Personal experience as a basis for god belief

[Jan Ardena]

Myles,

Your dictionary definition of knowledge has not mentioned that knowledge is someting we share with others

Whether we share or not, does not make it any less knowledge.

...and this is precisely why we require evidence ,if we wish claims we make to be taken seriously.

What evidence would be required to make you believe that God exists?

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.

If you have a headache, then you have a headache. If you are lieing, or saying so because Joe Bloggs, and his crew said so, then that is your business. Do you get my point?
Even if I believed you, it would make no difference to my day to day life.

Now try the same test with the tactile qualities of a unicorn. Do you see the difference ?

Why?

Jan.

 

[Grantywanty]

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 ?

There are of course many believers of a variety of religions who can share with others and know what the others are talking about. I do not think this will or should prove their beliefs are correct to someone who has not experienced God, but your criteria can be me by them.

Headaches are actually a good counter example. There are a wide variety of symptoms and not doctor could prove you did or did not have a headache, especially the latter. There is no way to prove I have a headache, though of course in some cases a medical examination would find strong evidence, but other headaches would not show up on any measuring device WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

 

[greenberg]

If you have a headache, then you have a headache. If you are lieing, or saying so because Joe Bloggs, and his crew said so, then that is your business. Do you get my point?
Even if I believed you, it would make no difference to my day to day life.
...
Why?

Replying this way is very bold, you know. Not that I disagree, I actually admire it. I'm just saying it is bold.

I think many of us are downright obsessed with proving things to others, and believing that if we fail to convince others, we're wrong, guilty or insane.
At the same time, we're highly suspicious of anything presented as "proof" or "evidence".

What evidence would be required to make you believe that God exists?

Evidence couldn't convince me of that, because the path of evidence is necessarily insufficient.
So even if, at some point, all evidence would suggest that God exists, because this has been established based on evidence, it would reasonably have to be expected that counterevidence can be found as well, which would then suggest that God doesn't exist.

I don't know any alternative to seeking evidence; and revelation would still be subject to analysis of evidence, even if only within the person's mind.

 

[Myles]

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?

Your first question is badly put. You say : " if she was raped....." This implies that she was raped and that someone ( you ? ) had knowledge of her being raped or there was evidence to support the fact. You then go on to suggest that she alone knew she was raped. Can you see the contradiction ?

You seem to assume that I will only accept what is scientifcally verifiable. How have you arrived at this conclusion ? People share lots of what is commonly accepted as knowledge in which scientists may have no interest whatever. I spoke of evidence, not of scientific proof.

It is by no means clear that all animals have emotions, certainly not in the sense that humans have. Apes ,our closest relatives behave in ways which allows us to reasonably infer that they have emotions and the same may be said of some other animals. But it does not follow from this that those who believed " all along " as you put it had knowledge. They had belief. They also believed all sorts of other things which we now regard as absurd.

The salient point is that we start out with belief and may end up with knowledge. For most of our history people believed the world was flat but no we KNOW better.

As to whether we can prove there are other minds, can I say that we can prove nothing to an unmitigated sceptic.

 

[Gustav]

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.

lets break this shit down. people have a tendency here to discount the subjective experience as, well, subjective. hence, summarily dismissed. what this experience is however, is one of profound importance. it is the foundation, a launch pad for further investigation. you know, throw out a few tentative hypos pertaining to this -----------------ten foot pole------------> subjective experience, revise, discard, discuss, concur, falsify, blah. now, i do understand that while sci has some enlightened, god like members that can discount and dispense of the subjective experience, the rest of us mere mortals simply have no choice in the matter. it is how we are built,. hard coded and cannot be flashed.

i will though troll a conciliatory posture towards the n00b. lets reword...Personal experience cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing the nature of any phenomena.

regardless, it is still not entirely accurate. consider this. aldrin peeked out and apprehended et. he knows this. he saw that sucker with his own two eyes. (this is where the pseudos dash in to smear a highly trained and professional astronaut....[sci's ritual cannibalistic feeding frenzy]). acceptance or rejection, qualified or otherwise, of this experience; merely exposes a society's pathology and nothing else

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.

the delusion could operate on any number of levels. the identity couild be one of convenience. there could be lucid moments. the extreme example given, the usage of "belief" in this context is nothing but a trollish soundbite for unwitting laymen and agenda driven, pseudos.

.....know something means that we can support our belief with objectively verifiable evidence.

ahh. the house of cards. shall i huff and puff? perhaps grant has already done so. i shall look see

 

[Myles]

At the same time, we're highly suspicious of anything presented as "proof" or "evidence".

