Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[LadyForCamus]

Double post, sorry

[Neo-Scholastic]

And actually, I'm starting to think that you are not being honest in this discussion.  It was just a few pages back that you described yourself as a student of Swedenborg; a man who claimed to have regularly visited heaven and spoken with angel

Generally, I confine my advocacy of certain theological positions to those supported by natural revelation. This means I prefer to defend the existence of the god of classic monotheism. When I talk about the Christian Godhead, I do so by showing how it and the "God of the Philosophers" are theologically reconciled by neo-Scholasticism.

Discussions about angels, demons, and spirits by Swedenborg fall under the category of special revelation so I don't bring it up much. However, since you asked, in Swedenborg's experiences, the various supernatural entities he encountered had bodies although of more rarified matter, a kind wholly unknown to us.

As for the current discussion, the notion of multiple realizability doesn't really directly relate to theism. It is one of the few positions that I share with the majority of contemporary professional analytic philosophers, even though many of which do not have Noble prize awards.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Discussions about angels, demons, and spirits by Swedenborg fall under the category of special revelation so I don't bring it up much. However, since you asked, in Swedenborg's experiences, the various supernatural entities he encountered had bodies although of more rarified matter, a kind wholly unknown to us.

[LadyForCamus]

As for the current discussion, the notion of multiple realizability doesn't really directly relate to theism. It is one of the few positions that I share with the majority of contemporary professional analytic philosophers, even though many of which do not have Noble prize awards.

No, but the idea of immaterial things in disembodied states does, and this is to what I was referring regarding your honesty.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No, but the idea of immaterial things in disembodied states does, and this is to what I was referring regarding your honesty.

Believe what you want to believe.

[LadyForCamus]

No, but the idea of immaterial things in disembodied states does, and this is to what I was referring regarding your honesty.

Believe what you want to believe.

Your belief has nothing to do with my wishes. I am merely asking you to clarify what it actually is.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Please understand that I cannot give you, in just a few posts, a comprehensive summary of everything I think and why I think it. You accused me of being evasive at best, dishonest at worst. You have asked me many questions about me that, to my mind at least, are tangential to the discussion in this thread. My admiration of Swedenborg’s comprehensive exegesis of Genesis, Exodus, and the Apocalypse doesn’t directly affect my thoughts about first principles and fundamental philosophical problems that date back to the pre-Socratics. From your line of questioning about my theological views, I get the sense that you feel my belief in God undermines anything else I may have to say. You may not in actuality be so prejudiced and maybe your questioning represents genuine curiosity. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

My position on your OP, was grounded the moderate realist distinction between the form of a thing and the matter from which it is made. I hoped to address the more general understanding of ‘spiritual’, as the essences of things (which I think can be known), from a speculative type of ‘spiritual’ substance, an epiphenomenal ectoplasm, which may exist but could not be known from observation of nature. One could believe either and still not believe in God. Even if all theists disagree with notion that natural science is the only means by which to attain knowledge, someone doesn’t need to be a theist to do so. Many atheists also oppose scientism. Here is why, in a hopefully more clear way.

The underlying assumption of the scientific disciplines is that reality is intelligible. This is to say, cause-effect relationships happen consistently and things exhibit behaviors according to their natures. Science can discover the nature of particular beings, but science lacks the tools to ask about the nature of being itself. Science can discover the causal relationships between things, but it cannot account for why causality works. Generally people who say that only the finding of natural science qualify as knowledge adopt the following stances: 1) no knowable reason accounts for the consistency of cause-effect relationships & 2) no knowable reason accounts for some particular things having a general nature. To them, these are just brute facts contingent on nothing at all.

This belief cannot be empirically validated using the tools of natural science. One can certainly take a pragmatic approach and say that facts are ultimately about what appears to work and whatever is happening below the surface doesn’t matter. That only allows for a weakly defined meaning of knowledge. In pragmatism, facts stay contingent. Everyone ‘knows’ that crows are black until someone finds a white one. Certainty is impossible. Somehow pragmatism, as ontology, fails to satisfy. Most people believe that the value of pi does not depend on measurements of round objects, but the other way around. The roundness of an object depends on how well in conforms to something certain, the value of pi. This is to say, the value of pi is a non-contingent fact. It counts as certain knowledge without empirical verification. Mathematicians do not perform lab experiments to confirm their discoveries. Mathematics serves as at least one example of non-scientific knowledge attained by deduction. I do not believe it is the only example and believe that philosophy can also be a source of knowledge within its proper domain.

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK Chad, you seem intent on placing self serving limits to science that, bluntly, don't seem to be limiting science.  The nature of being?  I think science has more to say on the nature of being in what tiny sliver it's glimpsed than all of the worlds faith traditions combined.   Science is undoubtedly limited, but it doesn't seem to be limited in the way that you would like it to be. Your two options are charicatures..but who cares?  When we don't know, we don't know..would you prefer that people lied to you and claimed knowledge they did not possess?  

But all of this is ancillary and pointless, as your only beef with science is that you clearly feel the need to weaken and limit it before springing the word ghost in conversation.  That's pointless, you don't have to believe all the silly shit you present to us about science, just to believe in ghosts...that's not a requirement.  

