Reply #52: I did say "a *degree* of universality"

[GliderGuider]

These perceptions are by no means absolutely universal, but they are widely shared and are not culture-specific, which is really what I was driving at.

I agree that most organized religions tend to lead to division, since they serve a major role as culturally normative institutions. As such they define in-groups and out-groups, and are inherently dualistic.

The kind of "knowledge" I was talking is philosophical rather than scientific or religious. It is shared by Zen and Madhyamika Buddhism, Taoism, Advaita, Jnana yoga etc., none of which are "religions".

This whole discussion seems to have run up on the reefs of semantics and value systems. "Knowledge" has many dictionary definitions:

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

Wikipedia has this to say about it:

Knowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, which can include information, facts, descriptions, and/or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); and it can be more or less formal or systematic. In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology, and the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief." There is however no single agreed upon definition of knowledge, and there are numerous theories to explain it.

Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings.

Now, if your system only admits as "knowledge" those concepts that can be objectively verified, then that's an assumption that must be stated at the outset. Otherwise we get into bollixes like this, where I talk about things like the illusion of the self and you talk about things like the proof for the parallelism of lines. Just using the word "knowledge" doesn't really narrow the field very much - my "perception of the illusion of the self" qualifies as knowledge under all the definitions above except for #1.

There is no requirement for universal agreement or objective verifiability in order for a stipulation to qualify as "knowledge" in the general use of that term. Under your specific use, there may be such requirements. However, unless you make it abundantly clear from the beginning that you are narrowing the definition that way, you could legitimately be accused of rigging the discussion and laying traps for unwary souls who assume you're speaking in general, colloquial terms.

Again, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with telling everyone you wish to confine the epistemological boundaries to knowledge that can be obtained and independently validated by objective means. Science makes that restriction abundantly clear. But to then apply the restriction to "knowledge" in general and then shitcan religion and philosophy for not meeting it makes for fairly limited discussions.