Hoops wrote: Then you will agree that spiritualists have equal standing with empiricists since you subscribe to "what works". Prayer, and love and compassion and worship work for them.
I am unaware of any group of spiritualists or empiricists. Empirical knowledge is on better standing because it works better and more reliably then claimed spiritual knowledge. This is not hard to see when you see all the conflicting claims being made from people claiming to have gained knowledge through spiritual means. Empirical knowledge has much less disagreement and works far better. As to love and compassion they work universally for religious and non-religious, so making claims that God exists or my God exists is not a reasonable conclusion based on love and compassion working. Same for getting a special feeling or life working for you so you conclude that the Book of Mormon is true. As for prayer, it works for many including many non-religious or of very different religions like Buddhists or Wicca. They may call it different names like meditation, etc.
I didn't know that we were offering support for what works or what is realiable. I thought we were offering support for what is real. After all, isn't that the whole point? And your example does nothing to move the ball down the field. Just because you see this blue something doesn't mean it actually is blue.
It is real becuase it is a human definition that humans agree on. Blue is a definition of what we are experiencing, and is real in that context. Buffalo has shown that certain wavelengths create that experience so we know what has to happpen in order to produce the expereince.
It may benefit society or community that we all see it as blue, but it's no bluer than it was a moment ago. Since the empiricists demand evidence for God, I demand that you show evidence that this blue thing is indeed blud.
The evidence is the definition that is also agreed upon universally. Blue is the expereince we have of seeing it. We can easily expereince it together in many ways and almost everyone agrees on the expereince. This is not true with most spiritual experiences and what they mean. If you want to show God exists you will need to define it first. Since you seem to like avoid presenting your own positions I won't hold my breath.
I'm nost sure I can agree with this. Is relevance the highest order of truth?
Truth is in many ways irrelevant to what works. Also truth is not something, but a proposition that is correct.
It doesn't matter for what? If doesn't matter that this thing is blue, than why do you demand evidence that that thing over there has six points and is yellow?
What it means is that if you were able to see through someone elses eyes and you say that is not what I see when looking at cloudless sky at midday doesn't matter. Both of you still learn that the sky is blue, and even if you see it differently you will be able to pick out other objects that you both expereince as blue with extremely great reliability. Not sure what demanding you are really referring to. Perhaps you could be more specific.
That's quite a large assumption. And that's even giving you the stipulation that we can agree on what you mean by "works". And what do you do when it doesn't "work"?
It is not a large assumption, but a reasonable one, and one that is relevant. If it doesn't work then you may want to evaluate it a little more.
Nonetheless, you've reduced the empiricist's argument down to what works. Which, again, puts you on equal footing as the most mystical sorcerress there is.
Not at all. One works much better and far more reliably, such that everyone depends on those assumptions of what is real in everyday aspects of life. It's not like most people who don't know how to get to a certain destination pray about it and then start driving. Most if not all will either get a map or ask directions from some person they think may know the way.
