I was searching around on the internet for some info on Wolfgang Klopp. I came across this document. I read two pages of it (I didn't visit the site or know what the rest of the document is about) and it seems apt for this thread. To address this petiole:

I'll pull a quote from the article:

If anyone has experienced a state of nirvikalpa samadhi, a state of no-mind, you know that you would not be able to function or survive without the basic functions of the mind. So, that's not really what I'm talking about.....

Now some quotes from the above document. in line with what I'm talking about in this thread:

I love that line about odours. So good.

Actually, the olfactory sense is unique in that it is also directly connected to the limbic system (emotion/memory), so the observation is interesting - but the conclusion is very bad. Your other senses can't function like the sense of smell.

One of the most important truths that any human ought to grasp, that can be apprehended spiritually ( but whether one accepts this truth to be a "spiritual truth" - perhaps, zumby or someone can elucidate an opinion of what this actually means or give a precise definition ), is stated by Shaul ( "Paul" ) with respect to humanity in 1 Cor 15:3-4 (NASB):

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that

...Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,...

This is a statement that divides humanity: those that deny the truth of the statement are not led by the Ruach HaKodesh ~ the "Spirit of Truth". Spiritual beings, acknowledge the truth of the statement. Thus, if a human being does not accept this truth, either he/she is "not spiritual" or if he/she is ( or is thought to be ) "spiritual", he/she is misled by the Adversary, Hasatan. Human beings that are not led by the Ruach HaKodesh can still find truth, but their search for truth is usually limited to the mental and physical domains ( e.g., philosophy, mathematics and physics ).

One of the best passages to shed light on what is truly spiritual is in the New Testament - Shaul's first epistle to the congregation in Corinth, specifically the second chapter (NASB without notes and references):

=======

2 And when I came to you, brethren, I (A)did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you (B)the [a]testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except (C)Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in (D)weakness and in (E)fear and in much trembling, 4 and my [b]message and my preaching were (F)not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of (G)the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not [c]rest on the wisdom of men, but on (H)the power of God.

6 Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are (I)mature; a wisdom, however, not of (J)this age nor of the rulers of (K)this age, who are (L)passing away; 7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a (M)mystery, the hidden wisdom which God (N)predestined before the (O)ages to our glory; 8 the wisdom (P)which none of the rulers of (Q)this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified (R)the Lord of glory; 9 but just as it is written,

“(S)Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 [d](T)For to us God revealed them (U)through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the (V)depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the (W)spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we (X)have received, not the spirit of (Y)the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, (Z)not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, [e]combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

14 But [f]a (AA)natural man (AB)does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are (AC)foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually [g]appraised. 15 But he who is (AD)spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For (AE)who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But (AF)we have the mind of Christ.

=======

I've heard it said that atheists/nonbelievers are spiritually blind, and this passage clearly indicates the current state of affairs: typically, atheists are unable to understand much of what Messianic believers understand and many of them consider "things of the Spirit of God" as "foolishness". Even in the gospel accounts, the very talmidim of Yeshua were often still asking questions from their Master concerning much of the "Kingdom of Heaven" and other teachings, so what chance does a nonbeliever have in understanding anything at all concerning the Ruach HaKodesh = "Spirit of G-d"?

Yes, it is indeed so horribly, horribly limiting to be able to use knowledge to build, solve and predict.

Such menial and limiting usage is not something the purveyors of spiritual truths need concern themselves with. Thank god, so to speak.

I agree that this is a potential candidate for a truth i.e. it is a proposition.

Indeed. As Robert Ingersoll put it:

"Every [Christian] sect is a certificate that God has not plainly revealed His will to man. To each reader the Bible conveys a different meaning. About the meaning of this book, called a revelation, there have been ages of war and centuries of sword and flame. If written by an infinite God, He must have known that these results must follow; and thus knowing, He must be responsible for all."

The same applies to every other religion and it's own innumerable and incompatible sects. If spiritual truths exist, it is clear that they are almost certainly unknown, if not unknowable. Compare that with scientific consilience and it's pretty clear which side suffers from hubris.

The real danger is that the purveyors of truths of mental and physical domains become purveyors of spiritual lies, such as promoting materialism, denying the very Source of all that is good, Hashem.

I recently came across some of John MacArthur's sermons on spiritual blindness which included several astute points.

Part 1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhucuPvNICY

Part 2:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2igTFuSLUI4


I agreed with most of what John stated, but only regret he did not elucidate further on the "puzzle" presented in Mark 8:19-21 to the talmidim of Yeshua HaMashiach. Perhaps someone spiritually enlightened can give light to this matter?

How strange that spiritual blindness only afflicts the ones diagnosed with "materialism", when it is abundantly clear that none of the "spiritualists" in this thread agree with eachother.

