Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I think what Thumpy may be saying is that no "knowledge" which isn't science is valid, therefore there's no point in categorizing knowledge at all. This would not change the nature of scientific knowledge, but it may fight the special pleading from those who insist they have other forms of "knowledge". But it wouldn't stop theists from muddling any linguistic term, therefore if scientists stopped qualifying their "knowledge" as "scientific", then it would be that much harder to sort out the corruption of it by theists.

Not sure I agree with this. Yes you want to take the teeth out of the theist arguments, I simply don't think coddling them by allowing them all claims are equal is the way to do it. It still remains that you only have evidence when you can test an falsify it and have it confirmed by peer review. That is the only thing that allows us knowledge.


Yes I have knowledge that in the past humans once claimed Thor existed. But Thor still is not a scientific demonstration of knowledge of lightening in the scientific explanation.

I don't see how knowledge of opinions constitutes the same Empirical data based tested and falsified.

I repeatedly have and will again here, on top of saying Dawkins "God Delusion" gives us a scientific explanation as to why humans have flawed perceptions, Victor Stenger's "God The Failed Hypothesis" and " The New Atheism" and even Hawking "A god is not required" are all science based statements.  There really is no splitting the baby as some want there to be. 

Religion is like pretending a kaleidoscope can replace a telescope. All religions try this and all religions fail trying it.

I was only guessing what that was supposed to mean, and while my best guess is something I've considered before, I don't think it would work for the same reasons. Also, some knowledge may not be empirical - as you mentioned, other people's opinions (not unless they were publicly stated and recorded).

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's no such thing as "scientific" knowledge and "spiritual" knowledge.  There is only knowledge. If you cannot support your claim, it isn't a special category of "knowledge"; it is an unsupported claim.

What the fuck? Yes there is such a thing as "scientific knowledge". You wouldn't be typing on this computer if there was not such a thing.

Now don't confuse the unknown future science has yet to explain as being equal to not knowing anything at all, that is simply flat out crap.

Science is the ONLY tool that can, when used ethically and correctly give us knowledge. 

The rest are just competing opinions. Humans are certainly entitled to having them, but scientific method as a tool does not give on care as to what anyone's personal opinion is. Peer review is what settles differences in science, not opinions.

The only difference between you and me is that you insist on using an extraneous adjective. "Scientific knowledge" is redundant, not to mention repetitive.

Did you read my entire post, or just the first seven words?

[...] I simply don't think coddling them by allowing them all claims are equal is the way to do it.

Perhaps you'd do me the courtesy of quoting where I said that their claims are equal. I should have thought I made my point perfectly clear with my last sentence. You seem to have not read it ... or you're simply in an obdurate mood.

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1167099' dateline='1452353965']Chad,..What, specifically, are your beliefs? Do you identify with a formal religion, and if so, which one? If you are Christian, how literally do you interpret the bible?

I consider myself primarily a student of Swedenborg, the 18th Century visionary scientist and mystic. For the last three years I have been exploring the commonalities between Swedenborg’s theological works and Thomism.

... these arguments only go so far as to say: "there is more to this world than can be discovered by empirical science alone." You always fall short of actually saying what you believe in.

You’re a relatively new member so I understand that my approach may seem to be less forthright as of late. I generally have not shied away from being very explicit about my positions, like moderate realism, panentheism, a kind of essentialism, etc.

As of late, though I prefer to critique the critics. These critics are the people who presume that atheism is the only rational and logical stance with respect to the question “Does God(s) exist?”. They then proceed to demonstrate the apparent philosophical fallacies and theological follies they see in religious belief. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. If their stance is as logical and/or as rational as they say then their critiques should be cogent and firmly grounded. I have found however, that when pushed, the self-identified paragons of logic retreat into incoherent and self-refuting philosophical dead-ends, like radical empiricism.

Turnabout is fair play.

Are you afraid that if you admit to being Christian you will be held accountable for bridging that gap between the ambiguity of knowledge theory and the Christian God of the bible.

No you’re right. There is a huge gap. There’s a huge gap between physics and linguistics, too, but no one says linguistics is bullshit just because it cannot be traced back to physics. If someone cannot see the general revelation of Nature than it would be pointless to discuss special revelation.

Besides, it took Aquinas about 80,000 words to bridge it to his own satisfaction and then, suddenly, he receives beatific vision and laments that all of his work was “as straw.”

... you REFUSE to admit to yourself that you can understand how philosophical theory in the absence of science might not be considered adequate evidence for a hard nosed atheist.

