Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[Whateverist]

How do you distinguish between what you call a "spiritual" belief from the set of all possible beliefs?

You didn't answer the question.  I think a true and justified belief should at least be  demonstrable to others, or else how could you justify it to be true to anyone but yourself?

That is a good point.  There are private truths, like my favorite flavor/color/author/etc, and then there is what we at least assume is mutually verifiable.  As someone who isn't sure what meaning to attach to the term "god," it often feels as though whatever it may be surely belongs in the private domain.  It isn't at all clear to me that god claims are empirical in nature.

Often those who make public god claims posit a third realm between what is private and what is empirical, called 'the supernatural'. Unfortunately that term is also one to which I am unable to attach any meaning. As far as I can tell, there is no such realm. There is simply what is in the world and what is in my experience. In some sense what is in my experience is also part of what is in the wider world. But it is because of the limited access to my experience that the division exists. Why should the supernatural division exist?

[Neo-Scholastic]

He thinks that his mind and his brain aren't the same thing.

From reading your posts, I would say that neither do you. You just haven't been using very precise language and are blending concepts that don't go together. I haven't tried to respond to your posts, because I find them to ambiguous.

[The Grand Nudger]

You'd say alot of suspect things, no surprise there.   Ambiguity is preferable to bullshittery, imo. Was my summary inaccurate, do you take an issue that you'd like to discuss, or was this it? Seems I got it out there without two paragraphs of obfuscation, or was my wording too ambiguous?

[Neo-Scholastic]

 It isn't at all clear to me that god claims are empirical in nature.

Probably because they are not all empirical. I took issue with the idea that only a posteriori, empirically verifiable truths count as knowledge. Double-blind lab experiments are not required to justify the a priori first principles of philosophy like the Principle of Non-Contradition and Law of Identity, likewise the discoveries of mathematics.

[The Grand Nudger]

....and you can -have- your separate category of knowledge if you insist....but what does that change? Can we get a disclaimer each time you lapse into a "category b" knowledge statement? I certainly hope that you aren't mixing them together and attempting inference.......that'll end in misery.

[Whateverist]

That's somewhat akin to asking what the difference between the natural and supernatural is. In this case, it depends on the meanings of science and spiritual.

I consider knowledge the genus and science a species within that set, one distinguished by the study of particular beings as they are found in nature. I don't think scientific knowledge encompasses the entire set.

Certainly in ordinary language "knowledge" can be divided in any number of ways, some of which we may be familiar with while others are beyond our ken. I may have some knowledge of gardening that you don't. You surely have knowledge of painting which I do not. But with gardening and painting we can point to tools and methods and results which support that knowledge. Metaphysics isn't like that.

Science: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Personally, I consider all forms of transcendent truths 'spiritual', i.e. transcendent in that they are certain and apply universally to all particulars. Like metaphysics, math doesn't have to run experiments per se. I don't need to run an experiment to prove, in general, that particular beings exist or that some beings can be numbered. I also consider that type of knowledge objective because that kind of truth does not depend on the opinion or observation of any particular subject knowing them.

I'm also interested in transcendent truths where they may exist. Certainly mathematics contains many. But all such truths are only falsifiable through internal inconsistency. I think there are also psychological truths but since these are only verifiable in the experience of subjects, they are nye impossible to falsify or vouchsafe. In this sense all psychology is confessional; no matter what truths you may think you possess in that area, you can never be sure they apply to anyone else but yourself.

Mathematics and psychology are pretty starkly different epistemologically. I suspect that theism is entirely like psychology and not at all like mathematics. The truth or falsity of mathematical propositions are not private. But claims regarding gods certainly seem to be entirely private, and so never falsifiable nor vouchsafeable.

Looks to me like the intuition of a supernatural realm is entirely like the intuition of gods themselves, entirely a private matter.

[Angrboda]

Jackson's experiment suggests that it is possible to have the same knowledge, only in different forms…If Mary indeed knows all there is to know about brain states of seeing red then she knows 'about' her own brain state when she sees red.

You’re conflating sensation with conceptualization. Knowing in concept what happens to the brain physically is not the same as knowing what any given experience associated with that brain state feels like. Inside the box, Mary has conceptual knowledge of color perception. Outside the box, she gains sensual knowledge of color perception. To my mind, Jackson’s thought problem is overly complex. I say, if someone has been blind from birth, no amount of book-learning on sight can compare with its visceral experience.

That would be an entirely different case, for the blind do not have by visceral experience what they would possess by book learning. I'm arguing that if Mary knows all about the mental states of people who experience seeing read, then some of that knowledge is the same as the visceral sensation, only acquired in a different form and through different channels. If she is seeing red, she is experiencing via her neurons the same state she knows about conceptually. It isn't 'new' knowledge, it's some of the knowledge she had previously acquired being brought to her in a different way. Just as someone can tell me that aspirin is a pain reliever, and I go on to discover this by having it relieve my headache, that doesn't mean I've learned something new by the experience that I didn't know before.

[ChrisjanW]

In science, if you liken a theory or argument to a chain, to fuck up that theory, you only need to break a single link.

In religion it seems, breaking every link is not convincing to some/most/all believers. 'Predicting' how old the universe is and how it formed would be a make or break thing, all religions get it wrong and yet belief persists. We have Christian scripture promising belief is all it takes to move mountains, heal the sick, and to neutralize serpent venom and poison. So where are all these moved mountains hiding ?

You get religious apologist making all manner of logical fallacies in defending their faiths to the extent it is embarrassing and headache inducing to read their explanations. And belief persists.

Guess it is still very much a numbers game where (since we live in a world of reality by consensus ) the believers of proven/factual knowledege are still outnumbered by the believers of learnt/adopted/untestable knowledge.

In other words, you won't see those mountains unless you believe ;-)

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

[Pat Mustard]

 It isn't at all clear to me that god claims are empirical in nature.

Probably because they are not all empirical.

Well then, they aren't worth two shits now are they? If something is indemonstrable then it is essentially false.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

There is only one true type of "knowledge" - it's empirical knowledge, which can be observed, reviewed, and verified by all who behold it. Yes, that does mean scientific! If you have only "spiritual knowledge", you don't actually know anything as fact outside of your own experience, such so-called knowledge is nothing more than personal experience. Therefore, there is no "scientific knowledge vs. spiritual knowledge", there is only scientific knowledge vs. experience which is personal (exclusively within the believer's own mind), or anecdotal, but not of an empirical nature.