But if w examine the proof or evidence with an open mind we may come to a conclusion. Does that bother you ?




Evidence couldn't convince me of that, because the path of evidence is necessarily insufficient.

Why is it necessarily insufficient ? And what would it take to convince you of anything ?

 

[Myles]

lets break this shit down. people have a tendency here to discount the subjective experience as, well, subjective. hence, summarily dismissed. what this experience is however, is one of profound importance. it is the foundation, a launch pad for further investigation. you know, throw out a few tentative hypos pertaining to this -----------------ten foot pole------------> subjective experience, revise, discard, discuss, concur, falsify, blah. now, i do understand that while sci has some enlightened, god like members that can discount and dispense of the subjective experience, the rest of us mere mortals simply have no choice in the matter. it is how we are built,. hard coded and cannot be flashed.

i will though troll a conciliatory posture towards the n00b. lets reword...Personal experience cannot be used as the sole basis for establishing the nature of any phenomena.

regardless, it is still not entirely accurate. consider this. aldrin peeked out and apprehended et. he knows this. he saw that sucker with his own two eyes. (this is where the pseudos dash in to smear a highly trained and professional astronaut....[sci's ritual cannibalistic feeding frenzy]). acceptance or rejection, qualified or otherwise, of this experience; merely exposes a society's pathology and nothing else




the delusion could operate on any number of levels. the identity couild be one of convenience. there could be lucid moments. the extreme example given, the usage of "belief" in this context is nothing but a trollish soundbite for unwitting laymen and agenda driven, pseudos.




ahh. the house of cards. shall i huff and puff? perhaps grant has already done so. i shall look see

Who rejects subjective experience ? I have never done so.

The rest of your comments do not merit a reply. If you have to resort name calling, e.g., " trollish soundbite for unwitting laymen and agenda driven, pseudos " you are simply demonstrating your inability to express whatever point you wish to make, in a cogent manner.

 

[Grantywanty]

Your first question is badly put. You say : " if she was raped....." This implies that she was raped and that someone ( you ? ) had knowledge of her being raped or there was evidence to support the fact. You then go on to suggest that she alone knew she was raped. Can you see the contradiction ?

This seems almost willfully naive. Of course there are women who are raped and who cannot provide proof. Do you really think that never happens? Given that it does happen I was speaking about a hypothetical example. And if you are going to start picking at rape, please, I am sure you understand the idea. Sometimes we have experiences that are out of the ordinary that we cannot prove to others that they happened. It is a part of the nature of life. Sometimes the entire class of experience is considered by society to be impossible and later it turns out that it does happen. Those who experienced have every reason to trust their experience. It is knowledge.

You seem to assume that I will only accept what is scientifcally verifiable. How have you arrived at this conclusion ? People share lots of what is commonly accepted as knowledge in which scientists may have no interest whatever. I spoke of evidence, not of scientific proof.

I picked the hardest position I had to counter. It's fine with me if you don't use science as the only validation point. The problem still remains. There have been many phenomena that people experienced and were told they were not correct about. Later science or some other method proved they were correct. Sometimes the original people who believed and had knowledge based on experience were dead. Yet, they knew.

[It is by no means clear that all animals have emotions, certainly not in the sense that humans have. Apes ,our closest relatives behave in ways which allows us to reasonably infer that they have emotions and the same may be said of some other animals.

So the scientists were wrong in their position and for judging people who did, for example, think dogs had emotions were incorrect? (I never said all animals had emotions or that they were the same as ours)

But it does not follow from this that those who believed " all along " as you put it had knowledge. They had belief. They also believed all sorts of other things which we now regard as absurd.

Read that again and notice the shift you make. YOu add in at the end that they had other beliefs that were not correct. That has nothing to do with whether their 'knowledge' based on experience of working with, living near and with animals was correct about animals. Clearly it was.

The salient point is that we start out with belief and may end up with knowledge. For most of our history people believed the world was flat but no we KNOW better.

This is neither here nor there.

As to whether we can prove there are other minds, can I say that we can prove nothing to an unmitigated sceptic.

Yes, like the skeptical scientists that said animals were machines without feeling. How can one prove that they were wrong?

 

[Myles]

Myles,




Whether we share or not, does not make it any less knowledge.



What evidence would be required to make you believe that God exists?



If you have a headache, then you have a headache. If you are lieing, or saying so because Joe Bloggs, and his crew said so, then that is your business. Do you get my point?
Even if I believed you, it would make no difference to my day to day life.



