MaxWeiss
02-05-2007, 02:04 AM
I just watched the thing on CSPAN2 with Harris and Reza, and Reza brought up an idea I've heard a lot about truth.
They were discussing "spiritual" experiences and Reza said that science is good at facts and causes and definitions and such, but religion holds the monopoly on truth. "Truth" in that sense has been used often by religious people, and the definition never get understandable or clear.
From what I gather of Reza's (and others') argument, even if scientifically, we understood the brain completely, the knowledge of HOW these experiences, and others, happen is simply a set of facts and causes---but doing so would in no way allow us to see the TRUTH of the experience.
Kingneb and others have repeatedly said that the evidence is there for me to see, but never elaborated, and based on my other conversations, I will assume that that knowledge is this contemplative experience. Even if it is not and I am misrepresenting him, the example still stands as a general representation of the argument.
The "truth" of all of this, as far as I get it, is in my own subjective experience, my own ability to interpret what is happening, to "see God" as it were. No matter how the experience comes about, whatever neurophysiological reasons there are, the REAL truth is revealed through our experience of it.
I believe this is important because it is the foundational link between reason and religion, and philosophy to some extent. And also why religion and religious experiences must be open to discourse, as Harris so vehemently advocates.
These kinds of contemplative experiences, as with many other events which occur in life, happen. (Remember, this experience is simply an example.) Science tells us why and how.
The "true" knowledge gained from such experiences, the meaning of them or even realization of something else entirely, is gained through two things: reflection of the experience, and seeing the world in a different way via the lens of that experience. This new way of looking at a problem may indeed solve it, and truth may be gleaned from the experience, but that is simply via philosophy and creative thinking derived from the experience.
This is NOT an argument for religion. In fact it is one of the biggest problems with religion. The experiences we have in life are not openly discussed merely for the experience. As Harris said, they are described in religious ways. These experiences and others are meshed together with random Gods-of-the-gaps and with dogma and with explanations for the unknown, and pretty soon, it all gets muddled together.
The "truth" of these experiences is NOT religious. In fact it has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of God or various religious sects. And even IF all the conflicts are political and economical, simply described in religious terms, as Reza claims, wiping away that religious cover would be immensely useful in allowing us to see the conflicts for what they are and thus being able to more readily solve them.
Science DOES have a monopoly on truth because it is all we can claim to REALLY know. Here's what happens, and here's why. The rest is subjective. That's what I and so many others have problems with. People are getting away with claiming that their subjective experience is better than another person's--somehow it is "right"--and they get away with this silly notion because it has been so intertwined with various religions contexts.
We need to be able to talk about subjective experience for the sake of the experience. When we understand why people think and feel what they do, we open up a position to constructively criticism them and/or their actions, actions which are necessarily based on those beliefs.
I'm not sure why I felt the need to rehash all this, but I did; so here it is. Also, my avatar has changed; I no longer feel Daniel Jackson is appropriate.
They were discussing "spiritual" experiences and Reza said that science is good at facts and causes and definitions and such, but religion holds the monopoly on truth. "Truth" in that sense has been used often by religious people, and the definition never get understandable or clear.
From what I gather of Reza's (and others') argument, even if scientifically, we understood the brain completely, the knowledge of HOW these experiences, and others, happen is simply a set of facts and causes---but doing so would in no way allow us to see the TRUTH of the experience.
Kingneb and others have repeatedly said that the evidence is there for me to see, but never elaborated, and based on my other conversations, I will assume that that knowledge is this contemplative experience. Even if it is not and I am misrepresenting him, the example still stands as a general representation of the argument.
The "truth" of all of this, as far as I get it, is in my own subjective experience, my own ability to interpret what is happening, to "see God" as it were. No matter how the experience comes about, whatever neurophysiological reasons there are, the REAL truth is revealed through our experience of it.
I believe this is important because it is the foundational link between reason and religion, and philosophy to some extent. And also why religion and religious experiences must be open to discourse, as Harris so vehemently advocates.
These kinds of contemplative experiences, as with many other events which occur in life, happen. (Remember, this experience is simply an example.) Science tells us why and how.
The "true" knowledge gained from such experiences, the meaning of them or even realization of something else entirely, is gained through two things: reflection of the experience, and seeing the world in a different way via the lens of that experience. This new way of looking at a problem may indeed solve it, and truth may be gleaned from the experience, but that is simply via philosophy and creative thinking derived from the experience.
This is NOT an argument for religion. In fact it is one of the biggest problems with religion. The experiences we have in life are not openly discussed merely for the experience. As Harris said, they are described in religious ways. These experiences and others are meshed together with random Gods-of-the-gaps and with dogma and with explanations for the unknown, and pretty soon, it all gets muddled together.
The "truth" of these experiences is NOT religious. In fact it has no bearing whatsoever on the existence of God or various religious sects. And even IF all the conflicts are political and economical, simply described in religious terms, as Reza claims, wiping away that religious cover would be immensely useful in allowing us to see the conflicts for what they are and thus being able to more readily solve them.
Science DOES have a monopoly on truth because it is all we can claim to REALLY know. Here's what happens, and here's why. The rest is subjective. That's what I and so many others have problems with. People are getting away with claiming that their subjective experience is better than another person's--somehow it is "right"--and they get away with this silly notion because it has been so intertwined with various religions contexts.
We need to be able to talk about subjective experience for the sake of the experience. When we understand why people think and feel what they do, we open up a position to constructively criticism them and/or their actions, actions which are necessarily based on those beliefs.
I'm not sure why I felt the need to rehash all this, but I did; so here it is. Also, my avatar has changed; I no longer feel Daniel Jackson is appropriate.