• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Mystic way of knowing (for the skeptics)

Swami

Member
I understand that I am not doing physical science in forming my theological, metaphysical and spiritual beliefs. These latter fields involve the consideration and analysis of many subjective experiences and things science can not directly study. Not being a follower of scientism, I consider and analyze things and experiences that science can not directly study in forming my personal views.
The point of this discussion is not about what science is now. I clearly understand that first person methods and knowledge are not part of science. The point of discussion is that they should be added to science. Arguing how science is now does not invalidate the point that new methods should be added.

The scientific method is not set in stone. Introspection was once an accepted method.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The point of this discussion is not about what science is now. I clearly understand that first person methods and knowledge are not part of science. The point of discussion is that they should be added to science. Arguing how science is now does not invalidate the point that new methods should be added.

The scientific method is not set in stone. Introspection was once an accepted method.
Yes, I and @Left Coast probably have gone tangent to what the OP wanted to discuss.

I guess I need to do some backtracking in this thread to see how first person methods and knowledge can be used for the advancement of science. My first thought is that might be what is needed to get science through some of the currently unsolved mysteries.

Some of the basic assumptions of physical science may be wrong such as upward causation; sub-atomic particles create atoms; atoms create molecules; molecules build cells; cells create consciousness.

As physicist Amit Goswami says, science might have it upside down and downward causation is the reality. A great thought of Consciousness/Brahman/God starts this play/drama of the universe and the lower levels play out the thought as some say quantum mechanics shows that consciousness causes events to happen.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I understand that I am not doing physical science in forming my theological, metaphysical and spiritual beliefs. These latter fields involve the consideration and analysis of many subjective experiences and things science can not directly study. Not being a follower of scientism, I consider and analyze things and experiences that science can not directly study in forming my personal views.

Let go of what we're labeling the process for a minute. Whatever we call it, I have been concerned from the beginning of this thread with your method - the way you arrive at conclusions about the world. If you believe things that can't ever be shown to be wrong, no matter what experience you ever have, you're closing yourself off from ever changing your mind. It doesn't matter what "experiences and things" you subjectively analyze - you've convinced yourself ahead of time you're right no matter what the evidence shows. Given how wrong we humans so often are, that is not a wise path to take.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Let go of what we're labeling the process for a minute. Whatever we call it, I have been concerned from the beginning of this thread with your method - the way you arrive at conclusions about the world. If you believe things that can't ever be shown to be wrong, no matter what experience you ever have, you're closing yourself off from ever changing your mind.
It's not true that I can't and haven't changed my mind. I was raised Catholic, become an atheist, become a Bahai, become a 'spiritual but not religious', became an Advaita Vedanta philosophy disciple.

I follow the path that most makes the most sense and reason. I do not cling to just any non-falsifiable path I hear because it can't be disproved but rationally decide on the one the makes the most sense after all things are considered. I couldn't be happier than in my Advaita Vedanta beliefs and see those beliefs as the highest understanding of the truth that I can reach. But more important than philosophies and metaphysics is the day-to-day living in the peace, love and happiness that follows from the spiritual path best indicated by the philosophy.

I can, perhaps like you, believe in only what science can show through the testing instruments of 2019, but that certainly impoverishes one when the evidence says to me that there is dramatically 'more' to the universe.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Well, all I can give you are my answers which are found in the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta (in Eastern tradition) and Non-Dualism (in western tradition). The many gurus/swamis of these traditions do impart their wisdom to the masses.

I can offer my answers to the rest of mankind but that is all.

If you do not accept this philosophy then propose or accept another one or live without a guiding philosophy.

