Returning to clarify our previous discussion about the hiding of your religious position.
You denied being religious and asked what I meant. I stated clearly that that you appeared to hold an ideological or spiritually-oriented set of beliefs. As per your NDE book.
You gave your different interpretation of ‘religious’:
‘I don’t presently adhere to a religion, religious doctrine, church authority, or institutional religious practice…
Investigating NDE testimony isn’t the same as holding religious doctrine. The book is concerned with testimony, evidence, justification, and knowledge.’
I didn’t say that investigating NDE is to hold a religious doctrine. However, belief in NDEs is spiritually oriented. This can shift a person away from traditional religious beliefs towards a personal spirituality.
You concluded:
‘I’ll put the distinction clearly. If by religious you mean presently committed to a religion, then I’m not religious. If you mean having once been religious, having studied at a Christian college, or being interested in questions about consciousness, then that’s a different use of the word.’
I had already told you what I meant by ‘religious’.
It was not about you being ‘committed to a religion’ or any interest in ‘consciousness’.
So, to review this:
My reply:
If directed at me, this speaks more about you and your rhetorical skills. Your mis-reading and misrepresentation is evidence of untruth.
So what?
For me, this indicates a biased unreliability. But I could be wrong…
It should be clear that it is you who is either not listening closely (‘paying adequate attention’) or deliberately presenting false accusations.
It seems to me that this discussion is a way to build the blocks of any argument. To support a claim or conclusion. Fair enough.
The emphasis on the use of concepts and words is important.
The author assertively sets out their own definitions or understandings (as per the ‘religious’ case) and is generally dismissive or does not always care to recognise any other. It is an argument already ‘won’ by them.
It seems to build toward knowledge as justified true belief. It seems to assume what it is trying to define or defend.