"I mean that we've learned nothing directly from mysticism . . . former mistakes feeling for knowing . . . I'm talking about actually acquiring knowledge from mysticism as a methodology."
Also, the sentence you quoted is my opinion of the epistemic utility of mysticism, but I said nothing wrong about what mysticism is.
What about this statement is incorrect? Give me an example of directly acquiring knowledge from mystical experience? What facts about the world can we learn directly from mystical experience?
What about this statement is incorrect? Give me an example of directly acquiring knowledge from mystical experience?
Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Descartes, Galileo, etc...
all venerated the Divine as the source of all knowledge.
Newton and Galileo made their discoveries from the use of the empirical method, not the 'mystical method'.
Yes you did, you said nothing is learned directly from mysticism. The most precious, enduring, life-altering, wisdom-producing and fulfilling of all that I've ever learned in life has come from the inner experience (aka, "mystical").
Why should I? IMHO you aren't open to what it takes to acquire knowledge through this, and unless you practice yourself, you only have my word for it which, since you won't accept anybody acquires knowledge through the mystical experience means you won't accept my word either . . . and so it will go with no progress toward understanding. So I think I'll just let you think what you want.
Don't make the claim if you can't back it up.
The personal experience argument is just a cop out.
Einstein and Darwin were not theists. Einstein was a deist and Darwin was damn near an atheist or agnostic when he founded the theory of natural selection. Newton and Galileo made their discoveries from the use of the empirical method, not the 'mystical method'.
This may sound extreme but no ones forcing muslims to live in a secular country.What you should be asking is why in certain muslim countries such as Iran you have no rights to even stand for election if you are not a muslim.In ksa you are not even allowed to carry a bible through customs.Again sharia is not law its a way of life,it is used to decide such things as, is it acceptable for women to train as doctors.As there is no hard and fast rules, its down to the council to decide at anyone time what is correct.There are no written laws, its law by consensus of a few Imams.Todays moderate council can become the extremist council, as no laws are conceived by statute,its down to interpretation.Its the same faith that decides children should not fly kites or play music.I honestly believe sharia will cause more divisions in our communities if it is allowed to increase in its use.
If such insight is deemed to provide facts about the world (because it's later corroborated), one can't forget that this insight occurs in people who already have experience of the world, so it's no wonder that it might correspond to reality.
Oh the pride of living in the industrialized first world. Why do people live in their country under theocratic law? Why don't they just leave? Because its what they know its what they were raised into. In discussions of politics and idealistic ethics the people who don't actually live under the policies or in the areas they are discussing forget about the nature of humanity and the nature of culture. People live where they live because they were born there and they do not have the financial options we have in the industrialized first world. Human nature while under duress is not to transcend for the sake of ideal it is to adapt and survive. Human nature is to make the nest out of your situation. The nature of culture is to limit perceivable options. The nature of culture is to raise a person to be integrated into it. Most people do not even notice that they might have an option to leave. Others who do will feel traitorous.
Aside from this revolutions normally do not happen without an economic middle class that has no real power but enough money to free up their existence from the simple struggle of survival. To say why don't they just move is to say, why don't you go tell the queen you want to be knighted. The likelihood of either is small for the majority of the population that they will have the wherewithal to move or get knighted. Idealism is great and noble but practicality is prudent and useful.
I can back it up, but how do I reason with a hunk of wood? You already think you know the truth, no amount of explanation by me is going to get you to objectively consider what I say.
I rest my case.
---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------
Kabir, Jesus, Nanak, the Buddha . . . all made their discoveries WITHOUT the use of the empirical method. So what? Why are you arguing that because empiricism is effective, nothing else is? Is it due to having explored all other ways and speak from experience? Or is it merely an uninformed and opinionated view?
Statistics without references? really 90% of people who want sharia law? In England? Because they are all rich? But don't want to live in the Middle East? Spurious?
The prophet Muhamad saw not Archangel Gabriel. It has accepted for the Archangel Satan. The Satan has given Muhamedu the koran. Therefore Islam is Satanism. Muchamad - the prophet of the Satan. Lucifer & Gabriel - its archangels.
Saitan was never called an arch-angel anymore. He has been Prince of Darkness but I doubt he would teach Mohammed himself.
The teachings to Mohammed could have been done by some other angel or Djin. The problem is the translations to Arabic which caused many mistakes.
We christioans have the same problem.
Important one. Gabriel wasn't Gabriel. It not from God. Islam is doctrine of evil ghosts. Not important demons (West) gins (East) or UFO (today). It EVIL.
Do not worry:bigsmile:
Evil has been 'rpound
Evil has been around a long Time
Never succeeded beyond despair