The Mystic way of knowing (for the skeptics)

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

...

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

I start at the end, because that is where the meat is. "Observed facts", now the world is not just observed facts, because we have this: Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do. The first one - Science doesn't make moral judgments, has to do with observation and not just morality and ethics. It has to do with good and bad in a broad sense.
E.g. I want a good life, I care about that I have a good life.
You can't observe right, wrong, good, bad nor care. You know these concepts based on how you think and feel. And that is not objective nor observable.

Now on to rational as based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
First logic. If you can do either A or B, but not A and B, logic (and reason) only tell you that can't do both A and B. So here are some examples about - "If you care about accurately achieving any goal, you should care about being rational."
- I want to build a bridge over a river. I need to use in short STEM in part.
- I want to kill as many people as possible. I need to use in short STEM in part and find/build an effective virus.
Neither can be done only be wishing for it and I need to employ science in part.
So is rational to want to build a bridge or kill as many humans as possible? No, because the "want" can't be decided using reason or logic only.

Let me explain. We are playing the Is-Ought problem. Both examples are possible as how the world works and you can use science to achieve them. But science, reason, logic, observed facts and so on can't tell you if you ought to do it.
So let me phrase as simple as I can - you can't live only objectively as either with only observation or no personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
The key part is personal interpretation. So back to the big problem in your post:
"However, that's not going to serve you well when you try to achieve an objective." These are the subjective in part - serve you well and having an objective.
Let me explain - if you want a good life (that is an objective) parts of that depend on you subjectively as how you individually are a result of culture, personality, neurological diversity and so on and because you can subjectively can have a good life as you for how you cope, it doesn't that I can do exactly like or nor in reverse.

So the problem with your model is that neither reason, logic and observed facts can do it alone, because if I can cope differently by believing in God, then that is because, it is subjectively well for me and it doesn't have to be so for you.
So here is a version of the at least 4 versions of right and wrong.
Observed facts or objective as of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
Objective as expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Inter-subjective as culture, norms, laws, access to technology and so on.
Subjective as how to cope as an individual.

So I am neither right nor wrong, unless you believe that as subjective interpretation, because that, I believe in God, serves me well. The only reason , you think I am wrong, is because you think and feels so.
I accept that you don't believe in religion but you can't use reason, logic and facts to show that it is wrong.

You are trying to do something for which you in the western tradition have over 2000+ years evidence against your idea.
Here it is in one version: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
The key word is measure and refers to subjectivity. In modern terms it is called cultural and neurological diversity.

And you still have to acknowledge this as for observed facts: Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
I am a die hard subjectivist, when it comes to the purpose of life. And I know this, because I am a skeptic, who have tested and doubted reason, logic and facts.
So while we are both parts of the same world, we are different in some cases for what serves us well individually.
As a skeptic concerned with the limits of the usage of reason, logic and/or facts, I can spot the common subjectivity in your kind of thinking and you are not alone. I have been doing this for over 20 years now and you are not the first one, who use this model. And it doesn't work like you think it does, because you overlook the subjective element in human life.
Some people believe they only need faith, And others believe they only need reason, logic and/or facts. I have checked and we all use both. Some people overlook subjectivity in some sense. You appear to be one of them. That doesn't make you neither wrong nor right. It just means that we are different and that is a fact. How you indivudually deal with that is your problem. It becomes my problem, because you claim I ought to be like you. And my answer is: No, I can do it differently, just as you can.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

I am a skeptic and I *have* had 'mystical or extraordinary' experiences. Some of my experiences would even qualify as 'religious' experiences, even though I am an atheist.

These experiences are something people can have. That is something I don't doubt. What I doubt is whether these experiences say anything about reality (other than the simple fact that humans can have them).

it is a universal human experience to see faces in clouds, but nobody thinks there are *really* faces in clouds. The experience and the reality are different things.

Religious/mystical experiences are, almost by definition, powerful and are perceived at the time as being meaningful. But the perception of meaning and the reality of meaning are different things. Unlike your claims, it *is* possible to question the validity of these experiences and to ask whether or not they correspond to anything real.

I have yet to see any evidence that they do.

 

[Swami]

. 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.

Read this post with my last post. I noticed when I said that the "mystical" way of knowing was teachable, that you went silent. Do you think that you should reserve judgement until after you are willing to learn and experience for yourself? Is it scientific to make conclusions before the experiment and refuse to engage in the experiment?

