Knowing vs Believing

[Straw Dog]

Much of this is true, but I would not necessarily limit all subtle-level mystical experience to "data originally collected by sensory-perception." There is certainly that, but there is also the archetypes which according to Jungian psychology is from the collective unconscious. I seriously do not doubt there is far more the how reality works than our measly analytical minds can penetrate. There is information transmitted to us in ways we don't understand, behavioral information transmitted through genes for one thing without the benefit of role modeling.

For one to say they have experienced "God" or Buddha Mind, or Cosmic Consciousness, that is largely beyond the imagination, or any sort of subtle forms the mind produces through culture, or from the collective unconscious. Though that wholly transcendent is included in subtle form, it itself is experienced as formlessness. So there is no data. It is emptiness, in that all form is an illusion, a simple expressions of that which is beyond form.

So what you say is true in part, but only to a certain point.

Good point. I don't put much stock behind Jungian archetypes anymore, but there is evidence for genetic coding and cultural conditioning. These genes and memes do come from other people though, so I don't see any reason to infer an actual Cosmic Consciousness. If anything, the knowledge gained is that we don't know or can't know perfect knowledge. Uncertainty is the only certainty.

 

[sojourner]

I often see the claim that people know spiritual truth, such as that they know God exists. I wonder if these people know the difference between knowledge and belief? It is impossible for and intellectually honest person to claim they know God exist no matter what the reason, it is unlikely that we will ever know. But we can believe. I also wonder if people feel we should debate beliefs or claims of objective knowledge? I won't debate subjective beliefs with someone, but when you're passing those beliefs as objective truth when it is not you should be argued with.

Thoughts?

"Knowing" goes beyond the mere acquisition of facts.

 

[Straw Dog]

Yeah, I think the experience of "god" involves comprehending that there is something beyond all human comprehension rather than comprehending something that can be literally defined as "Absolute Truth" or "Cosmic Consciousness".

 

[Koldo]

Yeah, I think the experience of "god" involves comprehending that there is something beyond all human comprehension rather than comprehending something that can be literally defined as "Absolute Truth" or "Cosmic Consciousness".

That seems a rather ignorant comprehension.

Perhaps it would be more proper to say: comprehending that there is something beyond your human comprehension.

 

[1137]

No ones said it yet.

Define objective truth. For me everything is subjective. If everything is subjective knowledge is just a stronger more defined belief accepted by the masses.

So it's objectively true that nothing is objectively true...?

 

[Straw Dog]

Hey Koldo,

That seems a rather ignorant comprehension.

Perhaps it would be more proper to say: comprehending that there is something beyond your human comprehension.

No, I still think it's experiential knowledge of that which transcends beyond all comprehension. Most people use cultural beliefs to make some sense out of it. The experience opens the mind towards an infinite inquiry into the awe-inspiring mystery of being, as long as it isn't hijacked by religious agendas.

 

[Falvlun]

I often see the claim that people know spiritual truth, such as that they know God exists. I wonder if these people know the difference between knowledge and belief? It is impossible for and intellectually honest person to claim they know God exist no matter what the reason, it is unlikely that we will ever know. But we can believe. I also wonder if people feel we should debate beliefs or claims of objective knowledge? I won't debate subjective beliefs with someone, but when you're passing those beliefs as objective truth when it is not you should be argued with.

Thoughts?

I find the part I bolded to be a strange assertion. How do you know this to be true?

"No matter what reason"? What if the reason is, "God came down and shook the hand of every last person on Earth." That seems to be a reason that would make it possible to claim to know that God existed.

I really don't think we have a good way to distinguish knowledge-- certain truth-- from belief -- uncertain truth. I think the only thing that really distinguishes them is the claim of certainty. We claim certainty when we say that we know something. But even that certainty is just another belief.

 

[1137]

I suppose if we want to get silly (most religions seem to) then there may be ways to know God exists. However, I meant that all these personal experiences don't count towards any objective knowledge.

 

[Falvlun]

I suppose if we want to get silly (most religions seem to) then there may be ways to know God exists. However, I meant that all these personal experiences don't count towards any objective knowledge.

What is objective knowledge?

 

[1137]

So finding something well made is not evidence of intelligence?
Paintings, sculpture, architecture, mathematics, theatre, etc etc etc

And more complex items...
animals, plants, microbes, viruses.....are all accidents?

The human psyche and spirit have no 'intended' formation?

All of nature is more beautiful than any painting and it exists with no intelligence behind it. We know evolution is true, only a fideist can deny it.

Now...go to the mirror....look yourself in the eye....and confess....

'I am nothing but an accident!
My life has no purpose and I am soon to be dust....as if never born.
Man is a complete mystery without cause or resolve.

And by no means is there anything (or Anyone) greater than myself.'

I don't actually think so.

Actually yes, I can do this. You insist on seeing all these likely truths in a negative life for whatever reasons (we know fear of death is at least one). This is an example of knowledge vs belief with a good example of the part fideism plays. You believe that you'll survive death with no evidence, I believe the opposite based on evidence. I know evolution is true, you fideistically believe it is not.

 

[1137]

What is objective knowledge?

Can we start a DIR for people who have studied philosophy and logic and such? That way we can stop needing to define such basic things repeatedly in every thread.