Skeptics might start to think you are inventing characteristics and avoiding arguments. Arguments are such a hassle... you might actually have to put your words on the line.

QFT

Spiritual blindness affects almost everyone; apparently, you don't seem to comprehend that even the talmidim of Yeshua exhibited spiritual blindness! Human beings are in varying degrees of darkness. John MacArthur's sermons are quite relevant as he mentions at least five different states of darkness.

Not all who claim to be "spiritually enlightened" have the Ruach HaKodesh ( ~ "Holy Spirit" ) or the "mind of Christ" as Shaul explains in the passage to the congregation at Corinth.

It's important to start with the correct axioms, so the fundamental starting point is that "G-d exists". Without accepting the truth of that statement ( with the appropriate understanding of the concepts involved ), the foundation of any "system of beliefs" will be flawed. Even if one were to start with correct axioms, not all truth can be shown to be true through arguments: consider Gödel's incompleteness theorem; thus, not all that is true can be shown through argument for any "rich enough" set of axioms. This is not to say that logical argument is unimportant; as a tool, it is employed very beautifully in mathematics and logic, and is quite useful in philosophy and theology. Some truths, e.g., spiritual truths, cannot be found simply through analysis and argumentation. Even the interesting mathematical question of whether CH ( = the continuum hypothesis ) is true can't simply be deduced ( Gödel thought CH was false and he was a Platonist and the "priest" Cohen tended to reject CH, but he was not a Platonist, so he did not have much at stake, but what are these names anyway ), but to those with good mathematical/logical insight can understand why CH is not true.

If you want to state an argument, simply start with some reasonable set of axioms and definitions and then you might be able to get somewhere. Then, go back and reexamine the axioms and definitions to find even better definitions, a better set of axioms, etc. If one starts with the negation of "G-d exists", then one starts out in darkness.

=======

In this day and age, at least two sermons by David Wilkerson ( when he was alive and truth was given him through the Ruach HaKodesh ) are relevant to "believers"/followers of Yeshua HaMashiach concerning counterfeit spirituality/"Christianity", and the plans of Hasatan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa_KKUj9w90

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WuPAOzkFBs

I don't think I agree that there is no coherent definition, but I'm not sure that in the context of talking about propositions about the world the categories like "scientific" and "spiritual" are objective or natural. It seems to me in both cases the categories are human inventions, one way or another. It is probably easier to come up with examples of propositions that fit neatly into the "scientific" category because the category is more concretely defined.

I can think of lots of propositions that I would consider spiritual. It wouldn't surprise me if they were not universally agreed upon even as fitting in that category because the category is not well defined. But at the same time I'm sure in some scientific fields one can also find propositions which would not universally be agreed upon to be strictly scientific because of issues with falsifiability. Pick some proposition of macro-economics as an example.

A few "spiritual propositions":

1) I and my Father are one
2) Atman is Brahman
3) With the judgment that you judge, you will be judged, and with the measure that you measure, it will be measured to you.
4) Godliness with contentment is great gain
5) The Kingdom of Heaven is within you

I tried to avoid propositions that might be categorized as "moral" instead, although as I said I think the categories are somewhat arbitrary.

Obviously, since I listed some candidates, I disagree that there are no spiritual statements that can be expressed as propositions. My rough definition for the category in general would be that the propositions are concerned with transcendental questions about existence, reality, theology, or the "best" (or good or correct) way of life.

I'm also kind of intrigued by the implication that the capacity to be express intuitions as a proposition is necessary for a cognitive methodology. On the one hand, I feel like just about anything can be expressed as a proposition if you try hard enough, it just might be a very convoluted proposition. On the other hand, I think the statement might express something fundamental about the disagreement which religions tend to have with the epistemological methodology of naturalism (in a broad sense). The mystical traditions in religion require some room for non-propositional intuitions to be real and significant beyond just being phenomena tied to some mental state.

I think this reflects the fact that religion in general requires faith.

I have always kind of had a problem with the definition of faith as "Belief without evidence", because I think of faith as being more than that. But in a discussion of faith limited to the context of epistemology, or limited to its relationship with knowledge as its typically defined, "Belief without (sufficient) knowledge" is a reasonable definition, and gets to the point of the issue here:

The aim of religion as I understand it is not the accumulation of knowledge in the sense of categorizing propositions about reality, either by type, or according to truth value.

Certainly religions make lots of propositions and label things as true or false, but my opinion is that those propositions are almost entirely pedagogical, or you might say therapeutic. The purpose they serve is to help someone find the way to participate in Truth directly, where "Truth" is re-defined as a relationship with reality, or an experience of it, or a way of life that brings about peace and goodness.