In other words, are you willing to experience?

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.

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

I did not start this discussion to simply "debate". There is a practical aspect to it. I started this discussion to also invite people to experience for themselves. Many skeptics have become convinced when they have experienced. It seems you have not experienced anything mystical nor extraordinary.

Are you willing to experience some of the things that George-Ananda has been explaining?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

But that doesn't mean that consciousness is sufficient in explaining everything.
In philosophy there is the concept of necessary, but not sufficient.
So the materialist and the non-materialistic views are both necessary, but neither are sufficient on their own individual.

The main difference in skepticism is if it is general skepticism or the scientific one. That latter is connect to materialism, but I am of the former.
And as a westerner I am influenced by cognitive psychology more that mystical or extraordinary experiences, but I do get you.
You can't learn to understand yourself if you limit yourself to strong natural science. You have go soft and include some version of the non-material.

 

[Swami]

I am a skeptic and I *have* had 'mystical or extraordinary' experiences. Some of my experiences would even qualify as 'religious' experiences, even though I am an atheist.

These experiences are something people can have. That is something I don't doubt. What I doubt is whether these experiences say anything about reality (other than the simple fact that humans can have them).

it is a universal human experience to see faces in clouds, but nobody thinks there are *really* faces in clouds. The experience and the reality are different things.

Religious/mystical experiences are, almost by definition, powerful and are perceived at the time as being meaningful. But the perception of meaning and the reality of meaning are different things. Unlike your claims, it *is* possible to question the validity of these experiences and to ask whether or not they correspond to anything real.

I have yet to see any evidence that they do.

Why did you conclude that your experiences were false?

Meditation has been a life long tradition for me. My first mystical experience at the age of 13 actually frightened me. But one thing I did not do was simply conclude that it was "false" simply because scientists were not around. In my young adulthood, I took it upon myself to try to try replicate the experience. With a year of further practice and study of Patanjali, I have been successful. I also understand the experience, its meaning, etc. I have no more fear of death. Now in my old age, I'm waiting to check-out.

I did not simply conclude, it must be false.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am a skeptic and I *have* had 'mystical or extraordinary' experiences. Some of my experiences would even qualify as 'religious' experiences, even though I am an atheist.

These experiences are something people can have. That is something I don't doubt. What I doubt is whether these experiences say anything about reality (other than the simple fact that humans can have them).

it is a universal human experience to see faces in clouds, but nobody thinks there are *really* faces in clouds. The experience and the reality are different things.

Religious/mystical experiences are, almost by definition, powerful and are perceived at the time as being meaningful. But the perception of meaning and the reality of meaning are different things. Unlike your claims, it *is* possible to question the validity of these experiences and to ask whether or not they correspond to anything real.

I have yet to see any evidence that they do.

As for the first bold part, I do dislike that one. Where is the experience happening if not as a part of reality. You are doing a weird form of dualism.
It is the same with the second one. The word "meaning" have no objective, observable or material referent. The only place there is meaning as a part of reality, is as something subjective.

This is in effect the problem with empiricism. It doesn't work in practice on its own. The same with reason. logic and scientific evidence.
Forget religion and then try to reduce away subjectivity. You can't.
Further your bias shows, because you used "faces in clouds". Some of them are about feeling connected as one. Are they subjective? Yes. Can they be positive and enhance well-being? Yes. Can they be overdone as being more? Yes. But so can science, it even has a method.
And it is even in this thread. I can do everything only using reason, logic and/or evidence.
That is not the case just as there are no actual faces in clouds.

The word "reality" has no strong only objective, observable or material referent, because it is always a thought in a brain.
This reality is not independent of the mind, because it requires a mind to think that reality is independent of the mind. That is the joke of strong reductive naturalism/materialism/physicalism/objectivism.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Read this post with my last post. I noticed when I said that the "mystical" way of knowing was teachable, that you went silent. Do you think that you should reserve judgement until after you are willing to learn and experience for yourself? Is it scientific to make conclusions before the experiment and refuse to engage in the experiment?

In other words, are you willing to experience?

I most certainly did read it, but was more concerned with responding to other points. Sue me.

