Posted: Mar 15, 2016 10:26 pm
blue triangle wrote:I would argue however that such knowledge can be discussed in an intellectual way, as long as all parties understand that such experiences are normally highly personal and difficult, perhaps impossible, to validate in any scientific way.
All parties do not understand the terms of the discussion merely on your say-so. I don't agree that this is an intellectual discussion. It's an expression of feelings that you're trying to dress up in intellectual gear. That's why I call this style of spirituality 'pretentious claptrap'. It's spirituality pretending to be something else? Why?
blue triangle wrote:The believer should accept that personal experiences, even in large number, do not constitute evidence for the truth of any religion or even the reality of the supernatural.
Believers, by and large, do NOT accept this.
blue triangle wrote:The skeptic should accept that there are some areas of personal experience that may currently be outside the purview of science. That could be the starting point for an intellectual discussion of the highest quality.
Skeptics, by and large, do NOT accept this. Claims of personal experience are anecdotes and stories. Call them literature, if you like, but most claimants are just not very entertaining writers. And who are you to go around telling people what they should or should not accept? Bend any spoons lately? If you don't like that metaphor, try this: Led any congregations in prayer, yet?
What is the matter with believers who are not content in their own spiritual communities, and who feel the urge to plead their case to skeptics? Do they think they have the big rational mojo for doing this? By and large, they do not. They're people used to expressing spirituality as a feeling, and who've gotten tired of preaching to the faithful.
Even if you're lucky enough to find one or two people to toss around some woo at a rationalist forum, your conversation isn't protected from skeptics who will critique what you're doing. Doctrinaire spirituality is too rigid, and do-it-yourself spirituality is amorphous story-telling that you somehow have to get good enough at to publish your own pamphlet. It sounds to me as if you're between a rock and a soft spot. That soft spot is the remains of the last spiritual quester who tried to go in under the radar.