Spot the odd one out. Atheism isn't a speculation because it isn't a positive claim.

On the other hand certain theistic conceptions remain rational specualtions and deserve a hearing and some respectful consideration.

Sure, but if the case is unconvincing and there is also a case against, then such theistic conceptions should be rejected, just as much as determinism or materialism should be rejected. And atheism is the rejection of the theses of theism.

Sure, but if the case is unconvincing and there is also a case against, then such theistic conceptions should be rejected, just as much as determinism or materialism should be rejected. And atheism is the rejection of the theses of theism.

But I am asking, is there is such a thing as metaphysical knowledge. Are there are valid objects of knowledge, things that actually are real, which persons adept at metaphysical disciplines can actually perceive? Certainly there is such a thing as speculative metaphysics - actually that is a large percentage of the content of the forum. But what of metaphysical knowledge, noesis, gnosis, call it what you will? An intellectual discipline with a valid object of knowledge?

The response is, 'show it to me, show me one of your metaphysical objects! Go on! I bet you can't because there AREN'T ANY!'

(Picture our protagonist now with arms crossed and a triumphant smile.)

But as said above, there might be mathematical proofs which are real, which are valid, which one can't see, because one lacks the discernment to see them, to understand the proof. Why then may there not be objects of philosophical knowledge which are not available to the uneducated, to the common man, to the hoi polloi, but which can only be 'discerned by the wise'?

There might be, or might not be, such truths, but I propose that within the context of traditional Western philosophy, this is how the nature of 'metaphysical knowledge' should be assessed. It requires, as I said, an act of sympathetic imagination, to enter into that realm of discourse, and try to imagine what is being spoken of, instead of trivialising it by comparing it to Santa Claus or something.

do you have a brief statement of your worldview because it seems you reject materialism, determinism and theism and I am curious where that leaves you?

I rather think that you are right.
Metaphysics is rational speculation about matters "unknowable".
Philosopers can not even agree on what "knowledge" is much less what "metaphysical knowledge" could be. Heck, they can not even agree on what metaphysics is and if it is worthwhile (verificationists and logical postivists).
Some of these rational speuclations may be "true" and later become "knowledge" but that is a speculation itself.

.. yes, he will use the word "real" in the common-man unconsidered vague sense of the word, which is the only sense he knows, a stranger to logic & math & euclidean geometry

Prothero - what is this thing about Young Earth Creationism? I still think you have a hang up about religiosity. How does neoplatonism equate with fundamentalism? Origen thought Creationism was idiotic in the First Century. He was so clever, mind you, the church expelled him.....

Most educated philosophers tend to agree that they know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, though. Should they agree about what knowledge is before they agree about whether they know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador?

If there is no prior agreement about what knowledge is then the statement that 'Quito is the capital of Ecuador' could be characterized by educated philosophers as being a contingent, or accidental or a posteriori, or synthetic form of knowledge.

There are a variety of schools of thought within the field of philosophy. The Analytic school of philosophy holds that necessary truths are disguised forms of contingency. But this doesn't mean that, prior to any justification, all philosophers are required to accept those views.

-

I don't know what contingent, accidental. or synthetic form of knowledge would be, but I think that all philosophers would say that the knowledge that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is known a posteriori.

I would not know what it means to say that necessary truths are, "a disguised form of contingency", so I really would not know whether that is true, but I would doubt it.

When you say that the knowledge that Quito is the capital of Equador is a posteriori you are making a statement about what type of knowledge it is. Even though you had previously asked whether agreements about knowledge among educated philosophers was required in order for us to accept the statement as knowledge.

So, you have answered your own question in the affirmative.

Yeah. What Prothero said (in post #54).

Samm

It is just an example of a religiously motivated belief, which many people think or claim is true, which can not be true if one has any faith in the facts of science. It is not rational speculation about matters "unknowable". It is just plain wrong and does not deserve any special consideration or respect just because it is a "religious" notion.

The YEC's do serious harm to the cause of religion.
The scientific atheists who attack any and all forms of religion do serious harm to the cause of science by claiming science shows what it can not and does not.

I am a sort of neoPlatonist myself, but only those propositions which are not in conflict with reason and science ie. rational speculations, i.e. philosophy. Science can not and does not tell us everything or provide an adequate worldview but what it does tell us must be taken into serious account as it is one of the most reliable forms of "knowledge".

True, I am not a fan of organized religion or of any form of religious dogmatism ie. articles of faith.

I still maintain, however, that this 'higher knowledge', noesis, still exists, is not reducible to the other types, is not religious dogma, and is the proper domain of the subject of metaphysics

Now, let us suppose you are correct. There is this sort knowledge which exists. How do we go about discovering it? And, once we have discovered it, is it communicable? And if not, why? Is it something like what Wittgenstein called 'private language'?