Why?

Jan.

Unless you are a solipsist you must surely accept that belief is private and knowledge is public.

Evidence for god ? Offer me some and I shall comment.

The question of whether my hypothetical headache would make a difference to your life is totally irrelevant to this discussion

 

[Myles]

This seems almost willfully naive. Of course there are women who are raped and who cannot provide proof. Do you really think that never happens? Given that it does happen I was speaking about a hypothetical example. And if you are going to start picking at rape, please, I am sure you understand the idea. Sometimes we have experiences that are out of the ordinary that we cannot prove to others that they happened. It is a part of the nature of life. Sometimes the entire class of experience is considered by society to be impossible and later it turns out that it does happen. Those who experienced have every reason to trust their experience. It is knowledge.



I picked the hardest position I had to counter. It's fine with me if you don't use science as the only validation point. The problem still remains. There have been many phenomena that people experienced and were told they were not correct about. Later science or some other method proved they were correct. Sometimes the original people who believed and had knowledge based on experience were dead. Yet, they knew.



So the scientists were wrong in their position and for judging people who did, for example, think dogs had emotions were incorrect? (I never said all animals had emotions or that they were the same as ours)


Read that again and notice the shift you make. YOu add in at the end that they had other beliefs that were not correct. That has nothing to do with whether their 'knowledge' based on experience of working with, living near and with animals was correct about animals. Clearly it was.



This is neither here nor there.


Yes, like the skeptical scientists that said animals were machines without feeling. How can one prove that they were wrong?[/QUOTE

I was on the point of finishing a long answer when my PC crashed. I hope you will believe me even though you have no knowledge of the situation.

I need a break, so will not contact you for a day or so. In the meantime , will you accept that I am bothered about getting mired down in realativism. If we are ever to achieve some degree of tunderstanding of the human condition. I suggest the scientific method is our best hope. I do not deny the value of personal experience, I would even suggest that religion may have some survival value,
but if there are universal truths to be discovered it will only happen if there is convergence in our thinking and understanding.

 

[Grantywanty]

I was on the point of finishing a long answer when my PC crashed. I hope you will believe me even though you have no knowledge of the situation.

I appreciate the intended irony here. But I am afraid it is actually a great example. And according to your theory actually you have no knowledge your PC crashed. You just have a belief until you prove it to someone. Should tomorrow, when the tech guy comes to the house, it seem that there is no problem with the PC, you only believed that it crashed, but had no knowledge of it. Or?

 

[Orleander]

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...

I don't understand. Isn't personal experience the basis for belief in everything? :shrug:

 

[Gustav]

Who rejects subjective experience ? I have never done so.

The rest of your comments do not merit a reply. If you have to resort name calling, e.g., " trollish soundbite for unwitting laymen and agenda driven, pseudos " you are simply demonstrating your inability to express whatever point you wish to make, in a cogent manner.

couldnt care less. you are not the intended audience. just a tool

 

[Enmos]

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.

Hard to believe as it is, some members actually believe that believing in something makes it so. If they believe in it enough it will manifest in reality.
The ironic thing is that this would make them as much God as the one they believe in.

 

[Myles]

QUOTE=Orleander;1621897]I don't understand. Isn't personal experience the basis for belief in everything? :shrug:

When you were a child you had personal experience of water. You called it water because that was the name given to it by others around you.

At school you were told that water consisted of two gases, hydrogen and oxygen. Chances are the teacher gave you a demonstration. So then you knew something because you had experienced it as a result of an interaction with others. If you think about it you will find that every experience that led to knowledge was the result of interacting with others.

The thing to note is that your belief was not "blind". My problem with religion is that I am asked to believe without what I would regard as compelling evidence. If you think about the number of cults there are, each claiming to have a monopoly on TRUTH you will see where "personal ". that is , private experience leads.

If you don't believe me, introduce a Jehovah's Witness to a Mormon, A Muslim to a Jew and so on. Light the blue touchpaper and retire







[/QUOTE]

My PC is playing up, despite which I am sending thois in the hope that you will get it.

 

[Orleander]

many very very smart brilliant scientists think there is life on other planets with no proof what-so-ever. How is that any different than a god belief?

 

[Myles]

many very very smart brilliant scientists think there is life on other planets with no proof what-so-ever. How is that any different than a god belief?

You are absolutely right as far as it goes. Now find me a scientist who says he KNOWS there is life on other planets and I will ask him what proof he has. To say they think is the same as to say they believe. You will be hard put to find a reputable scientist who says he KNOWS and he will not fob you off by quoting from a book of dubious provenance

 

[greenberg]

Why is it necessarily insufficient ?