 

[Thief]

That's my understanding too.
I believe that we can feel things with certainty but I believe that knowledge is always provisional

Such as Einstein and his famous equation?
He knew' there was something wrong with it.
Put it on the shelf for a while.
Brought it out when he heard someone else was working a similar train of thought.
even then ...he had doubts.

And the story I got....
his hired help wanted to know what he was still working on....many years later.
He replied....
'I'm trying to catch God in the act.'

 

[Thief]

All of nature is more beautiful than any painting and it exists with no intelligence behind it. We know evolution is true, only a fideist can deny it.


Actually yes, I can do this. You insist on seeing all these likely truths in a negative life for whatever reasons (we know fear of death is at least one). This is an example of knowledge vs belief with a good example of the part fideism plays. You believe that you'll survive death with no evidence, I believe the opposite based on evidence. I know evolution is true, you fideistically believe it is not.

There you go making assumptions again.

Trying to read in between my words as if you know me.

Your false assumptions show a serious need to say 'nay' to my handiwork.

I happen to love science and believe in God because of it.

 

[Falvlun]

Can we start a DIR for people who have studied philosophy and logic and such? That way we can stop needing to define such basic things repeatedly in every thread.

I ask because I don't think it really is defined. I think people sanctimoniously claim to have objective knowledge, or knowledge at all, when really, they just are certain that their beliefs are true, which is no different than anyone else. And it usually just comes down to "subjective beliefs that a whole bunch of people agree upon" and hey presto! that's suddently "objective knowledge".

Tell me, if a whole bunch of people are claiming to experience God, why should that be considered only subjective knowledge, and not objective knowledge? What's the substantive difference?

 

[1137]

Objective means it's true external of the mind, of beliefs, etc. People experience God because it seems human brains create experiences that, depending on their bias, gets interpreted as God. This is subjective experience. Meanwhile the speed of light does not rely on our brains or minds, we objectively know the speed of light.

 

[Thief]

I ask because I don't think it really is defined. I think people sanctimoniously claim to have objective knowledge, or knowledge at all, when really, they just are certain that their beliefs are true, which is no different than anyone else. And it usually just comes down to "subjective beliefs that a whole bunch of people agree upon" and hey presto! that's suddently "objective knowledge".

Tell me, if a whole bunch of people are claiming to experience God, why should that be considered only subjective knowledge, and not objective knowledge? What's the substantive difference?

Shall we digress to 'common' knowledge?
Encyclopedias?
Everyday catch phrases?
Dogma?

I say....'nay'
Let the point of certainty be the line drawn.

True enough...some things are beyond 'proving'.
But that won't stop people from believing.
Hasn't yet.

 

[Falvlun]

Objective means it's true external of the mind, of beliefs, etc. People experience God because it seems human brains create experiences that, depending on their bias, gets interpreted as God. This is subjective experience. Meanwhile the speed of light does not rely on our brains or minds, we objectively know the speed of light.

We objectively know the speed of light because our minds are able to experience light, and interpret data in a certain way, etc. We only know the speed of light because it's in our mind.

Your assumptions are showing. You assume that the experience of God is only in the mind in order to brush off the experience of God as merely subjective. Change your point of view. Say that God does exist. Then the experience of God is no different than the experience of the speed of light. The experience then doesn't rely upon our mind any more than the speed of light does (that is: they both rely upon the mind but both are caused by external factors).

And, by and by, because everything is filtered through the mind, it doesn't seem like the fact that something is external somehow makes it more real. How do we know?

What about emotions? Is it an objective fact that humans experience emotions? How does that work with your definition above? After all, emotions are only experienced inside a person's mind.

 

[Falvlun]

Shall we digress to 'common' knowledge?
Encyclopedias?
Everyday catch phrases?
Dogma?

I say....'nay'
Let the point of certainty be the line drawn.

True enough...some things are beyond 'proving'.
But that won't stop people from believing.
Hasn't yet.

I don't believe that we can know anything with certainty, but I believe that we do believe that we know some things with certainty. Even I do. We believe we know. We cannot know we know. If that makes any sense.

*That said, I do think that some things are more well-supported than others. I just don't think it's something as arbitrary as "subjective" vs "objective".

 

[Thief]

Objective means it's true external of the mind, of beliefs, etc. People experience God because it seems human brains create experiences that, depending on their bias, gets interpreted as God. This is subjective experience. Meanwhile the speed of light does not rely on our brains or minds, we objectively know the speed of light.

I did not experience the Void.....I wasn't there.
I did not experience the creation of light.....I wasn't there.
I don't recall my birth...I was there.

So at what line drawn are you certain?
If not or never....your future posts will lack.... the line drawn.

 

[1137]

The evidence points to mystic experiences being cause by the brain. Why would I assume God exists for absolutely no reason? I assume neither way, as I do not think we could truly know that any divine force exists. My point is we cannot use mystical experiences to say, objectively, that divinity exists. It is not knowledge, but subjective interpretation.

Chemical reactions in the brain objectively exist, what we call emotions. I would agree that the reactions people interpret as God objectively exist, but this does not make gods objectively exist. Emotions are in the brain, but with God we have people arguing something objective caused the experience, which is likely not the case.

We know what we call emotions exist, we believe God exists.