I accept the philosophy as the deepest and most complete understanding from the spiritual masters I most repect. In fact a guru I respect said not to take his word for it but to investigate yourself until you know from personal experience. However as Self-Realization is not going to come in the first meditation steps I must initially take what the gurus say only as a theory until I can prove it to myself. It is the theory that simply is the most believable and intelligent to me after all things are considered.
Sounds a lot like you are saying that the "complete understanding of reality" and "complete understanding of the purpose of life" that you mentioned are offered on a "whatever it means to you" basis. This simply does not sound very useful to me. Believe me - I understand that there may not really be any "complete understanding of reality" to be had, nor is there an objective "complete understanding of the purpose of life" (for this one, I don't even believe that there is such a thing as a definitive "purpose of life"), but I'm not the one making the claims that one can come to "know" these things, and then when pressed for details, backing out and saying it is all up for interpretation or personal choice, etc. That's what you're doing, and to be honest it makes you look quite ridiculous. In my opinion you should just stop saying that you know these things, and stop stating with confidence that it is possible to know these things. You should have no confidence in these types of things, and that is exactly why I question you.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not true that I can't and haven't changed my mind. I was raised Catholic, become an atheist, become a Bahai, become a 'spiritual but not religious', became an Advaita Vedanta philosophy disciple.

I didnt say you haven't ever changed your mind before. I said you are choosing a belief system that precludes that now. That's what believing in something unfalsifiable means. You have no reason to ever change your mind because your belief can't ever be shown wrong.

I follow the path that most makes the most sense and reason.

No George, you don't. Go back and read through our exchange here after a few days. I showed you how your thought process is not rational at multiple different points.

I do not cling to just any non-falsifiable path I hear because it can't be disproved but rationally decide on the one the makes the most sense after all things are considered.

You're still not getting it. All unfalsifiable beliefs "make sense" of all data. That's what's so appealing about them. But they immunize you from seeing your own bias.

I couldn't be happier than in my Advaita Vedanta beliefs and see those beliefs as the highest understanding of the truth that I can reach. But more important than philosophies and metaphysics is the day-to-day living in the peace, love and happiness that follows from the spiritual path best indicated by the philosophy.

I have no doubt that your belief system makes you feel good. But the fact that a belief makes you feel good is not a rational reason to believe it's true.

I can, perhaps like you, believe in only what science can show through the testing instruments of 2019, but that certainly impoverishes one when the evidence says to me that there is dramatically 'more' to the universe.

There are probably many things about the universe we have yet to discover, I have no problem acknowledging that. I just recognize that it's not rational to believe in any particular thing without good evidence. Science may not be the sexiest method out there, but it is the most honest and accurate.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Sounds a lot like you are saying that the "complete understanding of reality" and "complete understanding of the purpose of life" that you mentioned are offered on a "whatever it means to you" basis. This simply does not sound very useful to me. Believe me - I understand that there may not really be any "complete understanding of reality" to be had, nor is there an objective "complete understanding of the purpose of life" (for this one, I don't even believe that there is such a thing as a definitive "purpose of life"), but I'm not the one making the claims that one can come to "know" these things, and then when pressed for details, backing out and saying it is all up for interpretation or personal choice, etc. That's what you're doing, and to be honest it makes you look quite ridiculous. In my opinion you should just stop saying that you know these things, and stop stating with confidence that it is possible to know these things. You should have no confidence in these types of things, and that is exactly why I question you.
Where do I ever claim 'to know' as you claim I claim?? I do believe it is possible that the Self-Realized gurus/swamis actually 'know' from direct experience but I don't claim to be there yet.

I simply believe what is most reasonable to believe after a lifetime of consideration. That is through the normal human reasoning process. A lifetime of considerations can't be covered in a Religious Forums reply post (perhaps in a book maybe).

I wonder if in your criticism of me you are guilty of tying me together with another OP poster here. I only speak for myself.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I didnt say you haven't ever changed your mind before. I said you are choosing a belief system that precludes that now. That's what believing in something unfalsifiable means. You have no reason to ever change your mind because your belief can't ever be shown wrong.



No George, you don't. Go back and read through our exchange here after a few days. I showed you how your thought process is not rational at multiple different points.



You're still not getting it. All unfalsifiable beliefs "make sense" of all data. That's what's so appealing about them. But they immunize you from seeing your own bias.



I have no doubt that your belief system makes you feel good. But the fact that a belief makes you feel good is not a rational reason to believe it's true.