You think that there are things that fail to satisfy the criteria of science, that do not conform to that standard, that still qualify as knowledge.  You don't need to to present these ridiculous assertions in order to justify your acceptance of category b knowledge. The knowledge that you are hinting at wont meet the standards of math or philosophy either, so I don't know what sense referring to them makes. Just let it be what it is, and make your peace with what you've decided to call knowledge.

[LadyForCamus]

Please understand that I cannot give you, in just a few posts, a comprehensive summary of everything I think and why I think it. You accused me of being evasive at best, dishonest at worst. You have asked me many questions about me that, to my mind at least, are tangential to the discussion in this thread. My admiration of Swedenborg’s comprehensive exegesis of Genesis, Exodus, and the Apocalypse doesn’t directly affect my thoughts about first principles and fundamental philosophical problems that date back to the pre-Socratics. From your line of questioning about my theological views, I get the sense that you feel my belief in God undermines anything else I may have to say. You may not in actuality be so prejudiced and maybe your questioning represents genuine curiosity. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't read your post in its entirety yet because it is late, but I think it's important that I clarify on the more personal stuff.

I do NOT feel your belief in God undermines anything else you may have to say. That would be an utterly lazy, dismissive, and closed-minded way to relate to fellow humans. I apologize if I gave you that impression, it was not my intention.

-Most- of the time my questions regarding your theological views are genuine, and I am sincerely curious. I suppose mostly because you don't talk about them very much, which is simply a different approach taken compared to what I've seen from other theists here at AF.

The reason I questioned your honesty in this particular discussion is because earlier in the thread you openly admitted to believing in supernatural phenomena such as visiting heaven and speaking with angels (which is fine), but then later made a point to respond defensively when I suggested you might believe the human mind capable of existing separate from the physical brain.

It came across to me as knee-jerk reaction:

I never said any such nonsense!

This points to a lack of continuity (IMO) with regards to what you believe is possible. I thought perhaps dishonest intentions; as though admitting such a belief wouldn't have suited you in that particular circumstance, but maybe it was a simple lack of comprehension on my part. I just don't think it is fair to hop beliefs based on the subject matter, or based on who is participating in the discussion.

When I asked you point blank what you believe, I meant only whether or not you believe the mind can exist outside the brain. I wanted to know where you draw your personal line in the sand between 'possible,' and 'impossible' so that we could continue on with the discussion. I don't think that it was an unfair question as it related to the topic.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies some things, and I will revisit the rest of your post tomorrow when I have fresh eyes!

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Please understand that I cannot give you, in just a few posts, a comprehensive summary of everything I think and why I think it. You accused me of being evasive at best, dishonest at worst. You have asked me many questions about me that, to my mind at least, are tangential to the discussion in this thread. My admiration of Swedenborg’s comprehensive exegesis of Genesis, Exodus, and the Apocalypse doesn’t directly affect my thoughts about first principles and fundamental philosophical problems that date back to the pre-Socratics. From your line of questioning about my theological views, I get the sense that you feel my belief in God undermines anything else I may have to say. You may not in actuality be so prejudiced and maybe your questioning represents genuine curiosity. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

My position on your OP, was grounded the moderate realist distinction between the form of a thing and the matter from which it is made. I hoped to address the more general understanding of ‘spiritual’, as the essences of things (which I think can be known), from a speculative type of ‘spiritual’ substance, an epiphenomenal ectoplasm, which may exist but could not be known from observation of nature. One could believe either and still not believe in God. Even if all theists disagree with notion that natural science is the only means by which to attain knowledge, someone doesn’t need to be a theist to do so. Many atheists also oppose scientism. Here is why, in a hopefully more clear way.

The underlying assumption of the scientific disciplines is that reality is intelligible. This is to say, cause-effect relationships happen consistently and things exhibit behaviors according to their natures. Science can discover the nature of particular beings, but science lacks the tools to ask about the nature of being itself. Science can discover the causal relationships between things, but it cannot account for why causality works. Generally people who say that only the finding of natural science qualify as knowledge adopt the following stances: 1) no knowable reason accounts for the consistency of cause-effect relationships & 2) no knowable reason accounts for some particular things having a general nature. To them, these are just brute facts contingent on nothing at all.

This belief cannot be empirically validated using the tools of natural science. One can certainly take a pragmatic approach and say that facts are ultimately about what appears to work and whatever is happening below the surface doesn’t matter. That only allows for a weakly defined meaning of knowledge. In pragmatism, facts stay contingent. Everyone ‘knows’ that crows are black until someone finds a white one. Certainty is impossible. Somehow pragmatism, as ontology, fails to satisfy. Most people believe that the value of pi does not depend on measurements of round objects, but the other way around. The roundness of an object depends on how well in conforms to something certain, the value of pi. This is to say, the value of pi is a non-contingent fact. It counts as certain knowledge without empirical verification. Mathematicians do not perform lab experiments to confirm their discoveries. Mathematics serves as at least one example of non-scientific knowledge attained by deduction. I do not believe it is the only example and believe that philosophy can also be a source of knowledge within its proper domain.

You're the one who's been making outrageous claims which you cannot substantiate by any manner of fact. You make such claims, and then you take a condescending tone, or even resort to name-calling with those who doubt your ideas. You have the right to express your ideas, but if you are going to do that anywhere then you need to respect the rights of others to doubt them. Which. You. Don't!

If you can't prove the ideas which you have already posited, then you have a choice:

1. admit that you are or may be wrong
   
2. stop beating your chest and insisting you can only be right