Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Personal experience as a basis for god belief
- Thread starter Myles
- Start date
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".
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.
You are of course quite right. All knowledge is regarded as provisional by anyone who has given any thougfht to the matter. But, because we must base our decisions on what is known at the time,i.e., we do the best we can,. we have no warrant to believe anything we please unless we have no respect for the truth , that is. WE can believe anything we choose but not expext others to necessarily agree with us.
On common sense I will content myself with quoting Mark Twain. He said : Common sense is not very common. "
Who is asking you to make a commitment for the rest of your life ? Join the club and live for the day because, in the end, that is all you can do anyway. Have a good trip !
there are serious epistemological issues that have to be cleared up - mainly your exact usage of the words subjective and objective (since even object claims are made by individuals)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.
for instance, how would you propose that one objectively indicate that the world is not flat?
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.
Curious. Here you present to expose a belief by disbelief, which is of course a belief. That is a most intresting conudrum.
Who is asking you to make a commitment for the rest of your life ?
There are people who are asking that of me, too.
But myself, I am getting tired of short-term relationships with philosophies.
Join the club and live for the day because, in the end, that is all you can do anyway. Have a good trip !
There was a time when I would agree with that. Now, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm not so sure that living for the day is all I can do, or all I should take into consideration.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
Yes. Of course for some people that experience is of someone telling them what to believe.I don't understand. Isn't personal experience the basis for belief in everything? :shrug:
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
You are quite wrong. In your haste to score a point off me you have overlooked the folowing: I know my PC crashed because I have experience of previous crashes which an engineer, my son, put right. So, it's not a question of blind belief because I have knowledge based on previous experience. The crash could have been caused by the power source, problems with the operating system, hardware faults and so on. I did not know the nature of the problem until my son sorted it out but I did know my PC had crashed.
We do not have to learn the same thing over and over because our beliefs can develop into knowledge. Some people, perhaps you are one. behave as if knowledge were innate so that they make no distinction between what they belief and knowledge. How many times has the end of the world been predicted by someone confusing what he believes with what he knows.I'm sure you can think of many other examples for yourself.
You also made the basic mistake of assuming that I had no source external to share my experience with when I told you my PC had crashed.
1) this is all hearsay on your part.
2) but really Myles. Use a little imagination. What if you had simply said it was not working and had not had a witness.
You can see the point I was making. Do you really think situations like that do not come up.
Or do you think that kind of situation is impossible?
If you do we have nothing further to say to each other. I have to say I think you are being stubborn here for some reason.
there are serious epistemological issues that have to be cleared up - mainly your exact usage of the words subjective and objective (since even object claims are made by individuals)
for instance, how would you propose that one objectively indicate that the world is not flat?
I could ask someone to watch a ship disappearing over the horizon, an event that woul suggest the world at that point was curved. If that were insufficient then I would suggest that he/ she take passage on a ship on observe what was happning. I would not be asking them to accept my word for it; rather I would ask that they check it put for themselves/
Nowadays, one would tend to show pictures from space.
So, I am using "objective" in the sense of inviting others to check for themselves whether what I say is correct or not.
You may argue that the opinions of others are also subjective, so that we have a chain of subjective opinion , as it were. But this would be straining at a gnat.
Finally, one could make predictions concerning the motion of the earth around the sun, on its axis and so on and these predictions would be shown to be true. If that were not enough to convince someone, I would give up because an unmitigated sceptic can be convinced of nothing, despite which he expects the sun to "rise" each morning.
There are people who are asking that of me, too.
But myself, I am getting tired of short-term relationships with philosophies.
There was a time when I would agree with that. Now, I'm not so sure anymore. I'm not so sure that living for the day is all I can do, or all I should take into consideration.
Well, the choice is yours. I have lived for 75 years, most of which was without spiritual props, but I understand this may not suit everyone. Perhaps you should consider an injunction of the Buddha who suggested that we seek out our salvation with diligence by to examining things for ourselves and not to simply rely on what others tell us. I can understand that you are getting tired with short-term relationships from which I infer that you have investigated some belief systems without finding satisfactory answers. This is a problem we all face because the world is full of people claiming to have the key to existence. Only you can decide how top live your life.
Folow your heart/ head and find your own answers. The fact that I and others may think you are wrong is of no consequence. You are entitled to believe what you choose but ,unlike all the spiritual gurus out there, you are not entitled to foist your beliefs on others by claiming that you have found a " one-size-fits-all" answer.
Good luck
Curious. Here you present to expose a belief by disbelief, which is of course a belief. That is a most intresting conudrum.
It may be a conundrum to you but it is not so to others. You are simply playing with words. Try Scrabble. To believe that Napoleon died a long time ago is to believe a historical fact. To believe that someone claiming to be Napoleon is in error is rational.