Can you teach me to levitate? Can you teach me to manipulate matter? Can you teach me to phase through matter? I am not necessarily interested in a "mystical experience" unless it is one of the pre-requisites to obtaining actual, useful ability. Now... I have a feeling what you are going to be thinking as you read this - that I am "not in the correct frame of mind" to be learning what you might be willing to try and teach. The problem with that idea (and what I have been trying to communicate all along) is that things that have real-world application, are reproducible and CAN BE RELIED UPON do not have such requirements as "you have to be in the right mind set for it to work." Things that are far less reliable, exist in a "whatever it means to you" context and come with all sorts of caveats saying "well, if you're not achieving results then you just aren't doing it right" are not objective in any way, and I would say are not subject to the laws of nature and the universe, and are therefore not even "real" in any meaningful sense. This includes even things like psychology, where we attempt to get a person to manipulate their own ways of thinking to varying degrees of success and without a real "this is how you get there" road-map. It is mostly speculation, and there aren't goal posts that you can set up for yourself and achieve as long as you adhere to "the rules." There are no "rules" in these spaces - which means it ends up being the person themselves that only believes the affects are real, or are working. Sometimes that is enough... but I don't believe it is enough to get a person levitating or manipulating matter with their mind. If those things can be done, it is due to real-world, physical explanations and reasons - not because they "thought about it the right way."

 

[George-ananda]

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.

What develops with the so-called ardent skeptics is a desire to put down new views because they don't immediately fit in with traditional science and the traditional scientific method. After a time this desire even exceeds their desire to know the truth.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why did you conclude that your experiences were false?

Meditation has been a life long tradition for me. My first mystical experience at the age of 13 actually frightened me. But one thing I did not do was simply conclude that it was "false" simply because scientists were not around. In my young adulthood, I took it upon myself to try to try replicate the experience. With a year of further practice and study of Patanjali, I have been successful. I also understand the experience, its meaning, etc. I have no more fear of death. Now in my old age, I'm waiting to check-out.

I did not simply conclude, it must be false.

I have had a similar life experience to you, yet see no need to convince anyone of anything. 'Mystics don't argue' is one of my mottos. Any ideas as to why you want to demonstrate this stuff to skeptics?

 

[Swami]

I have had a similar life experience to you, yet see no need to convince anyone of anything. 'Mystics don't argue' is one of my mottos. Any ideas as to why you want to demonstrate this stuff to skeptics?

I am more interested in reaching scientists than skeptics. Oftentimes, the skeptics claim to be motivated by science so I assume reaching them would be no different than reaching a scientist. This has not been the case.

If anything, I am only here to offer what science is lacking which is answers to the big questions - the nature and origin of consciousness, life, and the Universe. Scientists seem very limited when it comes to answering these questions. In fact, it is not just mystics like me trying to reach them because many scientists often consult us. The Dalai Lama has hosted many summits with Western scientists.

 

[Vinayaka]

I am more interested in reaching scientists than skeptics. Oftentimes, the skeptics claim to be motivated by science so I assume reaching them would be no different than reaching a scientist. This has not been the case.

If anything, I am only here to offer what science is lacking which is answers to the big questions - the nature and origin of consciousness, life, and the Universe. Scientists seem very limited when it comes to answering these questions. In fact, it is not just mystics like me trying to reach them because many scientists often consult us. The Dalai Lama has hosted many summits with Western scientists.

My Guru was friends with Carl Sagan, but there was little argument I'm sure. Personally, I have no intention of trying to turn anyone. They have to come to their own conclusions. But carry on. I wish you well.

 

[Swami]

I most certainly did read it, but was more concerned with responding to other points. Sue me.

Can you teach me to levitate? Can you teach me to manipulate matter? Can you teach me to phase through matter? I am not necessarily interested in a "mystical experience" unless it is one of the pre-requisites to obtaining actual, useful ability. Now... I have a feeling what you are going to be thinking as you read this - that I am "not in the correct frame of mind" to be learning what you might be willing to try and teach. The problem with that idea (and what I have been trying to communicate all along) is that things that have real-world application, are reproducible and CAN BE RELIED UPON do not have such requirements as "you have to be in the right mind set for it to work."

I can accept all of your thinking except for the part in bold. As is common among many in the West, you simply want instant results. You only want the end result without having to worry about the journey or hard work.

