Ironically, this criticism of holding onto a conclusion and being selective with evidence is raised against you repeatedly. Even when you have no evidence and no logic to support your position, you still reject statements because it contradicts things you would like to believe.

I think this is very basic. If there is no common ground to arbitrate if A is fact, then no meaningful exchange regarding A's factual status can take place. This is not the same as two people disagreeing being unable to exchange opinions.

That seems to be the case here, and if I have to side with someone I side with MB. I don't really see the point in putting out personal beliefs and then voiding debate as impossible.

This is no reflection on N_R's character. He seems like a likable person, and I mean him no discomfort. However, this is a debating forum.

Is it a debating forum? I don't know I think I've learned most on this forum when I've discussed something rather than when I've argued about something given just how arguments tend to entrench positions.

Polemic is always an inherent danger. I think you learn the most when your statements can be wrong however. "God exists because ice crystals need a designer" is oodles more interesting than "God exists because god and exists are subjective spiritual experiences I can't explain" (not intended as a paraphrase of anyone in this thread).

At least in my book.

But when you accept your statements can be wrong then it is inappropriate to talk in terms of facts, especially when the person making the claim specifically denies that they are claiming it is fact or they can not be wrong.

If there's a real disagreement fine but repeated attempts by numerous posters to try and at least get the terms understood have resulted in a 3 week circular debate that's gone and is going nowhere.

To make my objection to MB's line a little clearer this was his first response to Naked_Rectitude

Despite his later protestations that he only responded to N_R after he brought up his personal experience this is wrong.

The first post by MB is post 59 N_R doesn't mention his experiences, after being pressed by MB, till post 63. So no pressing someone for their beliefs, having them shared in good faith then trying to oppose them going point to point is awful form and this thread would have been much better served had a different approach been taken.

Well, if they are inaccessible epistemologically then I think talking about them is somewhat of a paradox personally. Everyone might not agree.

Anyway, I don't fully buy it either. If there is reliance on the Bible and/or denomination(s) of Christianity, then obviously some exchange of claims must have taken place and been accepted at some point.

I think it's time to start winding this conversation down, it appears to be getting on people's nerves, my apologies if I've been daft, or unreasonable, it certainly is not my intent.

I never wanted to bring up the Quran, it was a simple digression gone wrong. Frankly, if anyone corrects me to say that the Quran is actually as historically reliable, then I'll retract my claim, but it was never about this. My original claim about the Bible (not the Quran) was only to show that it is consistent with my spiritual claims. If my spiritual claims pointed to me a document that was unequivocally unreliable and fraudulent, then I could easily discard it as false, that's all. It is irrelevant to me which other documents stand up to scrutiny, as I was only persuaded (even if unjustifiably) to investigate one.

You make it sound like I was presupposing Christianity on my way in, but this was not the case. As far as the Christian doctrine of salvation, it's not supposed to be that difficult to grasp, simply faith in Jesus. That is, a commitment, over a mere general belief that Christ exists.

I'm putting this on the top of my reading list, it looks very entertaining actually. I read some of it online, and it is a fun read, cheers for this one. Reminded me of the book, Fooled By Randomness, which my friend always praised, as an economics major.

I think you're slightly missing the point, although I'm not sure that it really matters at this point.

Fwiw, I hear you. I'm not ignorant as to your objections, or Tame's, or anyone else, that personal experiences are notoriously unreliable, and I should not give them the amount of respect that I do. It is certainly a logical perspective, especially objectively. At the very least, what I'd like to leave you with is that it is easier said than done when the experiences are powerful enough to convince you otherwise, and are persistent. This may still not be a good enough reason, but maybe you can understand me better by knowing that there is pressure, and my beliefs are not simply a whim. I'm not completely irrational, and if it were that easy to discard such justifications, then I would.

Why can’t it be both? For example, if we learn that before getting in the common pool, I just got out of a cold pool and you a warm one, wouldn’t that account for our divergent accounts? In other words, why can’t the view you’re describing have less to do with where you’re at and more to do with where you’re coming from? I look at divergent religious views the same way. That is, if Christians were to do what the Muslims do, then their experience would clothe itself in the Muslim’s vernacular, just as if Muslims were to do what Christians do, the exact same experience would clothe itself in Christian terms.

It is often the case that in debates, the entire reason debate exists is due to the inability to clearly arbitrate facts.

For example, if this were a discussion of policy, we could potentially end up debating the merits of policy decisions based on the best estimates that are each founded upon different assumptions.

The point of putting out personal EXPERIENCES is because that's the basis upon which the beliefs were formed. The experiences should be taken as basically unassailable (at least at the level being discussed here). Trying to say that someone was deluded in their experiences is inappropriate, but trying to say that someone has reached the wrong conclusion based on those experiences is not. This is where I think the problem lies.

MB is trying to attack the conclusion by attacking the experience. Rather than exploring the types of reasoning that led to a change of perspective, he's attempting to undermine basic human experience. His argument reads "Because your (general) experiences are unreliable, you should not reach any (spiritual) conclusions based on your experiences."

