Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by lightgigantic, Nov 30, 2006.
let me put it in bold for you
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
and lets put this in bold for you, as your just dont get it. Skinwalker:
"You have yet to show what I asked. Your quote above only demonstrates knowledge gained through the physical world -the natural universe. Whether it be direct or indirect. That doesn't even rate a "nice try."
understandable, since you,as an atheist, don't regard god or god's representative as apta-vakya
ironically, as an advocate of empiricism, you encounter the same issue.
Yet rationalism and empricism are verifiable in at least one way. The teachings and authority of the Vedas, however, are not verifiable. Does not this make the Vedic viewpoint inferior?
However, it is good to point out how science is premising itself more and more on fallacious lines of thought that trivializes itself.
I make no claims about the teapots around Mars. However, as one cannot know that they either exist or not exist, we are all forced to accept an agnostic position about them.
It very instructive that you guys think the odds are greater that a celestial teapot is orbiting around Mars than that the Bible is accurate history, oh the desparation of the God haters.
One does not hate that which don't exist! It's plainly silly. What I do hate is the atrocities brought to mankind in the name of god, the stagnation of humanity brought in the name of religion, the utter blindness devotion of faith, to destroy everything on it's path, that does not agree with their ideology.
America is a Constitutional Republic, and Focus on the Family hasn't declared a jihad on Muslims the last time I checked.
No, you're (1) completely abandoning a point which is central to modern agnosticism, that one proportions their belief to the evidence (-Hume), and (2) confabulating "the implausible" and "the impossible" (or incoherent, if you prefer).
I think you'll find you're committing Petitio Principii by suggesting others must adopt a position of agnosticism on a far-fetched notion which you insist you've made no claims about.
And that is why "strong agnosticism" is a laughable nonsequitur.
There is no position which a strong agnostic can adopt on the limits of knowledge which does not also demolish their very tenets.
Trite cliches such as "Nothing is Certain" have become cannonical in the minds of great wafflers, because no effort is made to distinguish between principle and application.
In the very least, the tired "tea pot" analogy does not apply, unless you are going to support it, or defend it.
Yes, and where did you begin to answer?
Proportioning one's belief to the evidence is not epistemologically justified to be called knowledge, which is justified true belief. Holding any viewpoint on teapots around Mars is unjustified.
You will agree that there is nothing logically incoherent in the orbiting of Mars by a teapot, yes? That is to say, a teapot could theoretically be set in motion to revolve around Mars, yes, without a violation of any law of logic?
And you admit that if certain properties of the teapot were given, such as invisibility and the like, that it would be more difficult to check?
And that even if such were not the case, that we'd most likely not know if it is true or not?
And that there is no a priori way to discuss teapots rotating around Mars? Thus leaving us with no analytic method of determining their existence or non-existence around Mars?
If so, then you must affirm the agnostic principle, as there is no certainy in either case. It could happen, it probably has -not-, and one cannot claim it -has-, but rather must one claim utter ignorance (and likely apathy) about the matter.
It's a matter of epistemology as it relates to empirical claims.
It is entirely impossible to argue ones delusions. But, by your very own statement, you've successfully contradicted yourself:
"Science will discover it some day."
Clarify, because you just set up conditions for which you argue favorably against. If you agree that the "tea pot" analogy is irrelevant, why waste your time speculating, since the evidence for one is lacking?
Incoherent, no, implausible, yes- and unless you plan on continuing to NOT support such a claim, the agnostic position isn't "we can't know-" it IS "what is the evidence?"
I invite you to strongly consider the difference between "principle" and "application" again.
You are "off the hook" on only one condition- that you've made no empirical claims.
It is also rather clear that you do not intend to.
And with regard to "implausible tea pots"- that is as it should be.
And here-in lies the hub of most of your arguments, LG ...
Sabda, from the description above, is a logical fallacy that you use over and over and over again.
The "statement of a reliable person" is an Appeal to Authority - nothing more, nothing less.
Just because a "reliable person" says it does NOT make anything truthful.
Likewise, by merely saying that the validity of the Veda is "self-authenticated" does NOT make it so.
It needs to be demonstrated with actual evidence.
