lightgigantic said:
How are the errors erradicated if the epistemology still relies on sensory perception? Perhaps you could say minimized but not eliminated
The methodology is
designed to eliminate errors. I've yet to see a human system that does anything perfectly. So yes, it tends to minimize errors.
Authority results from qualification - in other words an unqualified article posing as a qualified one will fail.
Again no. Qualification matters not a whit. The only authority is argument. Is the argument sound, does it provide evidence, does it lead to a conclusion, are there other possible explanations, etc. The qualification, of a person or a paper, is only a cheat... a quick way to decide whether or not the argument is worthy of further exploration.
Its only empirical if you assume that the person or teacher giving the knowledge had to wrack their brains in the traditional empirical fashion to work things out - the idea behind revelation is that the knowledge comes from a person in pure consciousness, and the ultimate in pure consciousness is god - in other words there is a state of being where knowledge manifests (commonly called self realisation - or perceiving the exact identity of the self)
You have your methodologies confused here... empiricism relies on experimentation and observation not thought. Revelation's source is a deity, not one's enlightened self (unless you're claiming yourself god) that would be introspection or apriorism. Admittedly this is a complex topic. But we're discussing the source of the knowledge rather than how it is communicated. The source of a science teacher's knowledge is empirical.
I am with you but I am lost on this "If one takes an epistemological position the methodology is science" what is the exclusive connection between epistemology and science ?- I have a feeling you may be using science in a broad sense but I am not sure
My bad, I meant to say, "If one takes an
empirical position the methodology is science."
Different levels of consciousness based on three states of self identification - awake (subtle and gross body), asleep (subtle body) , unconscious (neither gross nor subtle body) - but the self can drift in and out of these three states so it must consist of a fourth elemnt - called "turiya" (in sanskrit) or composed of the fourth element, ie consciousness
Very poetic but this doesn't really contain any information.
So why does science advocate an ontology that excludes the ontology of theism (ie the idea that the universe is a product of intelligent design)? Its not like the view of a creative designer inhibits the pursuit of empiricism.
Again, science does not advocate an ontology, it studies one. The realm of the transcendent (presuming such exists) would be beyond the scope of science. Singular phenomena are also beyond the scope of science. Science studies that which can be observed, this does not necessarily preclude the existence of things that cannot be observed. Although one can make an argument towards it, this does not lie within the scope of science.
If they were actually contemplating the infinite as a form of infinity you would expect an infinite array of results, but instead you see a general catergory of practice that goes down in the name of religion
That's because everyone looks through human eyes.
Contradictions may appear due to a lack of qualification of the seer
Twice wrong. First, as above, qualification does not merit authority. Secondly, one cannot even make such a qualification unless one is qualified to do so. In other words, who can determine who is qualified and who is not?
I would say it is very integral to hinduism and buddhism because they generally operate out of systems of guru and disciple
Hinduism is a bit too flexible and adaptive to confine so tightly... I guess we're both partly right.
" Shabda-brahman is considered the most reliable form of authority for spiritual and related matters. However, Hinduism is not simply an authoritarian system of belief, and tends to synthesise religious commitment with open philosophical inquiry. It acknowledges the need for exploration and realisation of knowledge. Without appropriate conduct and values, informational and experiential knowledge will be inevitably misconstrued." -
http://hinduism.iskcon.com/concepts/110.htm
I am referring to a view that the universe is impersonal which is a general principle advocated by an atheist that makes them distinct from an agnostic - I would agree however that it is a conclusion drawn from a narrow empirical position
I still think you assuming too much. So much depends upon the definitions of the terms involved. My favorite response, for instance, to queries into my atheism is, "Define God". Under certain definitions, I can easily be considered a Cosmotheist. Other scientific hypotheses acutally place the individual at the center of things. For instance, the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I think we may be operating out of different definitions of epistemology - this last paragraph didn't make sense - maybe you could illustrate the distinctions with examples of action that follows such an epistemology - at the moment its not clear to me the distinction you are making between these three classes
Atheistic and epistemologically agnostic - Does not believe in god due to a lack of convincing argument or evidence but is admittedly ignorant of possibilities under which god might exist.
Theistic and epistemologically agnostic - Believes in god despite a lack of convincing argument or evidence but is admits that god might not actually exist. Or believes that the answer is deliberately hidden by God (the "that's why they call it faith" types).
Theistically and epistemologically agnostic (true agnosticism) - Believes the question of God is unanswerable.
~Raithere