And I reject the premise that our general experiences are unreliable. They're not perfect by any stretch, but they are reliable enough that we use them as the foundation for most of the decisions we make, and it's an inescapable element of our experiences of reality.

This is RGT if we excluded based on epistemic accessibility it'd be pretty quiet.

I do think there's a interesting discussion to be had I just think the approach chosen has not been conducive to it. I should probably back off however given that N_R doesn't seem to share my objections with MB's approach, though my objections don't require he do, and being on ignore by MB makes any attempt to alter the discussions direction is even more futile than it was this time last week.

I also do find it frustrating when claims, whether they be of intellectual dishonesty, inconsistency or circularity be as evident in the posts of the person making them as in those of the poster to whom they were directed.

I don't think I was ever the most appropriate poster to try and have these concerns addressed fwiw but I don't think my contributions to this thread have made it any less interesting than it would have been absent them.

I think the question of how (sometimes seemingly ineffable) experiences crystalize into practices, conceptual theology, religious institutions is interesting. It's also really complex. It's hard to find a good place to start without writing a pretty long essay

tame_deuces just said that speaking about epistemologically inaccessible experiences was paradoxical, and I think that's exactly right! At least for some sorts of experiences. Many mystics remark on this issue. I think it's partly resolved by noting that people don't just speak to try to convey more or less useful information. They speak because they feel a constitutive need to express themselves. Mystics resort to poetry and word play and all kinds of metaphor precisely because they realize that their words don't quite convey what they are trying to get at.

On the other hand, not all reported religious experience is in that mode. When Paul reports an experience of Jesus appearing to him and saying "I am Jesus, who you are persecuting", it's not really ineffable, at least as far as questions as to how you go from that experience to believing that it was Jesus. Inaccessible in terms of objective demonstration, repeatability, falsifiability, of course, but that is an inaccessibility which also applies to lots of more mundane experiences in practice as well.

At least in terms of Christianity, some of the process by which institutions and conceptual theology has emerged involves "revelations" which are supposed to have been given in words, and the conceptualization is basically already there in the experience. The disciples experiences of the risen Christ, Saul's conversion, a lot of the assumed older Jewish worldview which comes supposedly from Moses' experience ("I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob") and etc.

But then for modern Christians who have not personally had such a decisively unambiguous experience of God, but who do feel that they have had "spiritual experiences" (and I think the Derose blog OrP linked before is a valid criticism of those experiences), it is perfectly valid I think to question the process by which they associate vague or ineffable mystical experiences to some particular religious viewpoint, even granting the validity of the experiences in and of themselves, which I obviously do.

I think it's difficult to argue against the idea that the association is in large part conditioned by the environment, and that an N_R analogue raised in an Islamic country is likely to become Muslim. I don't think that means that him becoming Christian is therefore somehow invalid or even that it's therefore impossible to compare Christianity to Islam. But you have to start somewhere and the somewhere is going to depend a lot on your surroundings. It is possible for continued experience, reflection, and study of the various religions to lead in new or idiosyncratic directions. And in practice I think even if people stick broadly within a religion that is more or less traditional for their culture, just about everyone ends up with an individualized understanding of their own religion as well.

Then there is the argument about epistemology and justification of beliefs. I personally think from a religious standpoint the argument has to stop just at trying to say that faith is not necessarily irrational: that is, it's possible to be religious without it entailing self-contradiction. But neither is it explicitly rational either, and a purely rational approach rejects the Divine and I think it must. But rationality is not the point. Rationality is not assumed as the highest principle by religious experience. An "experience of God" is not about gaining objective knowledge of some being. Most theologies express that God "is" not in the way mundane things "are". No one has ever seen God, and sight is a primary metaphor for objective knowledge. Rituals, concepts, theology itself are human constructs and they do not comprehend the Divine (in the sense of being complete, they are always unfinished, in-finite), and if they are mature they realize this.

The reality of this aspect of being that is not rationally knowable is available to be known, but not known in the way that other things are known. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God". That is basically the testimony of all mysticism. That reality is the great secret which is yet somehow unconcealed, says a particular Shivaite prayer. It's hidden in plain experience.

From my perspective, it's sort of futile to try to argue for that reality in the context of an epistemology which rejects the very possibility of "Spirit", of knowledge that comes by union or faith rather than from the senses mediated by reason. I think that more than anything explains the circularity of the discussion.

It's not that I don't necessarily share any of your objections, but I'm not without blame either, and it's not in my nature to object in this way. I let people speak or disagree in the manner they see fit even if I disagree, maybe I shouldn't, I don't know, like I said, I'm not perfect.

It could possibly be both, in theory, but it depends on the belief.

If it has to be 1 or 2, and I believe the nature of Christianity is consistent with this, then I need to reject 2, to remain consistent in my commitment to 1.

Perhaps this is wrong, I can see some scenarios where it could be both, but I don't think they are as convincing, at least to me.