If there is anything you should accept it is that "levitation" and "manipulating matter" requires an altered state of consciousness. If that weren't so then you would be able to achieve this now. Consider your dreams and how everything in it is derived from your awareness. You can levitate, fly, manipulate matter. When you can reach a state of awareness where you realize that even the physical Universe is also a "dream" that is derived from a Cosmic consciousness, only then will you also be able to levitate and do anything else that you can do in your own dream world.

Things that are far less reliable, exist in a "whatever it means to you" context and come with all sorts of caveats saying "well, if you're not achieving results then you just aren't doing it right" are not objective in any way, and I would say are not subject to the laws of nature and the universe, and are therefore not even "real" in any meaningful sense. This includes even things like psychology, where we attempt to get a person to manipulate their own ways of thinking to varying degrees of success and without a real "this is how you get there" road-map. It is mostly speculation, and there aren't goal posts that you can set up for yourself and achieve as long as you adhere to "the rules." There are no "rules" in these spaces - which means it ends up being the person themselves that only believes the affects are real, or are working. Sometimes that is enough... but I don't believe it is enough to get a person levitating or manipulating matter with their mind. If those things can be done, it is due to real-world, physical explanations and reasons - not because they "thought about it the right way."

There is a roadmap provided by Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras. Here is a list of the steps to samadhi (the yogic path to knowledge):

dharana -> dhyana -> samadhi -> samyama.
https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5165/samyama

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I can accept all of your thinking except for the part in bold. As is common among many in the West, you simply want instant results. You only want the end result without having to worry about the journey or hard work.

If there is anything you should accept it is that "levitation" and "manipulating matter" requires an altered state of consciousness. If that weren't so then you would be able to achieve this now. Consider your dreams and how everything in it is derived from your awareness. You can levitate, fly, manipulate matter. When you can reach a state of awareness where you realize that even the physical Universe is also a "dream" that is derived from a Cosmic consciousness, only then will you also be able to levitate and do anything else that you can do in your own dream world.

I know you would like to think that I am after "instant results", but this is not it, at all. For example, the people who learned to harness electricity and get it to weave the path that they wanted it to and learned to power tools and instruments using it's energy - they put in much dedicated hard work and conducted very rigorous experimentation - BUT THE RULES AND STRUCTURE OF THEIR WORKING MEDIUM NEVER CHANGED. Meaning that, had they had the knowledge they gained from the outset, it ALL would have worked the same for them from that point. The only hard work was in the investigations and testing they did to understand the workings. But once they had the knowledge, they could disseminate it, and everyone could use the knowledge as long as they played by the same rules. The only limits would then be the person's own imagination with respect to how the electricity could be utilized.

I fear that what you offer is nowhere near the same thing. You are not offering a concrete set of known facts and reliable inputs/outputs that will work regardless who uses them - with the only limitations then being the imagination on how to use the knowledge. No. You are offering something that is formless, has no physicality whatsoever, and seem to be reporting that the "rules" are negotiable, or flimsy, or may or may not work the same for everyone. That is not what knowledge that is based in reality is. What you are offering really is more like psychological trickery - whereby a person only gets out of it what they are willing to believe they have gotten out of it. It is "something" - but it isn't "real" in the way that I mean that something is real.

There is a roadmap provided by Patanjali in the Yoga Sutras. Here is a list of the steps to samadhi (the yogic path to knowledge):

dharana -> dhyana -> samadhi -> samyama.
https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/5165/samyama

I will peruse this documentation. I have very low expectations, which is usually good. It means I can only be pleasantly surprised, and never let down or disappointed.

 

[Swami]

I will peruse this documentation. I have very low expectations, which is usually good. It means I can only be pleasantly surprised, and never let down or disappointed.

This would be most excellent !. I will offer one or two suggestion.

The first two steps I listed amount to general meditation. Devote lots of time. It is very good training to the mind to stay focused. From this level of practice alone you will begin to notice benefits and you can use this to gauge your effort.

The benefits are well documented by science:
- Calms the mind, helps blood pressure
- Changes brain structure and function
- makes you aware of your unconscious mind
- unlocks savant level ability
- you can experience your sense of self apart from your body and thoughts (this is a classified as disorder in Western psychology, but not so in the East).

Once you start seeing some of these benefits then you can focus more on the last two steps of my list. Then this will take these benefits to another level - to omniscience, to fundamental reality behind all matter, etc. In fact, use the steps to discover the nature of consciousness and then you will see why all of these benefits are very possible.