So if you want to play with words by suggesting that a belief that something isn't is different from disbelieving that that same thing is, that is your privilege , but a moment's reflection should show you that there is no conundrum.
Last edited:
1) this is all hearsay on your part.
2) but really Myles. Use a little imagination. What if you had simply said it was not working and had not had a witness.
You can see the point I was making. Do you really think situations like that do not come up.
Or do you think that kind of situation is impossible?
If you do we have nothing further to say to each other. I have to say I think you are being stubborn here for some reason.
There is no way you are going to be satisfied. To say my PC has crashed is based on previous experience, as I have already said. That experience was corroborated by others so I can confidently say my computer crashed. If you want to claim that my experience was gained from a long line of deluded individuals thus making it invalid, then there is nothing further I can say to convince you otherwise. If knowledge is not gained in the way I have described then I am wrong. I wonder how many people would disagree with me, however.
You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about science. Where have you been ?
Consider the advances made in medicine such as the eradication of disease and compare that with the thousands of folk remedies that were proposed in the past. If you become seriously ill, will you not consult a doctor, have a stay in hospital if necessarry or will you rely on the "wisdom" of the past and seek remedies in folklore ?
I will not repeat myself by mentioning all the other achievements of science and before you say so, I know we have produced ghastly weapons. But nuclear bombs also illustrate advances in knowledge, however terrible the consequences.
You suggest I may be stubborn. Well, the other side of that coin is that I am not prepared to enter into a dialogue with someone who shows signs of having a closed mind. You generalize about scientists not believing this that and the other. Anyone can make wild accusations which cannot be refuted ,because the person making them will not come clean by being specific. You seem to have some sort of grudge against science and reason.
Your criticism of my interpretation of the PC problem is a good example of what I am talking about. Do you honestly believe that one cannot make a judgement based on past experience, allowing that our judgement may sometimes be mistaken.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
There is no way you are going to be satisfied. To say my PC has crashed is based on previous experience, as I have already said. That experience was corroborated by others so I can confidently say my computer crashed. If you want to claim that my experience was gained from a long line of deluded individuals thus making it invalid, then there is nothing further I can say to convince you otherwise. If knowledge is not gained in the way I have described then I am wrong. I wonder how many people would disagree with me, however.
You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about science. Where have you been ?
Consider the advances made in medicine such as the eradication of disease and compare that with the thousands of folk remedies that were proposed in the past. If you become seriously ill, will you not consult a doctor, have a stay in hospital if necessarry or will you rely on the "wisdom" of the past and seek remedies in folklore ?
I will not repeat myself by mentioning all the other achievements of science and before you say so, I know we have produced ghastly weapons. But nuclear bombs also illustrate advances in knowledge, however terrible the consequences.
You suggest I may be stubborn. Well, the other side of that coin is that I am not prepared to enter into a dialogue with someone who shows signs of having a closed mind. You generalize about scientists not believing this that and the other. Anyone can make wild accusations which cannot be refuted ,because the person making them will not come clean by being specific. You seem to have some sort of grudge against science and reason.
Your criticism of my interpretation of the PC problem is a good example of what I am talking about. Do you honestly believe that one cannot make a judgement based on past experience, allowing that our judgement may sometimes be mistaken.
Hello. You are confusing me with other people. I am not against science.
So you past experience was in fact a helpful basis, eh? But if no one had witnessed it, THEN you wouldn't have known. I am glad for you you had a witness otherwise you could only have had a belief that your computer was not working.
But, I give up. I'll just agree with you. If I experience something and cannot prove it to other people I have no knowledge. There are no exceptions to this. Throughout history all phenomena that were real could be proven to be real. And all individuals encountering new things who could not prove these new things existed didn't really know about them. They actually had no knowledge of these new and real things, they just had belief. Nothing is hidden in our world. All is on the surface. And everyone is both willing and able to come and check them out and recognize them for what they are.
Last edited:
The fact that I and others may think you are wrong is of no consequence.
It is of much consequence. People lose their jobs, get institutionalized and so on because of the fact that other people think they are wrong.
Good luck
Thank you.
Hello. You are confusing me with other people. I am not against science.
So you past experience was in fact a helpful basis, eh? But if no one had witnessed it, THEN you wouldn't have known. I am glad for you you had a witness otherwise you could only have had a belief that your computer was not working.
But, I give up. I'll just agree with you. If I experience something and cannot prove it to other people I have no knowledge. There are no exceptions to this. Throughout history all phenomena that were real could be proven to be real. And all individuals encountering new things who could not prove these new things existed didn't really know about them. They actually had no knowledge of these new and real things, they just had belief. Nothing is hidden in our world. All is on the surface. And everyone is both willing and able to come and check them out and recognize them for what they are.