Because the path of evidentiary support is not finite. Ie., any evidence is only valid until new evidence is found. But a later evidence can be such that it can be used to refute the conclusions based on the earlier evidence.

If your decision is based on conclusions based on evidence, then you might have to review your decisions whenever new evidence comes in.
Which is reasonable with everyday life situations, of course. But taking this approach in regards to matters of God - I find that problematic. Because one thing is to decide for Brand X vitamin supplements, and then changing to Brand Y after a new discovery has been made suggesting that Brand X might contain a carcinogenic ingredient, while Y doesn't. I find it would be odd to say "I will believe in God until new evidence suggests a different decision would be more feasible". When one decides to believe in God, it is with the notion of "forever".

And what would it take to convince you of anything ?

As far as "everyday things" are concerned - not much; the common-sense approach is just fine.

But when it comes to things that are to determine the course of my whole life, things where I would have to make a commitment for the rest of my life - I don't think anything could be enough to convince me.

 

[spidergoat]

Yes I know to atheists personal experiences are not evidence of God, and atheists cannot give any example of what can be evidence of God besides "God coming down one day" or "reviving an amputee's leg"

All praise the atheistic faith

If we happened to find the series of the first prime numbers coded into a non-active part of our DNA, that would be proof of God, because for such a thing to happen naturally is impossible.

 

[Myles]

This seems almost willfully naive. Of course there are women who are raped and who cannot provide proof. Do you really think that never happens? Given that it does happen I was speaking about a hypothetical example. And if you are going to start picking at rape, please, I am sure you understand the idea. Sometimes we have experiences that are out of the ordinary that we cannot prove to others that they happened. It is a part of the nature of life. Sometimes the entire class of experience is considered by society to be impossible and later it turns out that it does happen. Those who experienced have every reason to trust their experience. It is knowledge.



I picked the hardest position I had to counter. It's fine with me if you don't use science as the only validation point. The problem still remains. There have been many phenomena that people experienced and were told they were not correct about. Later science or some other method proved they were correct. Sometimes the original people who believed and had knowledge based on experience were dead. Yet, they knew.



So the scientists were wrong in their position and for judging people who did, for example, think dogs had emotions were incorrect? (I never said all animals had emotions or that they were the same as ours)


Read that again and notice the shift you make. YOu add in at the end that they had other beliefs that were not correct. That has nothing to do with whether their 'knowledge' based on experience of working with, living near and with animals was correct about animals. Clearly it was.



This is neither here nor there.


Yes, like the skeptical scientists that said animals were machines without feeling. How can one prove that they were wrong?

You are jumping about but I will do my best to answer you.

If a woman claims to have been raped in private and it is true, then either she knows she has been raped or she is deluded or lying. We have no way of knowing , despite which we may make a judgement based on her previous character, her demeanour, what others say about her and so on.

But this example has no relevance when we are talking about contributing to the sum total of human knowledge. Someone who claims there is a god may be right, wrong., deluded and so on and we will make a judgement based on the evidence he adduces to support his claim. My experience to date is that one cannot reason with such people. They simply resort to quoting from some text which they believe to be infallible. That is not good enough.If we abandon reason for blind faith, then we are lost because anything goes. I accept that people who believe in god are sincere and that such a belief may easy their passage through what some have called a " Vale of Tears ". I simply remain unconvinced.

As to animals' emotions and these scientists you harp on about, can you please find me some specific examples. How would you define emotion ?
I cannot say to what extent animals have emotions, so I cannot comment sensibly on the topic. I assume you can, so I would appreciate an explanation or a reference which I can consult.

You behave as if scientists were superhuman, whereas we all know they are a mixed bunch just like the rest of us. As far as the wisdom of the past is concerned, why not consider what science has done for us and then tell me we are no better off than we were in whatever past period you have in mind.
If we have proof that animals have emotions how did we get it; certainly not from folklore. It would take volumes to list all the rubbish that was believed in the past and which has now fallen by the wayside. Given such a wide range of beliefs something had to be right purely by chance. We tend to remember the good bits and forget the rest.
Equally, scientists have been wrong in the past but their views were corrected by other, later scientists, not by folklore. I do not think you will find a reputable scientist who does not regard knowledge as provisional. Sir James Jeans said as much in 1920 and your own Richard Feynmann remarked on how hard it is to know anything. See what Newton had to say about his achievements.So what point do you think you are making when you criticize them ? Science, unlike religion, is a self-critical process