There are probably many things about the universe we have yet to discover, I have no problem acknowledging that. I just recognize that it's not rational to believe in any particular thing without good evidence. Science may not be the sexiest method out there, but it is the most honest and accurate.
I do see in your attitude what I earlier described as 'scientism' meaning to me an exaggerated sense of the scientific process as the only valid way of learning about reality. When I look at this universe and so-called paranormal phenomena I rationally conclude that science in 2019 is dramatically incomplete and it would be impoverishing to not consider what other wisdom traditions have to say.

I agree that science takes the slowest and most cautious approach and that approach has its legitimate place of importance. HOWEVER, in my personal judgment I will consider all things out there and make my own judgment as to what makes the most sense.

A lifetime of considerations have gone into my current position, My reasons for accepting Advaita Vedanta as the highest philosophy out there comes from a lifetime of considerations and can't be covered in a short reply post here like you might want. Maybe I'll write a book someday.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
I do see in your attitude what I earlier described as 'scientism' meaning to me an exaggerated sense of the scientific process as the only valid way of learning about reality. When I look at this universe and so-called paranormal phenomena I rationally conclude that science in 2019 is dramatically incomplete and it would be impoverishing to not consider what other wisdom traditions have to say.

I agree that science takes the slowest and most cautious approach and that approach has its legitimate place of importance. HOWEVER, in my personal judgment I will consider all things out there and make my own judgment as to what makes the most sense.

A lifetime of considerations have gone into my current position, My reasons for accepting Advaita Vedanta as the highest philosophy out there comes from a lifetime of considerations and can't be covered in a short reply post here like you might want. Maybe I'll write a book someday.

At this point I think we're just repeating ourselves. You keep reverting back to criticism of a label and putting yourself under a different label. I keep trying to get behind the labels to examine the content of the thought processes involved.

Maybe take a break from the thread and come back to it in a few days and reread our exchange. Whatever label you want to give it, your thought process is flawed - which is likely to lead you to a flawed conclusion about the world.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
At this point I think we're just repeating ourselves. You keep reverting back to criticism of a label and putting yourself under a different label. I keep trying to get behind the labels to examine the content of the thought processes involved.

Maybe take a break from the thread and come back to it in a few days and reread our exchange. Whatever label you want to give it, your thought process is flawed - which is likely to lead you to a flawed conclusion about the world.
OK we’ll just have to disagree on the value of wisdom traditions beyond science. Nothing really new here for me to reflect upon.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Where do I ever claim 'to know' as you claim I claim?? I do believe it is possible that the Self-Realized gurus/swamis actually 'know' from direct experience but I don't claim to be there yet.
Sorry - I didn't actually say that you, personally, "know." If you look, I said that your claim is that it is possible that this sort of knowledge CAN be had, or attained/experienced by a person. I understand the confusion, because at one point I wrote:
A Vestigial Mote said:
you should just stop saying that you know these things, and stop stating with confidence that it is possible to know these things
where before that I only ever wrote explicitly that your claim was to the potential for a person ("one") to know these things. I didn't mean to imply that you said you know these things... but just that you are claiming that you know a person can attain them. That sort of knowledge, if as concrete as you seem to be saying ("complete understanding" ARE your words) should be something that could readily be explained/evidenced to others. If there truly is a complete understanding, then there should be knowledge there that would allow the person to perform feats, or uncover facts or display that knowledge to anyone/everyone and completely convince them of that "truth." As an example, let's say I discovered the true "source" of gravity. I uncovered the relationship between particles that causes them to be drawn to one another. This is something I had better be able to relay to someone else, otherwise there is NO REASON for them to believe that I have uncovered what I say I have!

I simply believe what is most reasonable to believe after a lifetime of consideration.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I simply do not care about your lifetime. I care about what you can demonstrate through evidence.

That is through the normal human reasoning process. A lifetime of considerations can't be covered in a Religious Forums reply post (perhaps in a book maybe).
I understand, and agree. And I am using every ounce of my own, personal experience in life (my "lifetime" - which I do, obviously, care very much about) to come to the conclusion that this is all bunk. In not one way has any of this been demonstrated to me... or even so much as the reality of it HINTED to me. I've seen nothing I would term "supernatural," nothing to support anything generally considered "paranormal," etc. Nothing. Not one single thing. If that is "odd" for a lifetime, so be it. It literally affects me not one iota to disbelieve you - and that is the prudent course considering my personal experience, the evidence you are able to bring to the table and the mostly nebulous words and ideas you are willing to impart these ideas with.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
At this point I think we're just repeating ourselves. You keep reverting back to criticism of a label and putting yourself under a different label. I keep trying to get behind the labels to examine the content of the thought processes involved.