You got there before me. I was about to give up on you, but I would say that anyway, wouldn't I. You continue to miss the point or you refuse to see it.
So, in saying farewell, I'll leave you with one last comment.
If you have an experience and cannot prove it to anyone , then you have had an experience. I cannot imagine anyone denying that, unless they believe you are lying. But you have no guarantee that you have knowledge as far as the content of that experience is concerned. You could have been hallucinating that you were talking to angels, for example. It follows that knowledge is acquired by experience verified by others. No verification, no knowledge, just belief. If, you receive veification, that is if a degree of consensus with others is reached, you are entitled to say that you "know" something. You may have to change your mind if evidence comes to light which makes it reasonable to do so. That is the stuff of progress.
So, I know what a computer crash is, for reasons I gave previously I may have been wrong on this occasion; I might have been hallucinating. But if that were so, it would support rather than undermine my argument.
I wish you well
If you have an experience and cannot prove it to anyone , then you have had an experience. I cannot imagine anyone denying that, unless they believe you are lying. But you have no guarantee that you have knowledge as far as the content of that experience is concerned. You could have been hallucinating that you were talking to angels, for example. It follows that knowledge is acquired by experience verified by others. No verification, no knowledge, just belief. If, you receive veification, that is if a degree of consensus with others is reached, you are entitled to say that you "know" something. You may have to change your mind if evidence comes to light which makes it reasonable to do so. That is the stuff of progress.
I think the trouble the two of you are facing is that you have incompatible definitions of what "knowledge" is.
Yes. Of course for some people that experience is of someone telling them what to believe.
yes, and I believe some scientific stuff I'm told here. If I didn't believe it, I would go read one of the numerous books written about it.
With God, some people believe what they are told. If they have questions they read the Bible, or one the numerous books that have been written about it.
It is of much consequence. People lose their jobs, get institutionalized and so on because of the fact that other people think they are wrong.
Thank you.
What you say is correct. Do you remember what happened to Gallileo ? When I said of no cosequence, I meant as far as what you choose to believe and do with your life, given that you allow others the same privelige. Your truth is your truth whatever others may say or do. Notice I did not write TRUTH.
As far as people being institutionalized is concerned, we can generally rely on a system of checks and balances. It is a sad fact that mistakes will sometimes be made but that's the way we humans are. Infallibility is for the Pastor Phelps of this world; those who talk of god's love whilst demonizing those who disagree with them.
I have been a free thinker for the past sixty years and have yet to be institutionalized. Don't worry too much about it. Just be true to yourself and take your chances.
I wish you a long, happy life unfettered by dogma and superstition.
I think the trouble the two of you are facing is that you have incompatible definitions of what "knowledge" is.
You have hit the nail on the head.
Grantywanty
Registered Senior Member
I think the trouble the two of you are facing is that you have incompatible definitions of what "knowledge" is.
I think that is part of it. In his last response to me he uses the example of angels. But in a rape situation, I do feel I would have knowledge that I was raped.
Also notice that knowledge for him can be incorrect. When it is verified by others it becomes knowledge and is no longer merely belief. Certainly even scientists have verified beliefs that later turned out to be incorrect- say around race or when native americans first settled south america as two examples off the top of my head.
For me knowledge is, ironically, stronger that it is for him. I am assuming it is correct. (note, I am not assuming that when one thinks one knows one does).
I think that is part of it. In his last response to me he uses the example of angels. But in a rape situation, I do feel I would have knowledge that I was raped.
Also notice that knowledge for him can be incorrect. .
I have no wish to re-open a discussion with you but I feel entitled to point out that you are deliberately or unwittingly confusing the situation.
Of course knowledge can be wrong. If you deny this you remain stuck in the past. I have said that it can only be regarded as provisional; otherwise we would have stopped asking questions long ago and made no further progress. We can only base our actions on what is known at a given time. We cannot see what the future holds.
However you look at it, knowledge is on a firmer foundation than mere belief.
Consider what people have suffered and are continuing to suffer because there are others who insist that their belief in some holy book guarantees the TRUTH. And yes, their belief will be verified by their guillible followers. So we come back to the question of the value of personal belief in providing evidence for the existence of god. If I ask for proof I will be treated to a quotation from the Bible, the Koran, the book of Mormon or whatever. If I am not satisfied, one quotation will be propped up by another from the same source. The people I am talking to are simply begging the question, so no progress can be made. If one cuts a swathe through the verbiage the arguments put forward by theists amount to; God exists because it says so in some book and because that book is the holy word of god or words he has dictated to someone it cannot be wrong, ergo god exists
I have no such problem with deists