I’m quite aware that a ‘hard-nosed’ atheist will only accept the findings of scientific inquiry for fundamental questions. I’m only asking them to acknowledge the precommitments they have made like this one: all statements must be empirically verified before accepted as true, except this one.[quote/]


Thank you for answering my questions. I do sincerely appreciate it, as I did sincerely want to know. Okay, so you are Catholic. Why didn't you just say that? [emoji14]. I tend to think (or hope) that if St. Thomas Aquinas were alive today, he'd be rethinking his theories of existence in light of what modern science has revealed about natural selection and evolution. This Swedenborg fellow though...how sad that such a brilliant scientific mind was lost to mental illness; running around saying he visits heaven daily and talks to the Angels. You honestly take his accounts seriously? How bad do you have to want to believe in something in order to completely suspend common sense? I just don't understand.

The problem for a theist with turning the tables, is that you can't poke holes in my empiricist world view if you can't -demonstrate- to me why I am wrong. If you try to hammer a hole into an atheist POV using a mystical nail that only YOU experience as a nail, the atheist will just say: "there is no nail, and I see no holes. Where are they? SHOW me." You'll never be able to, due to the very unprovable nature of your beliefs. Trying to debate this way fails to convince anyone. Im just wondering what you hope to accomplish, that's all.

[LadyForCamus]

There's no such thing as "scientific" knowledge and "spiritual" knowledge.  There is only knowledge. If you cannot support your claim, it isn't a special category of "knowledge"; it is an unsupported claim.

What the fuck? Yes there is such a thing as "scientific knowledge". You wouldn't be typing on this computer if there was not such a thing.

Now don't confuse the unknown future science has yet to explain as being equal to not knowing anything at all, that is simply flat out crap.

Science is the ONLY tool that can, when used ethically and correctly give us knowledge. 

The rest are just competing opinions. Humans are certainly entitled to having them, but scientific method as a tool does not give on care as to what anyone's personal opinion is. Peer review is what settles differences in science, not opinions.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think what Thump means is that scientific knowledge is the -only- kind of knowledge that actually exists, not that it -doesn't- exist. This might just be a misunderstanding.

[LadyForCamus]

Oops, sorry, Hanky got there first! [emoji39]

[Brian37]

What the fuck? Yes there is such a thing as "scientific knowledge". You wouldn't be typing on this computer if there was not such a thing.

Now don't confuse the unknown future science has yet to explain as being equal to not knowing anything at all, that is simply flat out crap.

Science is the ONLY tool that can, when used ethically and correctly give us knowledge. 

The rest are just competing opinions. Humans are certainly entitled to having them, but scientific method as a tool does not give on care as to what anyone's personal opinion is. Peer review is what settles differences in science, not opinions.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think what Thump means is that scientific knowledge is the -only- kind of knowledge that actually exists, not that it -doesn't- exist.  This might just be a misunderstanding.

Yea well then if I can be confused by what he said, then most certainly theists will do far worse misunderstanding him. Your simple summery seems like me and Thump are on the same page. Yes scientific knowledge is te only kind of knowledge that actually exists, so don't get the other stuff he was saying.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes scientific knowledge is te only kind of knowledge that actually exists,...

I truly feel sorry for you.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Okay, so you are Catholic.  Why didn't you just say that?

Because I'm not Catholic.

This Swedenborg fellow though...how sad that such a brilliant scientific mind was lost to mental illness; running around saying he visits heaven daily and talks to the Angels.  You honestly take his accounts seriously?

If he actually did regularly speak with angels, demons and spirits, then we wasn't really insane was he? But to answer your question, yes, I do take Swedenborg at his word.

[Pat Mustard]

Yes scientific knowledge is te only kind of knowledge that actually exists,...

I truly feel sorry for you.

Why? Brian is grounded in reality and rationalism, you are grounded in fantasy and caveman superstition. You should really be sorry for yourself, living a delusion is a lot wrse than living in reality.

[LadyForCamus]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think what Thump means is that scientific knowledge is the -only- kind of knowledge that actually exists, not that it -doesn't- exist.  This might just be a misunderstanding.

Yea well then if I can be confused by what he said, then most certainly theists will do far worse misunderstanding him. Your simple summery seems like me and Thump are on the same page. Yes scientific knowledge is te only kind of knowledge that actually exists, so don't get the other stuff he was saying.

Whoa! Apologies! I didn't read down the rest of the thread before responding, but maybe tone the 'tude down a few notches...