Otherwise it is nothing but a belief without evidence - pure faith - passed down through the ages with a growing collection of unsubstantiated myth and dust surrounding it.
which brings us to the delightful analogy of the high school drop out in the association of a physicist in regards to the electron - as far as the high school drop out is concerned, the only way he can accept the notion of the electron is if he can accept that the physicist and physics are self authenticated (of course the body of knowledge behind physics has come about through a combination of empiricism and rationalism, but as far as the high school drop out is concerned, his efforts of empiricism and rationalism are not sufficient, hence he doesn't qualify for direct perception).
what makes a reliable authority reliable is that following what they advocate delivers the desired result (by following an authentic doctor you get cured of sickness, despite not being the least bit familiar with medicine, by following an authentic teacher you come to the platform of knowledge that they are familiar with etc etc)
mentioned at the end of the article referenced
Unfortunately, modern intellectuals equate Vedic sabda-pramana with the sort of ipse dixit authority that Descartes rejected. And so, despite their doubts, anumana remains the favoured pramana, though it is ever uncertain. But there are three simple, standard rules of semantics (the study of linguistic communication) that, if put into practice, demonstrate the difference between sabda and ipse dixit statements, and establish sabda as authoritative. If I want to know whether a statement has real authority, I must:
1. know what the statement means
2. know the right way to verify it
3. have good evidence for believing it (Wilson, 1960:76)
Firstly, knowing what a statement means requires me to accept an appropriate discipline of thought. For instance, I cannot know what 'nondeterministic, polynomial-time-complete' refers to through the disciplines of basket weaving, literary criticism or phrenology. The appropriate discipline is combinatorics, the study of complex logical problems. Similarly, if I want to know what the statement 'sabda is the sound incarnation of Krsna' means, I have to accept the system of discipline (parampara) through which sabda is handed down.
Secondly, I verify the statement 'sabda is the sound incarnation of Krsna' by consulting the three parampara sources of sabda: guru, sastra and sadhu. If I read this statement in sastra, I consult guru and sadhu for verification. If I hear it from guru, it is verified by sastra and sadhu; and if I hear it from sadhu, it is verified by sastra and guru.
Thirdly, there is very good evidence for believing the statement 'sabda is the sound incarnation of Krsna'. One who makes the senses and mind his authorities is bound by them, and is thus bound by ignorance of the self. In other living creatures such ignorance of the self is natural; but in man it is a vice that results in vice. The sound of Ipse dixit does not have the potency to free the self from the vicious demands of the mind and senses. Hearing it, a man remains like an animal, his life's goals no higher than eating, sleeping, sex and self-defence. Sabda that is understood and verified following the two previous rules, transforms the hearer in a way that ipse dixit does not. As Srila Prabhupada writes in Bhagavad-gita As It Is, 'Perfect knowledge, received from the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is the path of liberation.' (Bhaktivedanta, 1983:266) Liberation of consciousness from the dictation of the mind and senses, and from ignorance and vice, is self-evident in the devotees who take to the path. And when a devotee comes to the end this path of liberation, of hearing Vedic sabda, Krsna personally reveals Himself as Absolute Knowledge, the Absolute Knower and the Absolute Object of Knowledge. This state of full realisation of the truth is called Krsna consciousness.
here we go again with the same crap analogy. the high school dropout, can be sure that the physicist could produce credentials to show his knowledge, and therefore the high school dropout, can accept the knowledge of the physicist, as worthy of adoration.
but you have yet to establish that a saintly person is either blessed, or reliable authority, or worthy of adoration, or even had a direct perception, proof that they are associated with a divine power; sacred.
but we all know how long it takes to get a decree in a given subject, how long it take to become learned, through tried and tested means, whether or not the high school dropout understands what a electron is, is irrelevent, because he know the physicist does.
I am only stressing a point of epistemology, that is all. It is utterly irrelevant - truly, no man is anything but utterly disiniterested in whether or not teapots go around Mars - but it is something we must accept as a possibility if we are philosophically unbiased.
Basically, yes: Incoherent but not implausible.
But I would argue the agnostic position cannot simply be "what is the evidence" if by that you mean "what is the evidence for?", but "what is the evidence" only if you mean "what is the evidence for or against and can this be judged to be known beyond epistemological justification"?
True, because it is simply ridiculous to claim teapots go around Mars.
When you get a chance, check my last post for a reply I made to your former one. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say.
So basically, you affirm that the verification of the Vedas, Bhagavad-Gita, and other sources of authority in your religious tradition, comes from mystic experience in direct perception of God following discipleship?
the whole point about using the eg of a high school drop out is that they are not in a position to verify the claims of the physicist - in such a circumstance, what grounds does the high school dropout have to accept (or reject) the claims of the physicist or the credentials of the physicist?
Of course it is often replied that the high school drop out could get an education or a foundation of theoretical knowledge to become familiar enough with what the physicist is on about, but then we would be no longer talking about a high school drop out, per se.
Similarly if we were talking about why an atheist is not capable of perceiving the nature of god, and if an atheist was prepared to undergo the tutelage of a saintly person, we would no longer be discussing the issues of an atheist.
Separate names with a comma.