, by some kinds of meditation, by some injuries, neurological dysfunctions, and so forth.

Unfortunately, I don't know precisely how the process operates. But I am certain that science will some day figure that one out, if it hasn't already.

[Seyorni]

Fluffy, I was struck by your statement, in response to Sunstone's post, that accessing information without perception of it's "external form" would result in a very much unique experience.
Whilst I agree that such experiences are unique and individualised, they are also fascinatingly consistent, both cross-culturally and historically. Apparently mystics have been having similar or identical experiences everywhere/when, and attempting to describe them in the idiom of their respective cultures, hence Huxley's Philosophia Perennis.
The mystical experience, whatever its genesis, seems to be a consistent and identical "revelation."