I find this very interesting

[Spirit of Light]

But do you see my point?

If studying the "spiritual world" will tell you things about the physical world, you can go and check whether the things you learned about the physical world this way are actually correct.

I study the spiritual because that is my interest, but i have nothing against the physical world.

By the way: OP are in resources. Not in debate forum

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I study the spiritual because that is my interest, but i have nothing against the physical world.

By the way: OP are in resources. Not in debate forum

You think I'm debating?

 

[Spirit of Light]

You think I'm debating?

No, i say it might developing into a dabate, then staff will move it to debate forum ( something i am not interested in as the OP starter)

 

[PureX]

I see the transcendent within the natural to BE God.

The 'physical world' is just a big, interconnected, complex mechanism. And yet it exists in such a way that it allows and enables transcendent phenomena to occur withing it: metaphysical phenomena like self/other-awareness, time/space/motion-awareness, imagination/reason, and compassion. Through which the mechanism can look back at itself and wonder, and assess.

It's amazing, really.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I see the transcendent within the natural to BE God.

The 'physical world' is just a big, interconnected, complex mechanism. And yet it exists in such a way that it allows and enables transcendent phenomena to occur withing it: metaphysical phenomena like self/other-awareness, time/space/motion-awareness, imagination/reason, and compassion. Through which the mechanism can look back at itself and wonder, and assess.

It's amazing, really.

Yes our existence in it self is amazing

 

[The Hammer]

Because if it is purely whatever that one person sees as being correct and true (rather than having to compare their newfound belief to reality),

You can stick to your own religious and/or philisophical position and also still see reality for/as it is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God has created in man the power of reason, whereby man is enabled to investigate reality. God has not intended man to imitate blindly his fathers and ancestors. He has endowed him with mind, or the faculty of reasoning, by the exercise of which he is to investigate and discover the truth, and that which he finds real and true he must accept. He must not be an imitator or blind follower of any soul. He must not rely implicitly upon the opinion of any man without investigation; nay, each soul must seek intelligently and independently, arriving at a real conclusion and bound only by that reality. – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace. To me, this does not take away the truth in any religious teaching, but give an clear understanding that one can see the world and teaching within each other, by close study it.

Agreed. This does not take away whatever truth religious teaching might contain. It adds to it by injecting empiricism to faith-based epistemologies. Humanists advocate that without god references, which add nothing to the value and power of empiricism.

But why mix this with religion at all? Remove the God references, clarify that investigate means what you wrote - study of the world - and that's basically critical analysis and empiricism: reason applied to experience to determine truth.

Why do spiritual truth be wrong?

He didn't say that. He said that it may be wrong, and so should be tested against reality. If so, he probably has a definition for truth similar to mine that includes falsifiability of allegedly true claims. If an idea can't be tested against reality, it cannot be called true or false as I use the word. I understand that you use the word differently, and that what you call truth doesn't need to conform to reality.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Agreed. This does not take away whatever truth religious teaching might contain. It adds to it by injecting empiricism to faith-based epistemologies. Humanists advocate that without god references, which add nothing to the value and power of empiricism.

But why mix this with religion at all? Remove the God references, clarify that investigate means what you wrote - study of the world - and that's basically critical analysis and empiricism: reason applied to experience to determine truth.



He didn't say that. He said that it may be wrong, and so should be tested against reality. If so, he probably has a definition for truth similar to mine that includes falsifiability of allegedly true claims. If an idea can't be tested against reality, it cannot be called true or false as I use the word. I understand that you use the word differently, and that what you call truth doesn't need to conform to reality.

The baha'i'ullah does say one should investigate for one self, and not believe blindly. So it means also testing ones own understanding og the teaching with physical world.

 

[PureX]

The baha'i'ullah does say one should investigate for one self, and not believe blindly. So it means also testing ones own understanding of the teaching with physical world.

This is the part that the materialists can't fully grasp. They don't get that their beloved empiricism is, itself, a limited and biased method of ascertaining truth. They get that everyone else's methods are limited and biased, and should be subjected to ongoing doubt and skepticism. But they don't get that their method is no better.

 

[F1fan]

I study the spiritual because that is my interest, but i have nothing against the physical world.

From what theists describe about the spiritual as it is somehow not part of the physical world suggests a more accurate description is that it is imaginary. The odd thing is that human imagination is a physical process of working brains.

 

[MikeF]

IMO

This is the part that the materialists can't fully grasp. They don't get that their beloved empiricism is, itself, a limited and biased method of ascertaining truth. They get that everyone else's methods are limited and biased, and should be subjected to ongoing doubt and skepticism. But they don't get that their method is no better.

*sigh*

It is better. It's not infallible, but it is a more effective approach. In all cases of seeking knowledge, we are talking about the actions and efforts of human beings which we should all agree are flawed and fallible, each in their own unique way. In trying to understand the physical world, which we human beings are a physical part of, the principles and standards that modern science imposes on itself mitigates these inherent flaws. In other words, there is a concerted effort to identify and correct for, all the ways we human beings can inject our bias and flaws into the knowledge acquisition process.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is the part that the materialists can't fully grasp. They don't get that their beloved empiricism is, itself, a limited and biased method of ascertaining truth. They get that everyone else's methods are limited and biased, and should be subjected to ongoing doubt and skepticism. But they don't get that their method is no better.

