In 1953, Professor C.D. Broad of Cambridge University published a paper titled "The Argument From Religious Experience." Broad, who was not a religious man, responded to Bertrand Russell's challenge to philosophically prove the existence of God, and in his paper he evaluated beliefs from different world religions and cultures, concluding, "The claim by any particular religion or sect to have complete or final truth seems to me to be too ridiculous to be worth a moment's consideration. But the opposite extreme of holding that the whole religious experience of mankind is a gigantic system of pure delusion seems to me to be almost (though not as quite) farfetched."
After 58 years and numerous other attempts, Broad's conclusion seems to me to be the most mature and reasonable assessment that I have come across. In essence, he makes the concession that he doesn't, and can't, know the answer, but he does know that it is not found in the claims of exclusive ownership of absolute knowledge, whether by dogmatic religion or the categorical dismissal of faith.
We tend to be drawn to such binary ("yes" or "no") answers because as a culture we are still in the grip of the Age of Reason, born in the 17th century as a reaction to, and maturing of, the Age of Faith, proclaiming that the scientific method of direct observation, measurement and quantifiable, reproducible, consistent results is the surest, and for many the only, way of knowing. And whether we are conscious of this or not, most of us automatically believe that tangible, physical proof is the exclusive road to knowledge. The Postmodern response that there can be no absolute truth because there are fundamental dimensions of reality that are completely unavailable to, or inconsistent with, our senses, and that we all observe the world in the subjective light of our individual perspectives and cultures is, ironically, just as categorical and extreme as what it seeks to overthrow, in its absolute rejection of the possibility of knowing.
We learn through experience, though, that our existence, and the universe in which we live, are much, much more complex than any single approach can ever encompass, and that we have a wide variety of ways to know our reality, each adding something vital to our comprehension. We know things through our bodies, our emotions, our intellect and our spirit, and the information gathered in each way is essentially different in nature and purpose, each with its own inherent limitation. The following is a general -- and far from complete -- outline:
• We know about such physical objects as airplanes and atoms, and such phenomenon as gravity and electromagnetism, through the observation and measurement of our senses. This is the realm of Science, which is manifest as Technology. Our knowing is limited in this way by the constraints of our physical ability to perceive and measure information, and the capacity of our intellect to comprehend it.
• We know about such non-physical concepts as Justice and Freedom primarily through the exploration and judgments of our minds. This is the realm of Philosophy and Ethics, which is manifest as laws and societal guiding principles. Our knowing in this way is limited by the parameters of our moral development and our capability for abstraction.
• We know about such experiences as Beauty and Love through the response of our emotions and sense of empathy: This is the realm of Philosophy and Aesthetics, and is manifest as the Arts. Our knowing in this way is limited by the sensitivity and maturity of our feelings, and by our communication skills.
• We can know of the existence of a spiritual reality through the awakening of intuition and the visions of mystical experiences. This is the realm of Theology and Mysticism. Our knowing is limited in this way by the strength of our connection to the divine, by acts of grace and the resistance of the ego to surrender control to spirit.
For those who are afraid of living in the existential uncertainty of life and the possibility that some dearly held beliefs may not be completely true -- or may even be fabrications -- this may feel like impending death and the end of the world, so they dig in even deeper to defend their certainty. Defending one's claim to absolute truth, though, is simply a power play of the ego's urge to be safe and always stems from insecurity, not strength. This manifests as polarization, factionalism and demonization of those that we deem wrong. "I'd rather kill you than re-examine my beliefs" is the battle cry of these fearful, pathetic relics, who refuse to acknowledge other ways of knowing and being, and see any way that differs from theirs as a threat.
Extremist divisions are becoming more apparent and more painful to us now because as a species we are ready to eject the childish posture of needing to be right. In this way, Professor Broad's conclusion anticipated the new era in to which we are now struggling to emerge. This new era will be an age of reconciliation and wholeness in which we will understand that we are not faced with such stark either/or choices as intellect vs. spirit, observing vs. intuiting, all-right vs. all-wrong, but that we were given a myriad of faculties because they all serve an essential purpose in allowing us to live fully and freely, and they are therefore all inherently good.
Imagine a time in which, instead of outmaneuvering the opponent, the "winner" of a debate is the one who most expands his position based on contact with the other, or the one that can most fully articulate and comprehend the position of the "adversary." And imagine a time in which we do not need to be right or prove the other wrong in order to feel safe, but when we can be completely open and courageously vulnerable to ourselves and to others, in honest exploration of the infinite glory of being human. This is the new era in to which we must bravely travel, which is our birthright as embodied spirit.
Argument from religious experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What is the Argument from Religious Experience?
OK, fine, we have function that requires having a Maker not only of our design but the design of the very elements that we consist of that make possible our function. So in effect, we have two separate Creations that make our existence possible.
We have two witnesses of Creation that are the elements that function and the preexisting word written in the elements that makes us what we are.
We couldn't make that happen if we tried and neither could anything else.
There is no evidence of anything other than us having a Creator who is also the Maker of the entire universe who also fits the definition of the God of the Hebrews.
Science supports the existence of the Hebrew (and Christian) God.
They don't even teach real science in school.
