OzSpen, Monday, 8 August 2016 10:14:10 PM

"Seems to me that you are engaged in a begging the question fallacy. Of course you will not want other than scientific evidence from me because that is your premise before you began. Your view is very myopic."

No, not myopic....simply highly discriminating.

In its search for the truth, science has established that its goal is highly elusive. In fact it has settled for what is most probable with a proviso that weight of probability is changeable. Some might say that this position is a far cry from the truth.......and they may be right! But it is the best that the human intellect can accomplish. However unsatisfactory this may seem, it is a far nobler question-to-answer struggle than surrendering to an early iron-age script, no original of which exists but was written by heretofore illiterates inspired by a supernatural spirit and within which the ultimate and inviolable truth resides.

I confess that such a surrender insults humankind and denigrates the courage and tenacity it has exhibited in surviving "nature red in tooth and claw"* to today. If humans from roughly 200,000 years ago have endured, limited by their physical resources, relying on their intellectual resources and courage, then that legacy is worthy of the highest respect for it has been eminently successful in spite of the nihilism of religious subservience.

I have no hesitation in demanding that evidence be put through the mill of the scientific method. No assertion or claim of undeniable truth will ever be given credibility, for perfect truth, ineluctable and inviolable, is a pie-in-the-sky concept that can never be attained. It was stated before by RationalRazor, Thursday, 4 August 2016 4:55:39 PM "That which can be claimed without evidence, equally, can be dismissed without evidence." PROOF of anything is confined to mathematics and logic. Science is not in the business of proving anything, science relies on the weight of probability.

*Alfred Lord Tennyson - In Memoriam A.H.H.

Greetings Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 2 August 2016 6:24:46 PM

You write: "Overall I agree with you: atheism does not deserve to be called "religion".

And as far as one can be undeserving of gratuitous pejorative and dishonest characterisation, I find myself able to reciprocate.

"And at that very moment I'll stop giving it any consideration because anything that can be evidenced is merely material. I do not worship evidence."

I neither worship nor revere anything. EVIDENCE describes something that can occupy either extremes of credibility and all positions between. Theists have exploited this realm of variability for thousands of years and by so doing have created a body of doctrine and dogma of stupefying impenetrability. When I contemplate the number of magnificent trees that have been destroyed in order to perpetrate this twaddle my hackles rise and a curse upon perfidious humankind escapes my lips.

I hasten to add that this does not reveal a reverse side in atheism of universal agreement and fraternal love. Atheists though, rely on their innate common sense and follow the path of the scientific method to winnow the wheat from the chaff [to mix a metaphor]. Theists consult a 2000-year-old book written originally by goatherds, fishermen, etc when a sky spirit, which had fallen asleep while watching its flock, awoke and needed to look busy. So it gave these putative authors a crash-course in literacy and presented its flock with a book of rules to live by for eternity, or until the hero returned to Earth, whichever came first.

"Yes, this was their attempt at idolatry and they have thus tried to undermine religion. Fortunately they were unsuccessful."

If roughly 1.5 billion followers of christianity in a total population of roughly 6.5 billion is deemed "unsuccessful" then you had better present a damned good argument why not. Of course, it's easy to see that you expect an awe-struck reader to presume your own theology was the rightful heir to their allegiance. You should have a higher regard for your readers .

Dear Pogi,

Once again we seem to be largely in agreement. Our remaining differences are probably not differences in facts, but differences in values.

Just as it is foolish to argue which perfume smells better, let the readers decide themselves what they like. If one is after the smell of the earth, then I recommend that they turn to evidence and science rather than to gods, ghosts and demons. If however, they become tired of the earth and prefer the smell of heaven then I humbly present them with the ancient wisdom of Vedanta that can quench their thirst beyond all their dreams.

Yuyutsu,

I'm happy to agree that looking inside oneself and genuinely seeking to understand ourselves might be the most useful form of religion.

I hope in turn you'll be able to acknowledge the epistemological limits of religion, including yours, which consistently claim understanding of where there can be none. In your last post you at first deny claiming any such knowledge before going on to claim it.

<<<<Yes, by definition I cannot provide you definitions, understanding or proofs, but I never claimed that I can. If you were after those, then why didn't you ask from the start?>>>>

I did.

«You cannot know the unknowable»
<<<<But you can know what is almost unknowable, what is most difficult to know >>>>

You seem to be attempting to bridge the divide, but there is no relevance to "almost" or "nearly". The absolute is either unknowable or knowable.

<<<Knowing yourself (and God and others for that matter) is no ordinary knowledge.>>>

Here you go. Knowing God? You just admitted you cannot provide understandings or proofs. But now you claim to know something about the type of knowledge this is. It' unknowable by your own admission.

<<<<There is no way to know yourself because ways always lead between two different points, A and B.>>>>

Now there is no way. Which is it? Do you know or not?

Since you admit all of this is unknowable then you must be logic admit that there is no possible point in trying to bridge some sort of pathway towards it. It's not nearly knowable. It's not possible to point in its general direction. IT's not possible to know anything at all about it. It's unknowable.

(What do I mean when I say it? The absolute, everything the Upanishads beleive, the inner self, anything posited to outside of the natural realm)

Unknowable. All of IT.

Dear Razor,

We may have uncovered a gross misunderstanding, perhaps a cultural difference:

Knowledge and understanding are two very different things.
One may know but not understand - and one may understand but not really know.

Understanding is knowledge that has been processed by the mind. As such it is indirect: one doesn't really know the actual object of their knowledge, only what their mind tells them about it.

English has no word for knowledge that is without means, without the via of any faculty. The word for it in Sanskrit is 'Anubhava' and the nearest attempt to translate it into English that I know, is 'direct experience'. In other words, in anubhava one knowing the object of knowledge itself, rather than about it.

While the Absolute is knowable (though with great difficulty) in the sense that it can be directly experienced, there is absolutely no way to understand it or to otherwise know it through any other via. Even if others might claim to understand God, I don't and this is certainly not the way of Hinduism or Vedanta.

As for pointing in the direction, it is done through practical advice of things to do and things to avoid in order to increase your chances of anubhava. Nobody can give it to you, nobody can show it to you, but those who have already been there can advise you on getting there yourself, saving your time and helping you to avoid dead-ends.

«I'm happy to agree that looking inside oneself and genuinely seeking to understand ourselves might be the most useful form of religion.»

Strictly speaking you cannot understand yourself and even if you did, this would not be a direct experience as it would involve your mind. However, you can to a large extent understand your body and your mind and this can help you in the process of eliminating false identities.

Is this the most useful form of religion? As we have different predispositions, strengths and weaknesses, for some of us it is the most useful method while different methods are more suited for others.

Yuyutsu

You simply move the goal posts to and fro as you struggle for answers. It's an interesting insight into the superstitious mind.

You previously claimed God or the absolute is unknowable and now you claim they're knowable but not understandable.

The concept you're talking about is the Sensus divinitatis: well known in Christian theology. No-one in philosophy takes it seriously.

Anything that can be known even be direct sensory perception can be demonstrated by evidence. If you disagree name an exception (besides a deity or Absolute). It's a case of special pleading to allow for belief in unverifiable claims.

<<<< In any case, don't you agree with me that no such thing called 'God' exists?>>>>

You don't appear to know whether you believe in God or not.

You are like a blind mind looking for a black cat in a dark room which isn't there, and finding it.

I bid you good day.