It seems to me that two claims recently discussed -- and debated -- on this forum are essentially equivalent.
The first is the question of whether or not there is a God. It is quite reasonable for a non-believer in the existence of God to say to a believer, "Prove it." Since with this question we know in advance that they cannot, then it would seem that claims to "know" that there is a God -- even by those who claim to have experienced Him/Her/It directly -- are just that -- claims. With regard to the question of whether the state of enlightenment is "better," or "special," or even "of value," I suggest that the non-believer in such claims is equally entitled to say, "Prove it." If the claimant cannot, then what you've got on your hands is another claim, and nothing more. As I see it, belief in either claim is a matter of BELIEF and FAITH, and will never be anything else. Most of those who believe have based that belief on what they have been told by those they consider "authorities." In many cases, the only real reason that they consider these people to be authoritative is because *they themselves have claimed that they were*. "I have experienced God, and thus I 'know'." "I am enlightened, and thus I 'know'." But these are just claims. And neither set of claimants can prove them. In either case, if a believer in "enlightenment is special" happens to later have an experience that seems to match what they were told by the self-proclaimed "authorities" they look up to, science tells us that the believers would be *unable* to assess those experiences in a non-biased manner, because they've already been told what they supposedly "are," and "mean." So a person who has been told all his life that the experience of enlightened states of mind will make them "special," upon having such experiences themselves, will...wait for it...feel special. They've had decades of indoctrination telling them what the experiences they interpret as enlightenment "mean," and how "special" they are. OF COURSE they're going to be tempted to view the experiences -- and themselves -- as "special." This is the "stink of enlightenment" phenomenon that Anartaxius mentioned the other day. But it seems to me that the bottom line is that all we're dealing with when it comes to claims that enlightenment is "better" and "special" are a bunch of claims, made primarily by people who *stood to profit from people believing the claims*. I don't think that the two words "Prove it" are inappropriate in such a situation.
