The other week Christian suggested that in order to know God we need a method different from the scientific method, indeed he beieved that such a method existed and was shared among the existing religions through their various rituals.
To claim to have no interest in religion or God is legitimate, after all, the Logical positivists of the Vienna Circle, at the beginning of the last century, claimed that Religious discourse was outside Philosophy, precisely because one could neither touch, hear, see, taste, or smell God. Experience for these philosophers was a necessary ingredient to all philosophical discourse. Astrophysics seems a fair topic for studies.
Christian seems to contend that there are different types of knowledge, each with their own method. The question is: What is it to know something? this is a central question of Philosophy.Imagine that I became a devoted student of religions, I do every thing that is necessary, I change my diet, I follow the correct rituals, stop sinning, I deny myself a bit of this and a bit of that, I contemplate as much as necessary, praise God, and I emulate prophets. At what point will I know that I have found God? When it happens, surely I will be made aware of a change, I will have acquired something, will I feel a sense of elation? will people start following me? Will I grow horns? Or will I be able to converse with the birds? All signs that I may recognise!
We are beings with very few attributes. Our total knowledge relies only on our 5 senses and our logic. The signs which will allow me to recognise God are the same that will allow me to understand Science. There is but one knowledge.
Andre
