argument from religious experience

[Socratic Spelunker]

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?

 

[Lori_7]

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?

it threatens nonbelievers. that can be seen as a problem. either for them in dealing with their fear or insecurity, or for the people with the experience, having to handle the repercussions of their fear or insecurity, often in the form of condemnation and attacks on their character or mental stability.

 

[Rhaedas]

Same reason why eyewitness accounts in trials are only useful to back up other evidence, but are not by themselves useful, because they are easily malleable by time, memory, and a person's often incorrect interpretation of their details and significance.

 

[lightgigantic]

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?

I know what you mean.

Kind of like the medical profession.

One guy wants to operate. Another suggests massage. Another prescribes medication. And yet another is peddling snake oil.

When will these bozos ever get their act together?

 

[yaracuy]

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?

Could you elaborate which revelations .

How can you biological explain: our experience during WW2 when the Soviets were 5 km away from us and the Alliedes were 30 km and we wanted to run, and by the Holly spirit was said don't go the Soviets will not overtake stay in this place. ( The folks were not educated , the German news was one sided. ) So what is your intellectual explanation ?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

I know what you mean.

Kind of like the medical profession.

One guy wants to operate. Another suggests massage. Another prescribes medication. And yet another is peddling snake oil.

When will these bozos ever get their act together?

I am laughing . Yeah to funny ! They don't call it practicing medicine for nutten . How come they get to practice and the rest of us have to work . Aoooouuups shit . I forgot Musicians get to play for a living . Fuck Yeah

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Could you elaborate which revelations .

How can you biological explain: our experience during WW2 when the Soviets were 5 km away from us and the Alliedes were 30 km and we wanted to run, and by the Holly spirit was said don't go the Soviets will not overtake stay in this place. ( The folks were not educated , the German news was one sided. ) So what is your intellectual explanation ?

Dw look at that the 5 and the 3 . Is it recorded in history like that ? Why not 49 or 49.5 . Is the 3 to 5 relationship something easy for the human mind to comprehend ? Or maybe 3 out of 5 . That is an expression common . 3 out of 5 ain't bad . That is the expression.

 

[Socratic Spelunker]

Could you elaborate which revelations .

How can you biological explain: our experience during WW2 when the Soviets were 5 km away from us and the Alliedes were 30 km and we wanted to run, and by the Holly spirit was said don't go the Soviets will not overtake stay in this place. ( The folks were not educated , the German news was one sided. ) So what is your intellectual explanation ?

Well, it's not my intellectual explanation, but some say they are misfiring neurons, some say it comes from our psychological need to feel love, purpose, security against death, etc. Some studies try to say religious experience is the result of a chemical in your brain and can be reproduced with drugs like lsd, some say that stories like yours are just coincidences.

I'm not sure I buy any of those theories, but those are ones I can remember. Dont shoot the messenger =P.

 

[wynn]

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Two that come to mind are the fact that different people have "revelations" that seem to conflict with one another (Argument from inconsistent revelations), and that the "religious experience" may be explain by biological factors.

Are there any others?

I don't see any major problems with the argument from religious experience, as long as the one claiming to have it doesn't elevate it to a reason why others should become religious and doesn't further see it as a reason to persecute them.

Of course, it is typical for people who claim to have had religious experience to persecute others in some way or another, presuming themselves to be superior and authoritative over them.


Arguing from religious experience becomes even more problematic in religious settings that are very hierarchical.
Thus a member who claims to be "more experienced, more advanced" can effectively blackmail and manipulate other members, especially in everyday practical matters.

 

[wynn]

I know what you mean.

Kind of like the medical profession.

One guy wants to operate. Another suggests massage. Another prescribes medication. And yet another is peddling snake oil.

When will these bozos ever get their act together?

Strawman.


You are conveniently omitting that all major religions consider outsiders
1. to be religiously/spiritually inept/incompetent (and thus unable to make a proper religious choice themselves),
2. to have to depend on members fully.


From some sociological, anthropological, philosophical perspective, religious choice indeed exists and what you say above applies.
But from the perspective of actual religions and their practitioners, religious choice becomes an absurdity.

 

[wynn]

for the people with the experience, having to handle the repercussions of their fear or insecurity, often in the form of condemnation and attacks on their character or mental stability.

Oh, poor, spiritual, religious, advanced you!

 

[lightgigantic]

Strawman.


You are conveniently omitting that all major religions consider outsiders
1. to be religiously/spiritually inept/incompetent (and thus unable to make a proper religious choice themselves),
2. to have to depend on members fully.


From some sociological, anthropological, philosophical perspective, religious choice indeed exists and what you say above applies.
But from the perspective of actual religions and their practitioners, religious choice becomes an absurdity.

still not clear how the above differentiates itself from the medical profession

 

[wynn]

still not clear how the above differentiates itself from the medical profession

Issues of spirituality are not as trivial as medical ones.

With medical issues, we can afford a degree of apathy upon witnessing the multitude of possible treatments (and the associated insurance and legal issues). We agree that illness and death are eventually inevitable, so we do something that seems good enough, given the resources we have, and try not to worry any further.
For a lay patient to talk about an "informed medical decision" is a contradiction in terms anyway.