Maybe take a break from the thread and come back to it in a few days and reread our exchange. Whatever label you want to give it, your thought process is flawed - which is likely to lead you to a flawed conclusion about the world.

What is the world?

Well, forget the labels and look at human behavior.

There are at least 5 kinds of behavior:
  • Interaction with the e.g. physically and otherwise not in brains objective. E.g. gravity.
  • Behavior as cognitive objective. E.g. descriptions, math, logic and so on
  • Social behavior. E.g. norms, the legal law and so on.
  • Subjective behavior. E.g. feelings, emotions, evaluation of worth and so on.
  • How to do all this and how it fits together as a world-view.
So here are the takeaway, all of that is a part of the world as humans are a part of the world.

So I am religious. That is a fact, because you could observe behavior in me, which fits this description of religion.
religion | Definition & List of Religions

Now I do something, which is a part of the world, so how can it be wrong?
Now I can't fly unaided in the air, but I can and do believe in a God, so how can it be wrong?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
What is the world?

Well, forget the labels and look at human behavior.

There are at least 5 kinds of behavior:
  • Interaction with the e.g. physically and otherwise not in brains objective. E.g. gravity.
  • Behavior as cognitive objective. E.g. descriptions, math, logic and so on
  • Social behavior. E.g. norms, the legal law and so on.
  • Subjective behavior. E.g. feelings, emotions, evaluation of worth and so on.
  • How to do all this and how it fits together as a world-view.
So here are the takeaway, all of that is a part of the world as humans are a part of the world.

So I am religious. That is a fact, because you could observe behavior in me, which fits this description of religion.
religion | Definition & List of Religions

Now I do something, which is a part of the world, so how can it be wrong?
Now I can't fly unaided in the air, but I can and do believe in a God, so how can it be wrong?

I genuinely can't make heads or tails of what you're asking or how it's at all relevant to the conversation we've been having in this thread.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I genuinely can't make heads or tails of what you're asking or how it's at all relevant to the conversation we've been having in this thread.

It is a fact that no human can fly in air using their body alone.
It is a fact that some humans believe in different Gods. How can that be wrong, if it is a fact, that it is something humans can do.
Now it is a fact that science can't evaluate supernatural claims - Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - so how can believing in a God be wrong?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
It is a fact that no human can fly in air using their body alone.
It is a fact that some humans believe in different Gods. How can that be wrong, if it is a fact, that it is something humans can do.

Humans believe all kinds of different things. Is a belief rationally justified simply by the fact that it exists?

Now it is a fact that science can't evaluate supernatural claims - Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - so how can believing in a God be wrong?

That's the point - if you can't evaluate a claim, how can you know if it's wrong or right?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
... but just that you are claiming that you know a person can attain them.
And even on that you will see that I only thought it was possible that a person can attain this deep knowledge.

That sort of knowledge, if as concrete as you seem to be saying ("complete understanding" ARE your words) should be something that could readily be explained/evidenced to others.
Why should we assume that it should be readily explainable/evidenced to others? The explanations involve the claim of things that are not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments so why should these understandings be readily able to be shown to others?

If there truly is a complete understanding, then there should be knowledge there that would allow the person to perform feats, or uncover facts or display that knowledge to anyone/everyone and completely convince them of that "truth." As an example, let's say I discovered the true "source" of gravity. I uncovered the relationship between particles that causes them to be drawn to one another. This is something I had better be able to relay to someone else, otherwise there is NO REASON for them to believe that I have uncovered what I say I have!

In your source of gravity example you're making a claim about the physical reality. That is in the realm of what can be demonstrated through physical senses and instruments.
Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I simply do not care about your lifetime. I care about what you can demonstrate through evidence.

