Quote
John A. Lobur
Quote:
sandman
Surely it is obvious that mystical, spiritual or religious experiences are both beyond critical thought and outside of intellectual pursuits.
Is it?
It is my observation that in contemporary culture, mystical, spiritual or religious experiences are not generally given much credence in the works of intellectuals or critical thinkers.
Quote
John A. Lobur
Have you ever read Augustine's Confessions or The City of God? Regardless of how one feels about Kierkegaard, one cannot deny that he is a first rate philosopher. Have you ever looked at Fear and Trembling? Kant (again, by any standard a towering intellect) had a very rational argument for religious belief in God . . . Have you read his Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone?
No, I haven't read those books. I am currently reading "The Horrors and Absurdities of Religion" by Arthur Schopenhauer.
Quote
John A. Lobur
Quote:
Sandman
It may be that an obviously rational explanation for such experiences is being overlooked.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. . . obviously rational explanation. There is no objective scientific criterion that proves the existence of God.
I mean that I may have overlooked a rational explanation for Swami G's spiritual powers that is obvious to you or others, not that I have overlooked scientific proof of the existence of God.
Quote
John A. Lobur
Which brings me to my next point. . . for a long time, especially after I left the Catholic church, my guiding principle has been very simple: whatever your path (and there are many valid paths out there, as the saying goes "many paths, one mountain") and whomever you are dealing with never believe anything that you cannot directly experience for yourself. This is the essence of Zen.
If that is not exercising critical thinking skills, what is? I think that is a good guiding principle for anyone to have, regardless of the path they have chosen.
Spirituality is generally said to be about direct experience. That there may be the freedom to make independent decisions based on experience is not a particularly good example of the exercise of critical thinking skills, no.
Quote
John A. Lobur
Because she has not, does not, and never will expect you to believe in something you cannot experience for yourself. She acknowledges that there are other valid paths out there, and that hers is not necessarily the one suited to any particular person. None are constrained to stay on her path and many -- the vast majority of students she has had in fact -- end up going their own way with no further ado. Can you find one person who alleges that they have had any trouble later on?
Swami G has rational credibility because she does not claim her "path" is the only "path"?
The question was: how can critical thinking skills and intellectual practices be used to demonstrate that Swami G has rational credibility?
Not "does Swami G claim that hers is the only path"?
If Swami G has rational credibility then it should be possible to describe it rationally, showing how critical thinking skills can be used to discern why and how she has credibility. If at the same time some authentic intellectual ideas can arise from that, even better and we don't have to agree on them.
Quote
John A. Lobur
Quote:
Sandman
Lastly, can you please give a rational explanation of "Shaktipat" as shown in these videos cited earlier:
Probably not one that will satisfy you. The miracles at Medjugorjie can't be rationally explained either. . . does that make them invalid? From what I have experienced, and the people I have spoken to, everyone's experience of this is different. There is a lot of information of Swami G's website and she has written books too, and there is a good deal of video up. I encourage you to explore it on your own, if only from an anthropological perspective.
You have suggested that your approach to these matters is as a professor with a PHD and as "an accredited, recognized and respected professional intellectual with critical thinking ability", and that you have stated as much in an attempt to offset any impression that Swami G lacks rational credibility or appeals to the gullible. You have cited the works of well-known philosophers whom you say had rational arguments for the existence of God, and this in order to show that a rational explanation of the credibility of Swami G's teachings is possible. Yet you have failed to provide one.
Shaktipat is central to her teachings, so with regard to the way in which you have referred to yourself you ought to be able to provide an explanation of it. You've implied that Shaktipat is a miracle without even giving a subjective interpretation of it and instead you are recommending a website. None of my questions have been answered.
I had hoped for more, but thanks for your time anyway.