 

[Swami]

I am a skeptic and I *have* had 'mystical or extraordinary' experiences. Some of my experiences would even qualify as 'religious' experiences, even though I am an atheist.

When you can transcend self, then come back and offer your perspective. Here is an example of a self transcendent experience.:

"I was home alone, walking through the living room, not thinking of anything in particular, when suddenly my consciousness erupted. It no longer ended at the surface of my body but expanded outward, filling the surrounding space. I experienced everything around me as inside me and absolutely identical to myself. I was no longer Linda Johnsen; I was everything. The bliss of that single moment was beyond description.

It wasn’t “as if” I was the universe. I really “was” the universe. It happened spontaneously, and even though it only lasted a few seconds, I emerged from it changed forever. Any confidence I had in the materialistic scientific paradigm collapsed."
https://yogainternational.com/article/view/use-yoga-science-to-understand-mystic...

I have had this experience, replicated it, and mastered it.

 

[Polymath257]

I am more interested in reaching scientists than skeptics. Oftentimes, the skeptics claim to be motivated by science so I assume reaching them would be no different than reaching a scientist. This has not been the case.

If anything, I am only here to offer what science is lacking which is answers to the big questions - the nature and origin of consciousness, life, and the Universe.

And those are three different questions requiring different methods of investigation, different types of evidence, etc.

And it is far from clear that mysticism has anything to really offer any of these. At most, it may give some insight into the nature of consciousness (by example).

Scientists seem very limited when it comes to answering these questions. In fact, it is not just mystics like me trying to reach them because many scientists often consult us. The Dalai Lama has hosted many summits with Western scientists.

Scientists are human and open to new experiences even if they don't think those experiences convey knowledge (as opposed to wisdom).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I most certainly did read it, but was more concerned with responding to other points. Sue me.

Can you teach me to levitate? Can you teach me to manipulate matter? Can you teach me to phase through matter? I am not necessarily interested in a "mystical experience" unless it is one of the pre-requisites to obtaining actual, useful ability. Now... I have a feeling what you are going to be thinking as you read this - that I am "not in the correct frame of mind" to be learning what you might be willing to try and teach. The problem with that idea (and what I have been trying to communicate all along) is that things that have real-world application, are reproducible and CAN BE RELIED UPON do not have such requirements as "you have to be in the right mind set for it to work." Things that are far less reliable, exist in a "whatever it means to you" context and come with all sorts of caveats saying "well, if you're not achieving results then you just aren't doing it right" are not objective in any way, and I would say are not subject to the laws of nature and the universe, and are therefore not even "real" in any meaningful sense. This includes even things like psychology, where we attempt to get a person to manipulate their own ways of thinking to varying degrees of success and without a real "this is how you get there" road-map. It is mostly speculation, and there aren't goal posts that you can set up for yourself and achieve as long as you adhere to "the rules." There are no "rules" in these spaces - which means it ends up being the person themselves that only believes the affects are real, or are working. Sometimes that is enough... but I don't believe it is enough to get a person levitating or manipulating matter with their mind. If those things can be done, it is due to real-world, physical explanations and reasons - not because they "thought about it the right way."

First of let me teach you something about the word "real". It is no more different than the word "god". It has no physical, observable, objective referent. You can't see, touch, hear it as a sound, smell, taste or with your physical body manipulate "real". Further "real" has no scientific measurement standard and you can't calibrate an instrument to measure "real".
For something to be "real" it has to be believed as "real". And there is no "road-map" to learn it, because if I told you that you had to use a word about the world around you, which is not about the world around you, it wouldn't make sense. Yet the word "real" works for you, because you are in the right mind set for it.

Yeah, I am not nice, but that is because I am a general skeptic. I have learned to doubt more than the supernatural and such.
So let us concentrate on a version of psychology, which doesn't work unless you believe in it.
It goes like this. You have a negative feeling about something or it doesn't make sense to do it. It is pointless, meaningless and so on and you don't do it. Now do it any way and give yourself praise. It won't work in the beginning and it will even be worse in some sense. Don't give up, continue anyway and if you have the right mind for it, it becomes better over time. At least tolerable and sometimes even better or even good.
How does that work in scientific terms? Well, you have just redrawn the neural connections in your brain, so you feel differently.
So is that "real"? Well, yes, if you believe in the method and do it. If you don't believe in it, it won't work.
And no, it is not always that simple, because there can be other factors. And this has nothing to do with psychology as such, because it is also known in philosophy and religion.
There are even longitude studies, which point to that there is some sort of connection between a positive outlook and having a longer life.