Edit: Thanks for that well thought out post, well named. I'm rushed to comment on it, but I will go back and contemplate it with time.

I agree with this. I don't mind, and it doesn't seem to bother N_R, if people think I'm deluded based on the subjective experiences I've claimed to have. I get why people think that because I used to look at it the same way. The issue I see is that trying to convince someone like me that personal experiences are completely unreliable is never going to work.

Where I have tried to engage N_R is in the interpretation, or over-interpretation in his case, of the experience because I know how difficult that is. But at this point, it seems that N_R is entrenched where he is at and has no desire to change his position. I see that he brings up the possibility that he could be wrong and makes it seem like he questions his views and looks at it from different perspectives, which entices others to continuously engage him, but there is no real weight behind it - which is fine. His beliefs seem to be working for him for now.

I don't mean to make it seem like I'm trying to shut down discussion because I get that there are different motivations for wanting to have these debates and discussions and there is a lot of knowledge in RGT that can only come about if there is engagement, but I've shared ways in which these topics can be actually explored.

It's like there are two people standing outside a building continuously arguing back and forth about what's really inside and I'm over here saying why don't you guys just go in and look. One person says he doesn't need to because this book already tells him what's inside and the other says you first need to prove to me there is something there before I move. This is way too simplistic of an analogy but still useful.

The real reason why they won't walk into the building is because there is someone standing in front of each of them impeding their path and constantly telling them not to walk in that direction. This person is their own personal bodyguard hired to protect them. The problem is he sucks at his job and they have been controlled and manipulated by this person their entire lives under the guise of protection. In order to get into the building, they first have to acknowledge their bodyguard is there, take an objective look at him, and then they have to accept the psychological pain that he has been lying to them their entire lives about always having their best interest in mind. Finally they have to muster up the strength to fight through him.

I get why people don't want to go through that but they should realize it and not delude themselves into believing that they should feel secure in their conclusions.

You are perfectly free to engage with whoever however you please, in accordance with forum guidelines obviously. I do think there was a better conversation to be had but that's no ones issue but mine really.

I understand that, but you can feel free to correct me if you believe i'm not taking the preferred focus in a conversation, or that there is a more forum-friendly perspective I should take. I won't be offended, sometimes it's hard to see the forrest for the trees when you're so close to the conversation, and the last thing I want to do here is make it a chore to read these discussions.

I have a tendency to just go with the flow of a conversation, and answer all questions regardless of where they lead, and I guess sometimes they lead to not so fun-to-read places.

well named - Do you think that it matters with regards to this conversation what the nature of my experiences are? Whether completely ineffable, or like Saul/Paul, the OT Jews, or modern-day Christians? I haven't been in a rush to even attempt to articulate them, since it's my perspective that those who reject these as good reasons will do so regardless of what the specific claims are. If I say my experiences are that of Paul, I don't think it makes a dent in the objection that such experiences are unreliable.

I think it makes a difference. You're right that it's not the difference between convincing and unconvincing to someone committed to evaluating it in terms of Bayes' theorum and empirical induction, but the conversation would skip a few of the steps in the beginning, that is, the ones that began with "how do you know it's Jesus and not someone else?".

I don't think I'm any different than anyone here in terms of my beliefs, and whether or not I'm willing to be critical of them. I can't claim certainty, but I don't think anyone really can. It doesn't mean that I'm ready to throw away my beliefs at the drop of a hat, just like you probably are not ready to do that either. I am very willing to examine this from all sides, but I really have a difficult time conceding that I am not justified in what I believe, it will take more than just arguing that experiences are unreliable for me to acknowledge that it necessarily makes them unreasonable and irrational. I am however, willing to concede that there are other possibilities, and to consider those possibilities.

It's also not exactly an easy task to put all your beliefs out on the table to be scrutinized and so easily dismissed, I'm not looking for pity or anything like that, but just an understanding of what it means, and that I am indeed willing to look at other sides, and discuss these things honestly.

I know what you mean, but I think the question would still apply. "Jesus appeared and told me he is God" would still be objected to with, "How do you know it was Jesus?"

If you reject these as empirically unreliable, it is irrelevant if it is ineffable or a clear and concise description.

Maybe instead of "how do you know" I should have written "why do you think" since that's actually the difference I had in mind.

Bart Ehrman has some interesting points about this topic in his latest YouTube video. I might share it later when I'm not on my phone.

There is a difference, but not a remarkable one for the purposes of this discussion. Any reason that follows either question is ultimately met with the same answer, as to make the differences unimportant.

I like Ehrman, I've read a lot of his work. One criticism that has been pointed out which I agree with is that he exaggerates his stance for publicity and sales. He is a respected and knowledgable scholar, but he can sometimes embellish some positions.

This is why I said what I did about the futility of the argument at the bottom of my (tl;dr) post.

Yeah, you're right. You said a mouthful there, I'm still trying to contemplate all the different perspectives.