Someone I came across said, "without a personal experience of a given thing, just HOW can you say that it exists.."
This statement takes us into the realm of 'beliefs and testimony'-a realm that must be stepped into VERY carefully.
Beliefs can be looked upon in different ways. Everyone would know what the popular definitions of 'belief' are..'irrational' and all that.
But a belief is no longer irrational if one knows how to dance with uncertainty.
Rational 'Belief' can be looked upon as the result of inductive reasoning applied to personal experiences AND/OR pointers provided by credible sources.
Inductive reasoning allows for uncertainty in the conclusion.
Wikipedia: Inductive Reasoning:
Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true. The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth.
The following is a perspective on 'inductive reasoning applied to PERSONAL experiences'.
Everyone has had experiences that are odd. One can start from there.
A 'belief/hypothesis' does not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial premise---that is the nature of conclusions arrived at through inductive reasoning--- but induction is 100% ok, as long as the uncertainty involved is understood.
Sometimes it is necessary to construct beliefs, but constructing too many such 'beliefs' should be avoided unless one has developed some kind of tools that are well equipped to deal with the uncertainty that will increase exponentially as beliefs increase--dealing with such complex uncertainties is a very difficult task, it is more or less impossible.
But once induction has been applied properly and the uncertainty understood, your beliefs become a pointer to reality--You can then look around and see if there are other people around who have reached more or less the same point-----if yes, great! If induction has been applied properly, convergence WILL happen. And once you experience convergence, your beliefs turn into something more solid--you have extrapolated successfully--you now have strong pointers to the existence of 'it' without having experienced 'it' directly.
Life experiences=>apply induction=>beliefs are generated=>if convergence with another happens=>pointers to reality.
Note: Convergence with another should be looked at carefully. This 'other', with whom convergence is happening should be analysed thoroughly. This 'other' could be a person or a group.
There is no substitute for a direct experience with reality of course. All of us have direct experiences but most of us dismiss them as vague feelings or temporary mental dysfunction.....but there are some who don't, and then there are some who display the ability to understand even other people's experiences---such people are remarkable and very rare.
This statement takes us into the realm of 'beliefs and testimony'-a realm that must be stepped into VERY carefully.
Beliefs can be looked upon in different ways. Everyone would know what the popular definitions of 'belief' are..'irrational' and all that.
But a belief is no longer irrational if one knows how to dance with uncertainty.
Rational 'Belief' can be looked upon as the result of inductive reasoning applied to personal experiences AND/OR pointers provided by credible sources.
Inductive reasoning allows for uncertainty in the conclusion.
Wikipedia: Inductive Reasoning:
Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false even where all of the premises are true. The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; i.e. they do not ensure its truth.
The following is a perspective on 'inductive reasoning applied to PERSONAL experiences'.
Everyone has had experiences that are odd. One can start from there.
A 'belief/hypothesis' does not necessarily have the same degree of certainty as the initial premise---that is the nature of conclusions arrived at through inductive reasoning--- but induction is 100% ok, as long as the uncertainty involved is understood.
Sometimes it is necessary to construct beliefs, but constructing too many such 'beliefs' should be avoided unless one has developed some kind of tools that are well equipped to deal with the uncertainty that will increase exponentially as beliefs increase--dealing with such complex uncertainties is a very difficult task, it is more or less impossible.
But once induction has been applied properly and the uncertainty understood, your beliefs become a pointer to reality--You can then look around and see if there are other people around who have reached more or less the same point-----if yes, great! If induction has been applied properly, convergence WILL happen. And once you experience convergence, your beliefs turn into something more solid--you have extrapolated successfully--you now have strong pointers to the existence of 'it' without having experienced 'it' directly.
Life experiences=>apply induction=>beliefs are generated=>if convergence with another happens=>pointers to reality.
Note: Convergence with another should be looked at carefully. This 'other', with whom convergence is happening should be analysed thoroughly. This 'other' could be a person or a group.
There is no substitute for a direct experience with reality of course. All of us have direct experiences but most of us dismiss them as vague feelings or temporary mental dysfunction.....but there are some who don't, and then there are some who display the ability to understand even other people's experiences---such people are remarkable and very rare.