The reason this matters is that it explains to some extent (not entirely, I'm sure) why the "spiritualists" don't all agree with each other about what is a spiritual proposition, or which ones are true, or on how to answer certain kinds of questions that are often posted in RGT. The religions themselves, their scriptures and traditions and the wisdom of their adherents, they don't answer those questions. They don't even really try. Faith, in the sense of "belief without (sufficient) evidence" is required on many points, because the propositional knowledge on offer is certainly incomplete, whether it's a question about theodicy or moral dilemmas or anything else. I am not intimately familiar with every major religion, but at least the ones I know somewhat are fairly clear on that point. "Faith is the substance of things not yet seen".

And really, the limited nature of religious knowledge does not seem much different than the limited nature of knowledge in general. "Why would God allow this" is not so different of a question, in terms of difficulty to answer, as "Why is the force of gravity so much weaker than the electromagnetic force, relative to mass", or most other "Why?" question centering on counter-factuals. (and if the Higgs boson resolves my example, I'll find some other "why..." question). I actually guess the second question will seem silly, but I would submit the first question also seems quite silly if you aren't anthropomorphizing God to a very large extent.

There's a huge difference in those questions though imo. For example, we are told that god has certain characteristics and we usually ask the question 'Why does god allow this?' in relation to acts that don't tie in with these characteristics. The question regarding gravity bears no comparison to this.

I probably could have picked something to say that would be easier to defend, but that example is just so topical lately I couldn't help myself, and it's certainly an example of a question that is difficult to answer for theists.

Your objection seems to be that it's a much more important or meaningful question (because of apparent contradictions with other assertions made by theists) than the physics example. And I think you're right, it is more significant in terms of the relation it bears to the whole subject than the physics question is to the study of physics.

So I would probably do better to think of some other comparison (perhaps some more significant sticking point in physics or science in general), but I think the point I'm trying to get at is still clear.

edit: is the incompatibility between General Relativity and quantum field theories like QED still relevant? I'm behind the times on physics research. Or maybe something about dark matter or dark energy and cosmology

Insofar as I am aware, the propositions that was held (which I replied to) was that I
a) am blind
b) lack comprehension

(I in this sense is ofcourse the hypothetical I, because none of these posters seem overly concerned about I actually believe). I find it difficult to accept that these are statements made by someone who does not use faith to categorize propositions about reality.

I doubt that it is very useful to make a generalized oneliner about how religion relates to knowledge.

Well, when I state what the "purpose of religion" is I'm obviously engaged in an act of extraordinary hubris (or a true scotsman fallacy maybe) since it's not really up to me to decide, but it's just my opinion.

I didn't mean to imply that at no one who is religious ever use faith that way. I use religion that way too, at least some of the time. My point was rather that it's not the primary function of religion in my understanding, and it's quite possible for religious people to do so incorrectly, and in fact I think we do so all the time. But that the fact that this happens does not really detract from the value of religion in my view.

I think one analogy is quite apt for humanity's spiritual blindness.

Human beings are, for the most part, "blind" ( not merely physically ) to what seems to be physical space. Human beings usually don't see space as making up most of the energy of the physical cosmos, nor do they see that space is active ( but usually think of it somewhat like the Newtonian absolute which appears empty ), nor do they see that there is any interaction between space and matter. In a similar way, this can be said of how some human beings perceive spiritual beings and Hashem ~ "G-d".

Yes. God is.

But, be aware of the first error. Which is to immediately add to "God is".

God Is, and His name is Allah.
God Is, and That God is Jehovah.
God Is, and That God is Hashem.

And then we add more:

God Is, and His name is Allah and His Word is the Koran.
God Is, and That God is Jehovah and His Word is the Bible.

And one becomes "spiritually blinded" to what Is. What covers what Is? The maze of the multitude of beliefs one believes about what Is. And you see the mental gameshow and not what Is. How great is that darkness!

What Is, Is. See what Is. Experience what Is. Be what Is.

It seems to me that there are assumptions about epistemology underlying zumby's remarks on coherency and validity as a "cognitive methodology" that are very important to the conclusions he draws, and to the disagreement with the conclusions that I have. Or perhaps better stated, the argument is not even with the conclusions, its with the premises to begin with.

Because of that, I think it is difficult for me to have a discussion on the subject of "Spiritual Truth" without speaking about how my religious world view conceptualizes knowledge, and what its importance is relative to the rest of that world view.

Allah is used the same as "G-d" for Arabic speakers even if they are "Christians" or "Jews", so for them to say "Allah exists" is identical to "G-d exists" because technically, Allah is not a name just as "G-d" is not a name. Jehovah is an incorrect ( and some say fabricated ) term that is referring to the Tetragrammaton. Hashem is a circumlocution referring to the Tetragrammaton and although some argue this may be incorrect/improper, many Jews and Messianic followers continue to use this term for specific reasons rather than YHWH, YHVH or other terms.