Rabbi Lurie, you sir, are a man after my own heart. Personally, I believe a radical commitment to [humility-tempered] honesty (with both oneself and others... and consequently, one'Self) is necessary to practice precisely what you preach.
And I imagine the time is NOW for just such a cultural paradigm shift in terms of our current notion of what it means to be a "winner". Surely from a certain [highl-unorthodox] perspective the whole unfortunate Charlie Sheen fiasco ("WINNING!") can POTENTIALLY be seen as synchronistic ironic metaphor (i.e. a "sign") that speaks precisely to this being the case. ;)
With enough people like you who are optimistic and committed to such a vision it will happen. Human beings are capable of being such glorious creatures... It comes down to conscious choice.
wishing you well (and I love the Andy Kaufman image)
Alan
1) Science
2) Judgement
3) Emotions
4) Intuition
I understand the scientific method and I agree, it's a proven method of gaining knowledge. (Proven logically, and by results.)
But what proof do you have that 2, 3, and 4 are valid methods of gaining knowledge? Because I don't think they are - at least, not if it's important that the knowledge be *correct*. You can certainly get information by examining your mind, but it's not "knowledge" on par with what science produces. It's just "opinion", or if you prefer, "belief".
Now, I don't want to claim exclusive ownership of absolute knowledge here. So I invite Rabbi Lurie to explain why he thinks information gained from introspection is comparable to information gained through the scientific method.
Good to hear from you.
Do you know that Justice exists? Do you know that you love your children/husband/wife? Do you know that life is worth living? Do you know that a painting/sunset/tree is beautiful?
None of these are scientific in nature and do not have the kind of proof that goes along with science. Now, I did not say that these different ways of knowing are "comparable". Quite the contrary - they are very different in quality and nature.
Don't know if this was satisfying in any way, but it's the best I can do.
wishing you well,
Alan
Sure, justice is just a human concept. I can point to specific instances where people think justice was done or not done. I can even point to images of scales on the sides of buildings. But justice is largely a human concept and presumes the values of a culture. I certainly do NOT know there is an objective version of Justice.
"Do you know that life is worth living?"
No. I have a preference to go on living, because I like my life and otherwise I will cease to be. But his is merely my personal preference. In no way is it an objective fact or an item of knowledge that my life is worth living.
"Do you know that a painting/sunset/tree is beautiful?"
No. I may find a painting beautiful. That would merely be my own opinion based on my personal tastes. Some may disagree and find the painting boring or ugly. In no way to I know something is beautiful, as it is not an objective fact that something is beautiful.
beautiful comment.
Yes, these "intangibles" are the drivers in our life, and whether we are conscious of it or not, this is a huge part of how we know the world and how we decide to act in any given moment.
Wishing you well
And I'm not disputing that people greatly value art, as you do. I feel that way about music. I enjoy it and it can affect my emotions. But I don't think that's because music is some key to knowledge. It just happens that some music tweaks my brain in a pleasurable way. Other things that people enjoy like this include sports, TV, drugs and alcohol, and (IMO) religion.
I also happen to prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate, and I don't think that reveals anything about the universe. except my own brain.
1. Imagine a time when a the religious just keep their beliefs to themselves
2. Imagine a time when America actually lives up to the promise of Freedom and there is no longer an Evangelical test to be elected President, and we elect an Atheist President
3. Imagine a time when the "Religious" stop trying to use public schools to indoctrinate children
4. Imagine a time when Humanity recognizes that it is the single most advanced intelligence in the Universe and that it invented god, religion, and decides to move on from its intellectual infancy
5. Imagine a time when, sans Chr.istianity in government, we can make decisions that benefit the average citizens of America instead of the billionaire elites who manufacture the false chris.tian agenda of wedge issues.
6. Imagine a time when children are taught the history ancient Rome in public schools, that they are taught the true history instead of the false biblical one.
7. Imagine a time when parents stop indoctrinating their children and spend their time teaching them how the world really works.
When these Seven things happen then the dialog you seek will begin...
This may or may not surprise you, but I'm with you on all these and look forward to that same day. Please realize that not all - or even most - religious people share the extreme views that you listed above
All the best,
Alan
I don't hear them, where are they?
Name a single one with a megaphone as big as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, or Jerry Falwell Jr.
When you say that not all Religous are as extreme if they don't speak up then they might as well not exist.
Secondly, I strongly resonated with your "ways of knowing" unveiling new patterns of behavior and blindspots in how I see the human (non-technical) journey of sustainability. Thank you. On the other hand, my current groping with this general territory leads me to want to add a 5th way that is a kinesthetic/intuitive knowing - a knowing of the body in current physical/spatial and ancient, deep evolutionary terms.
I'd be happy to hear anyone else's thoughts on that.
Best,
Jim Hartzfeld
Wishing you well,
Alan
Brilliant!
You have captured the essence of the issue beautifully.
With love,
Alan
Being right is really being right which includes caring and sharing what is right. If we don't care about being right, we cannot possibly care for each other.
How we share what is right makes a lot of difference. When we correct and are corrected we ensure our own well being and the well being of each other.
