Asking for an Atheist's response to the prolific 'Personal Testimonies' of God

[cwecksrun]

We rely on second hand accounts for lots of information every day. Atheists do it. Theists do it. The news is an example of this. Our friends' recounting of a story is another. It may not be the most self-reliable way of obtaining information, but it is generally fairly reliable when lots of sources are cited, and it is extremely practical for learning about many facets of the world.

Occasionally, stories contradict. Usually we believe the story that is the most consistently unanimous among the most people we hear it from. If one person says the giant fish was 5 feet long, one person says it was 30 feet long, and a dozen more give an account of something like 8-10 feet, we believe the dozen, unless we feel someone from the fringe is particularly trustworthy. That is why we gather a lot of sources, especially when the information seems suspect with our acting knowledge base.

Many of us have not had personal experiences with God. Of these, many say that such experiences are impossible, since God doesn't exist. However, if we read through our possible sources, we find an enormous quantity of first hand accounts of God (-experiences with). These are second hand accounts for us, something we find less reliable than our own experiences...of course.

Nonetheless, I'm curious if Atheists find the sheer number of first hand accounts something challenging to their belief(s) concerning God, based on the fact that if this quantity of accounts were given to other sorts of information, the "story" might be pretty readily believed. We don't usually verify the accounts first hand when there's this much unanimity on a subject, you know? If you do find it an honest challenge, what is your response? If you do not find it an honest challenge, why not?

Thanks!
-Chris

[Zeluvia]

I have had those experiences....however, I think my interpretation of them has changed.

The experiences are real, the question is are they from god? The problem is you find these personal experiences in EVERY single human religion, which means that while the experience is real, the interpretation is very subjective and usually is interpreted within a pre-existing mental framework. If you were raised Christian, its Jehovah, if you were raised Muslim, its Allah.

The best hope for me now of explaining this is neuroscience, and its newest off shoot, neurotheology.

So, while I accept that these experiences are happening to people, I doubt an external cause.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm

[Calminian]

I'm a theist so I'll keep my input limited and hopefully relevant. Just wanted to specifically respond to Zeluvia, to stimulate more thought.

I have had those experiences....however, I think my interpretation of them has changed.

The experiences are real, the question is are they from god? The problem is you find these personal experiences in EVERY single human religion, which means that while the experience is real, the interpretation is very subjective and usually is interpreted within a pre-existing mental framework. If you were raised Christian, its Jehovah, if you were raised Muslim, its Allah.

The best hope for me now of explaining this is neuroscience, and its newest off shoot, neurotheology.

So, while I accept that these experiences are happening to people, I doubt an external cause.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm

The fact that the experiences are out there in such numbers and almost always interpreted theistically, seems to indicate they should be an important piece in one's search for truth. Atheistic interpretations of the world are vastly rare. But I think the common mistake made by many, including many christians, is relying on experience exclusively. The Bible, throughout its books, places a high priority on testing experience with logic and reason (it actually discourages blind faith). Personal experience and reason need to go hand in hand. I've seen many religious people rely on one to the exclusion of the other and that I think explains various interpretations of experience.

[cwecksrun]

[QUOTE=Calminian;2005848]The fact that the experiences are out there in such numbers and almost always interpreted theistically, seems to indicate they should be an important piece in one's search for truth.QUOTE]

A good addition, noting that, while many "illusions" are understood to be illusions, the experience of God is by and large attributed to be God, not as illusory. This, again doesn't neccessarily mean that such vast unanimity is correct. It just means that we would need special reasoning to omit these second hand accounts, since so many other times we take second hand accounts of this degree of unanimity as simply true (like the news).

[cwecksrun]

Neurotheology...very cool word.

[zorathruster]

Our first impression of why something occurred is often incorrect. Humans have a desire to understand "why" for survival reasons. Why something happend a certain way has survival benefits.
Often the depth that we explore is shallow. We are initially interested in why the lightning bolt hit our friend, and instead of doing all the expermentation, discovering electricity, studying electricity, discovering electric potential, studying storm clouds, discovering the cause and nature of lightning, studying human physiology, discovering why humans are not well served by lightning strikes - we eventually take the easy path and proclaim the lightning strike the tool of some devine being which reinforces our previous misperception about how the world works and shortens the study process which often takes years and equipment that the average person doesn't have.