Yeshua, the Messiah, recites part of the Shema when asked about what is the greatest mitzvah in the Torah in Mt 22:36-40; therefore, Hashem is Yeshua's Elohim.

The "Word of G-d" is Yeshua HaMashiach ( Rev 19:13 states that the name of Yeshua HaMashiach is called The Word of G-d ). Sometimes people use the "Word of G-d" as Scripture and depending on the context, this term can mean the Tanakh or the Protestant bible or the Quran or other writings. The danger of equating the "Word of G-d" with a set of writings is tantamount to bibliolatry. Scripture has an important role, but mostly in communicating to humanity in the Spirit of Truth ( or through the Ruach HaKodesh ).

Yeshua, the Messiah, mentions the importance of the "Law and the Prophets" ( in Mt 5:17-18 ) and literally, this is equivalent to the Torah and the Nevi'im so technically, one could argue that Yeshua hasn't mentioned the Ketuvim explicitly, although many Messianic believers believe Yeshua is referring to the TaNaKh = ( Torah + Nevi'im + Ketuvim ); in any case, at the very minimum, Yeshua is referring to the Torah and Nevi'im.

Not everything that "is" can be experienced and by using "Is" instead of "is" or "exists", the danger is that "Is-ness" is just as or more important than "G-d" whereas the spiritual truth is that all that truly "exists" depends on "G-d".

An important question is : what are the proper names of "G-d" ? Two of the best answers were given to Moshe ( "Moses" ).

When I hear the term "religious world" I think of the actual 90% of the world's populace that are religious and that you were implying some kind of unifying trend in (a sufficiently large portion) of those 6 billion humans.

I guess I misunderstood.

I know what both "x" is (a variable standing for objects) and the meaning of "is" (I mostly accept the Frege-Russell view with some contemporary clarifications). These are not preconceived notions, but views I came to after thinking about the topic for a while. Your notion of just paying attention to our phenomenology has mostly seemed to fail in my view, as it has been used by existentialist philosophers to come up with very different understandings of these concepts.

The problem here is that you want us to understand concepts nonconceptually. We can notice certain features of our emotional and cognitive state when thinking about certain concepts, but that doesn't actually tell us what those concepts mean. Anyway, I'm not that interested in conceptual analysis, but am more inclined towards revisionist views towards our cognition, so a phenomenologistic approach holds even less interest for me.


Yes, yes, you've already said that you think that we can't/don't represent reality. Fine. I think we do, as shown by the success of science. Simply repeating your view doesn't convince me.

However, this paragraph is a nice example or your rhetorical approach. Rather than grapple with the arguments for my position, you instead give an elaborate description of my psychological states. I find this curious since presumably you would be unable to do so unless you had conceptualized your own phenomenal experiences, used that conceptualization to describe/understand the psychological experiences of other people (since you don't yourself have my experiences), and then guessed on the basis of those experiences what might have caused me to have the beliefs I have about the world.

If I remember correctly, the Frege-Russell model in its attempt to organize the various uses of "is" remains conceptual and includes all kinds of imagined objects, i.e. objects for which there is no experiential evidence. For it to make any sense, you do need to define "evidence" so that it includes objects absent from actual experience, and there is no way to justify such use of "evidence" except for reasons of convenience of expression and intuition.

Who are those existentialist philosophers that you mention? And what did they fail at?

Regardless of what walk of life you're operating in, whenever you receive data it comes by way of non-conceptual qualia. "Nonconceptual" doesn't mean "magical", it simply means that it's not conceptual. Something is conceptual when it's referring to something, the reference is simply a promise that that which is referred to is real. When something is there without need of a promise then it's self-evident and nonconceptual - I call such stuff "qualia".

So, when you encounter stuff of such nature that it promises the presence of stuff no less real that the promise itself, then you can just choose to believe that the promised is real or you can classify such stuff as "qualia of such nature that it refers to xyz". When you're dealing with "successful predictions" (claim of a fulfilled promise), then the same mechanism still applies, because the prediction is a thing of the past and as such just another promise (namely that there is a real past in which a real prediction was made).

I don't know what you mean by "revisionist view of cognition". It's awkward that you're interested in neither conceptual analysis nor in the phenomenological approach.

I have in great detail grappled with arguments for your position.

When for example I play a computer game then for fun's sake I pretend that the scenery is "real" even though I know it's not. It's the same with our conversation.

Speaking of "rhetorical approach"... if I tell you the straightforward truth then you say that I'm not making any sense. If on the other hand I engage with your questions from your pov then all of a sudden you say I'm not being consistent with my view.