Breaking The Spell by Daniel Dennett (Darwin, beliefs, doom, evolution)

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

If a pharmaceutical company claimed it had a miracle cure, but warned that reductionist scientific methods couldn't validate its claim, we wouldn't accept their word for it. If an investment company advertised a scheme where people were paid huge dividends in the afterlife, we would call it a cynical ripoff. If someone charged with racial discrimination were to claim that people can't judge him for his unique awareness of the deeper, more significant racial reality, we would scoff at his presumption. But do any of these ridiculous examples involve logic that differs from what believers already demand we respect from them?

I suspect your analogies are off the mark when compared to the sort of claim some, but not all, mystics make. For certain mystics, the proper analogy might be closer to someone claiming they had been to France, ascertained that France can be experienced, and that they perhaps even had a map which might be useful to you as a guide to traveling to France, should you want to see France for yourself by going there.

It seems to me the three analogies you've laid out all pertain to non-mystics, such as the Pope, or perhaps to the sort of mystic who cherishes the power of crystals, but not to mystics such as the Buddha.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I suspect your analogies are off the mark when compared to the sort of claim some, but not all, mystics make. For certain mystics, the proper analogy might be closer to someone claiming they had been to France, ascertained that France can be experienced, and that they perhaps even had a map which might be useful to you as a guide to traveling to France, should you want to see France for yourself by going there.

It seems to me the three analogies you've laid out all pertain to non-mystics, such as the Pope, or perhaps to the sort of mystic who cherishes the power of crystals, but not to mystics such as the Buddha.

I've been to France. It's very nice. Does that make me a mystic? And what does that make the French?

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

For certain mystics, the proper analogy might be closer to someone claiming they had been to France, ascertained that France can be experienced, and that they perhaps even had a map which might be useful to you as a guide to traveling to France, should you want to see France for yourself by going there.

An even closer analogy would be that someone dreamed about being in France, and tells others they can also dream about France.

[stephenw]

Why do you avoid the question of phenomenal consciousness Esceptico ?

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

What, then, is the rationale for not believing someone who, after years striving, claims to have experiential proof of the reality of God?

None, if the someone can demonstrate it.

Perhaps the difference between the credibility of scientists and theologians that the work of scientists gave us wonderful things like television. Theology of several thousand years adds up to a list of "do this and don't do that".

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

None, if the someone can demonstrate it.

Perhaps the difference between the credibility of scientists and theologians that the work of scientists gave us wonderful things like television. Theology of several thousand years adds up to a list of "do this and don't do that".

There could be some truth in this. Mystics, sages and theologians all agree that there is no room for human decadence in "feeling the presence" or "awakening." And, let's face it, human beings take pleasure in their decadence. Disbelief in a "higher reality" and resistence to the religious impulse is, I think, rooted in the desire to preserve it and justify the longings of egos.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

An even closer analogy would be that someone dreamed about being in France, and tells others they can also dream about France.

That works as a quip, but not as an analogy.

[Troublemane]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

But the point is that such 'experiential basis' isn't necessary to criticize. If a person expects to be taken seriously, he shouldn't make claims in public that he can't substantiate.

If a pharmaceutical company claimed it had a miracle cure, but warned that reductionist scientific methods couldn't validate its claim, we wouldn't accept their word for it. If an investment company advertised a scheme where people were paid huge dividends in the afterlife, we would call it a cynical ripoff. If someone charged with racial discrimination were to claim that people can't judge him for his unique awareness of the deeper, more significant racial reality, we would scoff at his presumption. But do any of these ridiculous examples involve logic that differs from what believers already demand we respect from them?

I'm not saying people shouldn't believe whatever they want. But if they want to make claims in public, they should expect their claims to be judged on the same basis that we judge any other claim.

The pharmaceutical company does not have to prove the drug works only that it is not harmful, has no bad side effects with other drugs, etc. Especially in the case of herbal remedies, all they need to show is there is nothing harmful, no claim is needed that it actually does anything. The argument that people will not accept claims by drug companies without proof it performs what it is supposed to is not accurate. People will take what their doctor prescribes because they trust their doctor, who in turn must be convinced of the drugs effectiveness through personal experience/and through stastical analysis of drug trials.

People will accept claims made (about anything) based two factors---the detail and breadth of their knowledge (through personal experience and/or research), and the personal esteem attached to that authority's opinion. Its much the same with Mysticism---you have to take what the person says into consideration based on your own personal experience and what you know versus what you have heard, in relation to what level of esteem you place on that authority's opinion. But the only way to substantiate an experiential claim is to re-create the experiement that created it, just as science tries to do in other areas like as was said earlier (about curved space) or about drugs being either beneficial or not.