You don't expect dogs,cats, or chimpanzees to worship your "god" do you?
Then don't expect any of the Evolved Primates called Humans do to so either.
Similarly, we Humans reserve the right to call anyone who believes in Sky Daddys crazy or deluded.
THEOLOGY is the problem *&%$@£! It is a human intellectual construct. And reason is the perfect emanation of self. And 'self' stands against the nature of Love. Theology only exists because nothing has been revealed except how easily, by reasoned ignorance, we deceive ourselves. All is chasing after wind. http://www.energon.org.uk
You are quite right. This mature conversation about faith is really what we need.
"Religion must engender love, not malevolence and hate. Should it lead to malice, spite, and hate it is of no value at all. Religion is a remedy, and if the remedy bring on disease, then put it aside." (Abdul-Baha, 1844-1921)
great quote, and absolutely true!
As you note, it is time to move the conversation to a higher plane above the parody of religion as either All True or Totally Delusional.
Wishing you well,
Alan
I agree with HCLiberal below that we need a definition of knowledge. It seems to me the key aspects of knowledge is we can't be 100% certain of almost anything, but we can attain high degrees of certainty, say 99% certain under specific assumptions. So knowledge mustn't be absolute. And we humans are very good at fooling ourselves. The point of science and logic is to get around us fooling ourselves. So knowledge should tend to be something that's true whether we like it or not, despite our fooling ourselves. Now given Lurie talks about "judgments of our minds" and "intuition", he seems to be calling things knowledge that don't play by such rules, that is called knowledge precisely because we fooled ourselves (and intuition has shown to be wrong many times throughout history). I think we need to be more careful and cautious about what we regard as knowledge than this.
It seems to me that Lurie's 4 bullets of ways of knowing are really just two: science and philosophy. This wasn't many ways of knowing, just two. And it sets up this old argument for rebutting scientifically-minded atheists trying to disprove god's existence of "oh, that's not science, that's philosophy" or "science doesn't know everything, there are many ways of knowing" or "that's scientism!". Notice that no one raises this business about "many ways of knowing" when discussing business or politics or even secular ethics. It's only raised when discussing religion. It's basically special pleading that religion be exempt from the normal rules of evidence and critical thinking.
I work in the business world, in commercial real easte in New York City - the most hard-headed business environment you can imagine - and I can tell you that the discussion about ways of knowing, even when not explicit, is common. The best business people I know (and I know some very, very successful folks whose names you would recognize) easily and consciously combine intuition, emotion, deductive, inductive, and tangible ways of evaluating situations. I have been in many meetings in which a big decision hinges on intuition.
Also, I never mentioned God in this article outside the challenge by Russell - which Broad readily admitted that he could not do, and with which I agree, because for me God is known through experience - and in that way Harris's medition is in line with the fourth way of knowing. I have heard Harris readily acknowledge that intuition is a very valid way of knowing.
I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with, Dan.
All the best,
Alan
Note that I am not saying intuition isn't useful. And of course one can refine their intuition. If one finds one's intuition is wrong, they can refine it and they then have a better intuition to apply to situations where they don't have sufficient information.
But please do consider the history of wrong intuitions in science, mathematics, and other disciplines. Human intuition is too often a completely failure. With this in mind, I hardly think one ought to suggest that intuition is knowledge, or that holding a belief in god merely based on intuition and personal religious experience is reasonable.
"I have heard Harris readily acknowledge that intuition is a very valid way of knowing."
Well, I'd have to see the context in which Harris said this, but if Harris said exactly what you suggest then he something dead wrong. It isn't the first thing of Sam Harris' I've disagreed with, as I strongly disagree with his moral landscape stuff. Not to mention I do call myself an atheist. Just because Sam Harris said something doesn't mean I agree with him!
Of course history is knowledge. But it is knowledge the same way science is: by looking at evidence. There are museums filled with evidence of the Ancient Roman and Greek. Buildings in Washington DC are evidence of American History. There are plenty of documents from American History, as well as footage of recent history. Of course history is knowing, but it isn't a different way of knowing separate from science.
My only worries) are that we may be too accommodating too of intolerance because of the personal shortcomings of people who shroud their personal fears with fundamentalist approaches. I say that as someone in the deep south who has drifted from Methodism to agnosticism to atheism. Since people have found out and upon returning home from college, I have either been ignored or proselytized to as if I haven't contemplated these issues moreso than the people who have remained unchanged in their views over the past several years. I think debate and even condemnation should not be out of question for those who veil fear and hatred in theology (even if it is manifested in the false-friendliness of people trying to "share the gospel" but whose ultimate goal is to "rehabilitate" me for their own personal sense of fulfillment).
Having lived in the South for many years - many as an atheist -, I know of your challenge.
Is it possible to see these proselytizers with compassion? This is not easy, and I'm not suggesting that you like them or ignore what they're doing, especially when it's hurtful. Of course there is a line, and when the proselytizing turns to hate, we must call it for what it is and battle it.
I wish you well,
Alan
Yes, you really got the point of this blog, which is about letting go of the need to be "right" and engaging another in mutual exploration, in humility and with the recognition that there are many ways of knowing. That is the new era.
Wishing you well,
Alan