Personal experience as a basis for god belief

M

Myles

Registered Senior Member
Personal experience canot be used as a basis for the existence of god. It can be a basis for belief but that is not the same thing as knowledge.

If a mentally ill patient believes that he is Napoleon , do we believe him ? He certainly believes it. Does believing that the earth is flat make it so ? Of course not.

We can believe anything but to know something means that we can support our belief with objectively verifiable evidence. I am not aware of any argument which supports a belief in god, which is not to doubt the sincerity of those who do hold such beliefs. I just think they are mistaken.
 
Moderator's Note: In the interest of avoiding thread necromancy, I've closed the old thread, started in 2001, and split the posts to a new one.
 
I think personal experience is the only basis for belief in God. The problem is in convincing others, and you are right that personal experience is suspect, since people can be crazy, can hallucinate, they can get caught up in mass hysteria, etc...
 
Myles said:
Personal experience canot be used as a basis for the existence of god. It can be a basis for belief but that is not the same thing as knowledge.

If a mentally ill patient believes that he is Napoleon , do we believe him ? He certainly believes it. Does believing that the earth is flat make it so ? Of course not.

We can believe anything but to know something means that we can support our belief with objectively verifiable evidence. I am not aware of any argument which supports a belief in god, which is not to doubt the sincerity of those who do hold such beliefs. I just think they are mistaken.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: That's such a nice way to say it!
*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe." ~ Carl Sagan
 
shichimenshyo said:
They would likewise make the same claim about you.
Click to expand...

Of course they would. But the burden of proof rests on those making a claim. I am entitled to ask them to provide evidence for the existence of god. For my part I am simply saying that I believe they are wrong and I can support my statement if called upon to do so. I cannot, of course, prove a negative.
 
The problem is that noone can actually "prove" or disprove the existence of God, so the argument is useless for either side.
 
Medicine*Woman said:
*************
M*W: That's such a nice way to say it!
Thank you for your kind remark. I believe we should try hard to be tolerant and not just shout down those who disagree with us. In the end we are all trying to make some sense of existence.
Click to expand...
 
Myles said:
Of course they would. But the burden of proof rests on those making a claim. .
Click to expand...

Sure, but that is different than saying experience cannot be a foundation of belief. You are confusing what stands up as a proof for others with what works as evidence only for the believer. A little imagination can show you the problem of saying that if you cannot prove something objectively your belief in it must be false.
 
Grantywanty said:
Myles said:
It certainly can. It simply is not enough to function as a proof for non-experiencers.

I agree with you. I expressed myself badly. I should have said that personal belief is insufficient to prove the existence of god. It goes without saying that it is sufficient for someone who holds such a belief; but not necessarily for others/










Do you think this is true in general or only with God?
Click to expand...



I think it is true in general. One can believe anything but having knowledge means that one can provide evidence to support a belief.
Click to expand...
 
Grantywanty said:
So if I experience something, but I cannot prove to others I had that experience and my interpretation was correct, I am wrong, in all cases, to trust myself here.
Click to expand...

Yes, this would underlie the common-sense understanding of sanity - ie. "You're sane if others say that you are sane".

It also puts a spin on the problem of solipsism - If you experience something, but you cannot prove to others you had that experience and your interpretation was correct, but despite that you still think you're right, by common-sense standards, you'll have to consider yourself insane, and so do others (who adhere to that same common-sense standard).
 
Grantywanty said:
Myles said:
So if I experience something, but I cannot prove to others I had that experience and my interpretation was correct, I am wrong, in all cases, to trust myself here.
Click to expand...

How would you know you were correct ? You would believe you were but knowing that you were is a different matter. To know you were correct you would need to have evidence with which you could convince others. Belief alone guarantees nothing. All you are entitled to say is that what you experienced was true for you.
Click to expand...
 
Myles,

Personal experience canot be used as a basis for the existence of god. It can be a basis for belief but that is not the same thing as knowledge.
Click to expand...

Why not?

Knowledge;

1. information in mind: general awareness or possession of information, facts, ideas, truths, or principles
Her knowledge and interests are extensive.


2. specific information: clear awareness or explicit information, e.g. of a situation or fact
I believe they have knowledge of the circumstances.
Click to expand...

If a mentally ill patient believes that he is Napoleon , do we believe him ?
Click to expand...

Why would anyone (sober) want to believe him?

We can believe anything but to know something means that we can support our belief with objectively verifiable evidence.
Click to expand...

In the main, I agree, but some beliefs can't be supported in such a way due to its nature, so it is foolish, IMO, to stick purely to that criterea, especially in the case of belief in God. There is no "objectively verifiable evidence" to show that God exists or not, that is not without personal interpretation. The description of God is that he is not a physical being, so waiting for physical evidence, is a somewhat pointless endeavor.

I am not aware of any argument which supports a belief in god, which is not to doubt the sincerity of those who do hold such beliefs. I just think they are mistaken.
Click to expand...

Why do you think they are mistaken?

Jan.
 
Myles said:
Grantywanty said:
How would you know you were correct ? You would believe you were but knowing that you were is a different matter. To know you were correct you would need to have evidence with which you could convince others. Belief alone guarantees nothing. All you are entitled to say is that what you experienced was true for you.
Click to expand...

If a woman is raped, but no one saw the intruder and it is possible only to verify on physical examination that she had intercourse at some point during that day, is her belief that she was raped 'merely' a belief or can she, to herself, feel confident in her knowledge that she was raped?

What about instances where phenomena are not yet recognized or testable by scientific method? Are people who believe, not capable of knowledge?

For example
it was long considered taboo to consider animals as subjects in science.
Animals were considered machines and anyone claiming animals had emotions was considered to be anthropomorphizing or speaking about what they could not know. In the last 30 years a shift happened in the scientific community and it became OK to talk about the intentions, emotions and subjective aspects of animals?

Did those who knew all along that animals have emotions, for example, simply believing in something but did not really know it? If so, I think knowledge in your sense of the word may not be so much better than belief.

another question
most people believe that the self continues through time - has this been proven?
can we prove that there are in fact other minds?
Click to expand...
 
Jan Ardena said:
Your dictionary definition of knowledge has not mentioned that knowledge is someting we share with others and this is precisely why we require evidence ,if we wish claims we make to be taken seriously. If I say I have a headache you will know what I am talking about and believe I know what a headache is. If for some reason you doubt that I have knowledge of headaches, you can ask me to describe what I mean ( provide evidence ) to you or a doctor. If I fail to provide a satisfactory explanation, you are entitled to doubt me.

Now try the same test with the tactile qualities of a unicorn. Do you see the difference ?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top