I understand, and agree. And I am using every ounce of my own, personal experience in life (my "lifetime" - which I do, obviously, care very much about) to come to the conclusion that this is all bunk. In not one way has any of this been demonstrated to me... or even so much as the reality of it HINTED to me. I've seen nothing I would term "supernatural," nothing to support anything generally considered "paranormal," etc. Nothing. Not one single thing. If that is "odd" for a lifetime, so be it. It literally affects me not one iota to disbelieve you - and that is the prudent course considering my personal experience, the evidence you are able to bring to the table and the mostly nebulous words and ideas you are willing to impart these ideas with.
If a reasoned evaluation of the paranormal claims of mankind does not lead you to believe that there are dramatic things beyond current science's knowledge then we are just at a fundamental disagreement point where things between us will have to sit for now.
 
Last edited:

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Humans believe all kinds of different things. Is a belief rationally justified simply by the fact that it exists?

Why do a belief need to be rationally justified? I will only accept evidence based on observable facts and not how you think/feel. The later is subjective and is only a belief, that exists, if believed in.

That's the point - if you can't evaluate a claim, how can you know if it's wrong or right?

Are there only one kind of right and wrong? If so and it is a part of science, please give evidence how you observe right and wrong?

BTW I can observe that a lot of humans hold metaphysical beliefs and not all of them are religious, but there are no
scientific evidence for the fact that reality is natural/material/physical. That is why science use methodological naturalism and that is connected to this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
And right and wrong in part.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Why do a belief need to be rationally justified? I will only accept evidence based on observable facts and not how you think/feel. The later is subjective and is only a belief, that exists, if believed in.

Beliefs don't "need" to be rationally justified, in an ontological or legal sense. Rationality is a feature of accuracy - so if you don't care about your beliefs being accurate, go ahead and be irrational all day long. However, that's not going to serve you well when you try to achieve an objective. If you care about accurately achieving any goal, you should care about being rational.

Are there only one kind of right and wrong? If so and it is a part of science, please give evidence how you observe right and wrong?

By wrong I meant either irrational and/or contradicted by observed facts. You asked the question, did you have a different definition in mind?
 

Shelter

Religion and Science
I strongly agree with much of this. And, in fact, it is one big reason why it is important to have scientists from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultural biases looking at the data. it is *always* a good thing to have assumptions challenged.

I'm curious, though. Did your mystical viewpoint actually resolve issues as opposed to pointing out assumptions that can be challenged? Was anything testable that was essentially based in the mystical ever given?

Based on mystical experiences (and/or my later attempts to understand them), I have come up with hypotheses that should be testable, but for the most part I don’t have the right level of understanding or expertise to test them myself, or others came up with the same idea first (perhaps decades ago). I do have two hypotheses in the linguistics or neurolinguistics field that I want to test - I came up with a fairly simple experiment to test one of them a few years ago. I haven’t found the time to really figure out how to go about this, but I am hoping to get there soon. One difficulty is that linguistics isn’t my area, though I did have a linguistics minor back in college.


On that note, communication is probably a major difficulty for scientific investigations of mysticism. Most mystics don’t have scientific training and wouldn’t be able to explain their experiences or the hypotheses they might come up with in scientific terms. I do have scientific training in one field, and I like reading about other scientific fields, but I don’t have an in-depth knowledge of the language used, the current state of research, the research techniques, etc. in fields outside my own. So, it’s only a few of my experiences – the ones that led to hypotheses in a field I have some experience with– that I can imagine investigating scientifically.
 

Swami

Member
OK we’ll just have to disagree on the value of wisdom traditions beyond science. Nothing really new here for me to reflect upon.
A common observation I've made about many skeptics is that they have not had any mystical or extraordinary experiences. The willful close-minded ones do not even want to experience even if they were shown a way to have the experience voluntarily. This is far from a scientific attitude. An honest skeptic would remain agnostic and at least be willing to conduct their own "field research" (research outside of a lab and that involves the researcher engaging in the activities himself).

There are many examples of skeptics who have experienced and are now convinced that the materialistic view is insufficient to explain everything.
 
Top