Given what spirituality is about, it is paramount that we make the right choice. Medically, we may even afford to lose a leg or an arm, but to risk eternal damnation for the wrong choice of religion cannot meaningfully be compared to such a risk and loss.

To put forward the idea that the choice of spiritual/religious path should be conducted by personal preferences not only makes the choice trivial (for this way, the issue of whether the path is true or not is completely skirted - which makes the choice absurd and irrelevant), it is also in conflict with the doctrines of the major religions (which directly or indirectly state that personal preferences are not a reliable path to the Absolute Truth).

 

[Yazata]

what are some of the more glaring problems with the argument from religious experience?

Couldn't we imagine an analogous 'Argument from Schizophrenic Experience' that proves the existence of voices inside the walls?

I don't think that anyone doubts that private subjective experience might be totally convincing to the person that's having the experience. It's hard to think of anything that could be more convincing.

But as Signal pointed out, problems arise when it's suggested that one person's private experience should be accepted as good reason for other people to believe in the same things too.

We might be drifting towards some kind of verifiability criterion at this point, the need for some way that other people can experience the same thing for themselves. And that process mustn't be circular, meaning that pre-existing belief in the thing to be verified can't be a precondition for having the verifying experience.

Or alternatively, we would seem to need some kind of credible explanation, some account that absorbs the content of the suspect experience into the context of what we're confident that we already know.

 

[wynn]

We might be drifting towards some kind of verifiability criterion at this point, the need for some way that other people can experience the same thing for themselves. And that process mustn't be circular, meaning that pre-existing belief in the thing to be verified can't be a precondition for having the verifying experience.

Of course, it could also be argued that any process to experience anything is necessarily circular.

One does not know what salt tastes like until one tastes it. But if one tastes something and doesn't know said thing is called "salt", the experience of tasting it is useless, at least as far as further recognition and relating it to others is concerned - and if we cannot relate an experience to others, how relevant is it, how relevant can it be to us?

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

My religious experience I feel is making its presents known for all to witness . As I struggle to deal with the grips it has on me from my first recollections I am constantly astounded no one else can see the the correlations. Or to your self the constant bombardment of parallel, or peripheral noise that confirms the notion. Alice lives in wonder land and can not seem to get a grip of what reality is . Like Me new friend Russ Fletcher and a statement he made today about how the secret fertility bunny is not going to bring anything to the table. I almost felt like it was a direct challenge to Me personally . It was so strange cause the verbiage ( I don't remember exactly ) triggered something in Me by association. Mirror reflections of perfect chains of sequence . A lot like me special Math and its correlations of numeric equivalences.

Anyway who cares , It is so hard just to see your self that it is almost impossible to see someone else peripheral white noise. So although I have not given up on it as some of you can tell from Me delusional posts there is more to ones life then them selves . As the song sings " You can please your self but someones gona get it

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Of course, it could also be argued that any process to experience anything is necessarily circular.

One does not know what salt tastes like until one tastes it. But if one tastes something and doesn't know said thing is called "salt", the experience of tasting it is useless, at least as far as further recognition and relating it to others is concerned - and if we cannot relate an experience to others, how relevant is it, how relevant can it be to us?

I'm Trying signal . It is in the minutia movements of everything . A dictating stream of information and it is coherent from my point of view . Whether it is truly a birds eye view , well that is still to be determined . I am starting to make some headway I think . Big names are starting to come out in support of me and the music professors efforts . Hey We got a blog now . Yeah We got the domain name sowed up too . Wood for Haiti is becoming Viable . I can smell World Salvation just around the corner . Will it blow up and die , or get gut shot and live in agony for years . I hope not! I pray for success as do many . It feels real ? I think it is . It is very hard to put the finger on something not tangible . Best Made Plans and all that

 

[Lori_7]

Oh, poor, spiritual, religious, advanced you!

ass.

 

[lightgigantic]

Issues of spirituality are not as trivial as medical ones.

With medical issues, we can afford a degree of apathy upon witnessing the multitude of possible treatments (and the associated insurance and legal issues). We agree that illness and death are eventually inevitable, so we do something that seems good enough, given the resources we have, and try not to worry any further.
For a lay patient to talk about an "informed medical decision" is a contradiction in terms anyway.

Given what spirituality is about, it is paramount that we make the right choice. Medically, we may even afford to lose a leg or an arm, but to risk eternal damnation for the wrong choice of religion cannot meaningfully be compared to such a risk and loss.

To put forward the idea that the choice of spiritual/religious path should be conducted by personal preferences not only makes the choice trivial (for this way, the issue of whether the path is true or not is completely skirted - which makes the choice absurd and irrelevant), it is also in conflict with the doctrines of the major religions (which directly or indirectly state that personal preferences are not a reliable path to the Absolute Truth).

Actually it usually works the other way.

The less trivial an issue is, the greater emphasis of discrimination on the matter.

 

[wynn]

Actually it usually works the other way.

What works the other way?

The less trivial an issue is, the greater emphasis of discrimination on the matter.

Obviously, as I pointed out.

I don't know what you are opposing.