Here is another example of subjectivity and how you can measure it.
Get a lot of men in hetero relationships to volunteer to have their individual sperm-count checked over time. Hold a general interview and for half of them plant the thought of their spouse cheating in them. And now comes the fun part - the sperm-count rises; i.e. they produce more sperm.

So what have I learn from science, philosophy and religion? That happiness is in the mind and that you can in part control that by thinking differently.
But if you don't think that it is real, then it is not real to you. That is how real works in this case.

And yes, we, humans, can't control gravity with our brains. But some aspect of having a good enough life are subjective and there are methods in science, philosophy and religion for those.
As for what reality really is, I don't know that, because that is unknowable. That goes for all versions of metaphysics and ontology.
So if you want to play what the physical really is, I can do that. But remember I am a general skeptic.

 

[Left Coast]

I start at the end, because that is where the meat is. "Observed facts", now the world is not just observed facts, because we have this: Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do. The first one - Science doesn't make moral judgments, has to do with observation and not just morality and ethics. It has to do with good and bad in a broad sense.
E.g. I want a good life, I care about that I have a good life.
You can't observe right, wrong, good, bad nor care. You know these concepts based on how you think and feel. And that is not objective nor observable.

Ah, so you mean "wrong" as in morally or ethically wrong. I actually agree with you. The basis or goal of a moral system is subjective. If we can both agree on a subjective goal, there are objective ways to measure it to see how well a behavior, law, etc. matches that desired goal.

Now on to rational as based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
First logic. If you can do either A or B, but not A and B, logic (and reason) only tell you that can't do both A and B. So here are some examples about - "If you care about accurately achieving any goal, you should care about being rational."
- I want to build a bridge over a river. I need to use in short STEM in part.
- I want to kill as many people as possible. I need to use in short STEM in part and find/build an effective virus.
Neither can be done only be wishing for it and I need to employ science in part.
So is rational to want to build a bridge or kill as many humans as possible? No, because the "want" can't be decided using reason or logic only.

Same point in different words. Yes, goal selection is subjective. How to achieve that goal can be measured objectively.

Let me explain. We are playing the Is-Ought problem. Both examples are possible as how the world works and you can use science to achieve them. But science, reason, logic, observed facts and so on can't tell you if you ought to do it.
So let me phrase as simple as I can - you can't live only objectively as either with only observation or no personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

I agree with you. Moral oughts come from shared subjective goals. If we can both agree on the goal of our moral system, then absolutely I can tell you that you ought to do x or ought not do y to achieve that goal.

The key part is personal interpretation. So back to the big problem in your post:
"However, that's not going to serve you well when you try to achieve an objective." These are the subjective in part - serve you well and having an objective.
Let me explain - if you want a good life (that is an objective) parts of that depend on you subjectively as how you individually are a result of culture, personality, neurological diversity and so on and because you can subjectively can have a good life as you for how you cope, it doesn't that I can do exactly like or nor in reverse.

I agree with you. But whatever goal you subjectively pick, you need to some degree of reason to achieve it.

So the problem with your model is that neither reason, logic and observed facts can do it alone, because if I can cope differently by believing in God, then that is because, it is subjectively well for me and it doesn't have to be so for you.

Let's use a different example than God to help illustrate a point.

If it helps you cope to believe that black people are inferior to white people, then I can't stop you. I can: a) point out to you that your belief has no basis in any objective evidence, and b) work to stop you the minute your belief translates to harm to someone else.

So subjectively, I completely understand you believing things simply because they make you feel good. But here's the thing about believing things without good evidence: although those beliefs often make us feel good, they also come frequently with unintended consequences. It may make me feel good to believe I can take heroin and it will be harmless, but the reality is that heroin is dangerous and taking it is likely to have undesirable consequences down the road. One of those consequences is that you may actually do harm to other people, not to mention yourself.

Could there be harmless, or maybe even helpful, baseless beliefs? I suppose so. But beliefs tend not to be isolated; they interconnect to form a worldview. And if you arrived at one belief irrationally, the likelihood is that you'll use that same irrational thought process again. And thus you increase your chances of unintended negative consequences again.