Care to substantiate any of that?

Empiricism is the only path to knowledge. You bristle at that, but cannot add anything that deserves to be called knowledge with this other way of knowing that you praise.

Lately, I've been seeing a lot of posts like yours telling skeptics how limited their "materialist" epistemology is, usually with some statement about seeing so much more through spiritual eyes. But they can never demonstrate any benefit to this other way of thinking, no spiritual truths gleaned, nothing that would appeal to the ones being told that they are missing out. Often we hear that evolution or science is in crisis as its wends its merry way forward revealing the secrets of reality.

Speaking of which, have you seen any of the work surrounding gravity waves? "Materialists" proposed that they existed, "materialists" built the LIGO gravitational wave detector, and "materialists" detected evidence for them confirming yet another scientific prophecy, science being in crisis notwithstanding.

In the meantime, the spiritualists and religionists have given the world no new knowledge in that time or at any time. Yet they sing the praises of their method of discerning "truth" while decrying the shortcomings of "materialism" and what others who are more empirical are unable to grasp. I might ask you now what you think we are unable to grasp, but I know that you won't have an answer. Why?

Because I've asked several RF posters over several years to comment on what they mean by spiritual, the spiritual realm, spirits and spiritual beings, and spiritual truths. They can't describe any of it or give examples of any spiritual truths. What should a skeptic conclude from that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

God has .. bound only by that reality. – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace.
To me, this does not take away the truth in any religious teaching, but give an clear understanding that one can see the world and teaching within each other, by close study it.

I did that (Buddha was my guide - Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia), and arrived at my atheism.

.. science being in crisis notwithstanding.

What does that mean, It Aint Necessarily So? There is no crisis in science. Sure, there are things which need further investigation.

 

[PureX]

IMO

It is better. It's not infallible, but it is a more effective approach. In all cases of seeking knowledge, we are talking about the actions and efforts of human beings which we should all agree are flawed and fallible, each their own unique way. In trying to understand the physical world, which we human beings are a physical part of, the principles and standards that modern science imposes on itself mitigates these inherent flaws. In other words, there is a concerted effort to identify and correct for, all the ways we human beings can inject our bias and flaws into the knowledge acquisition process.

Thank you for exemplifying my point, here.

Here is what you're unable to see (accept):

1. We're not all or always seeking 'knowledge'. Some of us are seeking understanding, and wisdom, which is not the same as knowledge (collecting facts).
2. We are not all seeking to eliminate our flaws and fallibility. Some of us are seeking acceptance and forgiveness, instead. Partly because we do not assume that perfection is an attainable, or even desirable goal.
3. The physical world is not the significant factor for those of us who are not of the materialist philosophical bent. It is simply the mechanism from which the 'real world' (that really matters), springs. Understanding the mechanism does not resolve any of the major questions and issues we have about the phenomenon of existence.
​

Which is why empiricism, although useful, is not nearly so useful as you materialist always and forever assume.

 

[PureX]

Care to substantiate any of that?

Empiricism is the only path to knowledge. You bristle at that, but cannot add anything that deserves to be called knowledge with this other way of knowing that you praise.

Thank you for exemplifying my point. And see the post above for the response.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Why are you thinking a spiritual path isn't part of the physical world? Could this assumption be part of your ongoing confusion that you post about quite often?

I hold no confusion on that. Maybe the issue are you being the one who are confused?

I happen to find the qoute both interesting and true. Feel free to hold a different P.O.V than me.

I would like to offer a 3rd view please.

It can mean both the spiritual and material where we can use this wisdom.

We are also told that the material world is a reflection of the Spiritual worlds.

So we are to used our God given capacity of reason to explore both the spiritual and material worlds.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

They might not be. That's just one potential outcome.

My point is that if you're right, spiritual beliefs could be tested so that we could objectively say which ones are right and which ones are wrong.

They can be. Yet we have to use our reason to consider what are spiritual tests.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

But do you see my point?

If studying the "spiritual world" will tell you things about the physical world, you can go and check whether the things you learned about the physical world this way are actually correct.

The material world likewise tells truths about the spiritual worlds.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

From what theists describe about the spiritual as it is somehow not part of the physical world suggests a more accurate description is that it is imaginary. The odd thing is that human imagination is a physical process of working brains.

I see the physical world is like a mirage, like a vapor in the desert, a semblance of reality.

Look at how we are made, for a short time we have material senses, but what are they made up of and how is the mind connected to the 5 senses? It is the intelligence working through the senses that gives the material world its structure.

Yet consider, in our dream state we walk, fly, speak, go to far away places and really exist without any senses.

Regards Tony

 

[Spirit of Light]

I would like to offer a 3rd view please.

It can mean both the spiritual and material where we can use this wisdom.

We are also told that the material world is a reflection of the Spiritual worlds.

So we are to used our God given capacity of reason to explore both the spiritual and material worlds.

Regards Tony

Yes this is like Baha'i'ullah say it too, to do our own investigation.