What I am saying is not all 'alleged hallucinations' are mental dysfunction. Some may be visions. Satori.
All said and done, total convergence with another will most probably never occur, and constructing beliefs is best avoided unless absolutely necessary---pointers to reality are not reality.
What I am talking about is different from what religion does---religion generally builds down from accepted general principles using deduction...like building down from the principle of spiritual penalty for example.
7 comments:
Nice post.
I don't think that all general principles of religious beliefs are baseless, in that they're irrational and unwarranted.
Certainly, every belief or thought, even, ultimately can be reduced to basic assumptions about human existence and rationality. As finite beings, our perspectives and knowledge are limited. But this does necessarily mean that one should not think or believe. One can have good and rational cause to believe.
Also, it seems faith should fit in the equation somewhere.
I meant many accepted general principles are useless. My mistake, sorry. Will correct the post.
Thanks for the response, I also posted the following on my blog in consideration of the comments you offered there.
After reading your posts Beliefs and The Journey, your position does not seem to escape the baselessness you've found inherent in other religions.
However, you may not find this problematic given the subtitle of your blog: "...ultimate truth is knowable and lies in the realm of feelings and not in the realm of the intellect."
If the intention is to escape rationality there can be no base (i.e., logical grounds) for the assertion since it would require rationality and logical coherence.
In your end note of The Journey you write: "Building an argument on assumptions is not invalid. This is 'inductive reasoning'. Inductive reasoning runs on data & assumptions. It is 100% valid."
I'm not certain why you think inductive arguments are based upon assumptions and, furthermore, how under this characterization they are somehow superior to the deductive arguments of other religions which you describe as baseless, apparently meaning they are unfounded assumptions.
From my understanding, inductive arguments are not based on assumptions but on accepted facts and conclude with a general or universal assumption. For example, an inductive argument would go as follows:
Premise 1: Socrates is human and is mortal.
Premise 2: Plato is human and is mortal.
Conclusion: Therefore, probably all humans are mortal.
A deductive argument asserts that its premises provide conclusive grounds for its conclusion. Such argumens are either valid or invalid based upon the validity of the premises.
An inductive argument asserts that its premises provide not conclusive grounds but simply support for its conclusion.
But even assuming your view of an inductive argument in which the conclusion is inferred from things assumed to be true, how would you base or ground your perspective and argue for its veracity over the deductive arguments of other religions?
The hypothesis, that is a part of the induction process, is an educated guess or an assumption. Therefore it can be said that induction moves on data(accepted facts) and assumptions.
The hypothesis is tested by gathering more data. In my case, the hypothesis (or assumption) is that 'eternal life, enlightenment, higher mental faculties' are real.
I do admit there are no 'accepted facts' as far as issues like 'eternal life' , 'higher mental faculties' and 'enlightenment' are concerned.
But as far as I am concerned, the data here is the 'feeling-realisations' of many teachers and wise men/women, who have walked this planet over the last few thousand years.
Their 'feeling-realisations' and meditative experiences have led to what is called mysticism.
Even great scientists like Werner Heisenberg endorse mysticism, although mysticism is not about 'rational thinking'.
I invite you to read my latest blog entry, "Psychosis or Transcendence" that goes into some details on mysticism, and Werner Heisenberg's contribution.
Vikram
From Nathanael's blog:
Nathanael said...
vikram madan: Thanks for the clarification. I still cannot reconcile why you think that your belief in mysticism is superior to other religious beliefs which are also baseless or grounded in presuppositions.
For instance, many intellectuals and teachers argue that there must be a transcendent God and/or an objective moral code which is external to humanity.
Many wise and influential people have defended all sorts of conflicting positions. One could believe almost anything based upon an appeal to others who have believed the same.
Given this, how does your position, i.e., belief in mysticism, not fall into the same category in which you place all (or, most) other religious beliefs?
I am curious what your opinion is of U.G. Krishnamurti and his philosophy.
Hi Allen,
I haven't read much U.G.K but whatever little I have read, he comes across as a bit morbid. Morbid people should not be elevated to the status of teachers in my opinion.
Vikram
Post a Comment