So if you care about the well-being of yourself and others, the preference should be to believe things when there's good evidence for them. If you don't care about the well-being of yourself or others, then you're right, I can't prove to you that you should.

So here is a version of the at least 4 versions of right and wrong.
Observed facts or objective as of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
Objective as expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Inter-subjective as culture, norms, laws, access to technology and so on.
Subjective as how to cope as an individual.

So I am neither right nor wrong, unless you believe that as subjective interpretation, because that, I believe in God, serves me well. The only reason , you think I am wrong, is because you think and feels so.
I accept that you don't believe in religion but you can't use reason, logic and facts to show that it is wrong.

I have no objection here, because I havent said believing in God is morally wrong. It only becomes morally wrong a) if we share a moral goal and b) if that belief contradicts that goal.

You are trying to do something for which you in the western tradition have over 2000+ years evidence against your idea.
Here it is in one version: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
The key word is measure and refers to subjectivity. In modern terms it is called cultural and neurological diversity.

I don't think you actually know what I'm trying to do.

And you still have to acknowledge this as for observed facts: Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

I'm not sure why you keep pasting this over and over. Science has limits, yes, I fully acknowledge this.

I am a die hard subjectivist, when it comes to the purpose of life.

Me too. We make our own purpose.

And I know this, because I am a skeptic, who have tested and doubted reason, logic and facts.
So while we are both parts of the same world, we are different in some cases for what serves us well individually.
As a skeptic concerned with the limits of the usage of reason, logic and/or facts, I can spot the common subjectivity in your kind of thinking and you are not alone. I have been doing this for over 20 years now and you are not the first one, who use this model. And it doesn't work like you think it does, because you overlook the subjective element in human life.

You're assuming an awful lot about me. I substantially agree with you. Maybe your subjectivity needs a reality check?

Some people believe they only need faith, And others believe they only need reason, logic and/or facts. I have checked and we all use both.

Only if you equivocate about what faith means. Many other threads on RF have addressed this.

Some people overlook subjectivity in some sense. You appear to be one of them. That doesn't make you neither wrong nor right. It just means that we are different and that is a fact. How you indivudually deal with that is your problem. It becomes my problem, because you claim I ought to be like you. And my answer is: No, I can do it differently, just as you can.

Actually it's both of our problem to solve mutually, because we live in a shared world and our beliefs and actions have an effect on each other. That is the whole origin of morality: humans had to figure out how to interact cooperatively with each other for our survival. And to do that, humans had to agree, to some degree, on a shared understanding of the reality we all can verify. So if you espouse a belief that contradicts our shared reality, and you even say that belief helps you - that's fine, as long as that belief keeps truly helping you and doesn't interfere with others' ability to navigate our shared reality. But many who have come before you have also had unsubstantiated belief in things that supposedly helped them, and those beliefs ended up being incredibly harmful to them and/or the world. So if you care about the well-being of yourself and others, I'm going to keep warning you of the risk of believing things that have no basis outside your head. If you don't care, so be it.

 

[Left Coast]

I did not start this discussion to simply "debate". There is a practical aspect to it. I started this discussion to also invite people to experience for themselves. Many skeptics have become convinced when they have experienced. It seems you have not experienced anything mystical nor extraordinary.

Are you willing to experience some of the things that George-Ananda has been explaining?

Sure. The issue is how we should interpret an experience once we have it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But just because you don't understand the explanation doesn't mean it's bull.

This is true, however I readily accept that mathematicians who understand things that I do not are not just talking "bull" - and there is a very simple and fundamental reason why! Because they can use their mathematical skills (the ones that I don't understand) to consistently produce results. This confirms that they know what the hell they are talking about because they CAN MAKE A DEMONSTRATION OF IT. And the other thing to note is that higher order mathematics have been passed down to the layperson time and time and time again via equations and simple mnemonic-type devices that allow you to simply plug-and-play. You're basically asking people to believe that these things are true/real without the ability to demonstrate even the efficacy of what it is you're proposing. And please note that the types of demonstrations I am talking about have happened millions of times for many, many other disciplines. Disciplines that have ACTUALLY been used to further knowledge and the betterment of human lives and livelihood. Does mysticism have comparable progress under its belt for its time under the sun?