In a time when other humans have studied such things, when the answers to the questions are obvious, it is a shame that many people still believe lightning the tool of gods and still wander out in open areas during thunderstorms.

[cwecksrun]

Our first impression of why something occurred is often incorrect. Humans have a desire to understand "why" for survival reasons. Why something happend a certain way has survival benefits.
Often the depth that we explore is shallow. We are initially interested in why the lightning bolt hit our friend, and instead of doing all the expermentation, discovering electricity, studying electricity, discovering electric potential, studying storm clouds, discovering the cause and nature of lightning, studying human physiology, discovering why humans are not well served by lightning strikes - we eventually take the easy path and proclaim the lightning strike the tool of some devine being which reinforces our previous misperception about how the world works and shortens the study process which often takes years and equipment that the average person doesn't have.

In a time when other humans have studied such things, when the answers to the questions are obvious, it is a shame that many people still believe lightning the tool of gods and still wander out in open areas during thunderstorms.

If the desire to understand comes from a desire to survive, it seems that deriving a correct understanding would be what we naturally come to, wouldn't it? Why don't we inherently derive a "correct" extrapolation of facts rather than a shortened, incorrect one?

It seems that "the "shame" of people misunderstanding their feelings and misunderstanding lightning bolts runs contrary to the statement "Humans have a desire to understand "why" for survival reasons," since survival requires an accurate explanation for future prediction.

[zorathruster]

If the desire to understand comes from a desire to survive, it seems that deriving a correct understanding would be what we naturally come to, wouldn't it? Why don't we inherently derive a "correct" extrapolation of facts rather than a shortened, incorrect one?

It seems that "the "shame" of people misunderstanding their feelings and misunderstanding lightning bolts runs contrary to the statement "Humans have a desire to understand "why" for survival reasons," since survival requires an accurate explanation for future prediction.

We would not necessarily arrive at the "correct" solution, we would arrive at an adequate solution. That solution needs to fit within our perceived understanding of the world. We desire not to have to go through a long iteration of investigation, experimentation, repeatability, reassessment and the long iteration of "science", its difficult. We initially desire a quick and easy answer to our inquiry. (especially true if the answer is outside our perceptive ability like tiny microbes)

Survival does not necessarily require a correct answer, especially on random mal-occurence. Disease only occasionally wipes out the whole of the population, hemeragic fever for example. To attribute disease to an "act of Leprechauns" is as acceptable for the human as attributing disease to an "act of microbes", and because leprechauns are easier to understand than microbes for the majority it becomes a much more acceptable answer. (try explaining why a microbe acts verses why a leprichan acts) Those people who attribute disease to Gods really have no possible recourse. (if God strikes you with a punishment who are you to affront such an act?) Those who attribute disease to a microbe can learn to wash their hands, wash their food, and properly prepare their food to prevent microbe infection. The fact the human race has made it all the way until the discovery of microbes and survived believing in irrational attribution of disease to other causes, gods, leprechauns, fairies... Shows it was not necessary for survival to understand the cause of disease and infection.

[cwecksrun]

We would not necessarily arrive at the "correct" solution, we would arrive at an adequate solution. That solution needs to fit within our perceived understanding of the world. We desire not to have to go through a long iteration of investigation, experimentation, repeatability, reassessment and the long iteration of "science", its difficult. We initially desire a quick and easy answer to our inquiry. (especially true if the answer is outside our perceptive ability like tiny microbes)

Survival does not necessarily require a correct answer, especially on random mal-occurence. Disease only occasionally wipes out the whole of the population, hemeragic fever for example. To attribute disease to an "act of Leprechauns" is as acceptable for the human as attributing disease to an "act of microbes", and because leprechauns are easier to understand than microbes for the majority it becomes a much more acceptable answer. (try explaining why a microbe acts verses why a leprichan acts) Those people who attribute disease to Gods really have no possible recourse. (if God strikes you with a punishment who are you to affront such an act?) Those who attribute disease to a microbe can learn to wash their hands, wash their food, and properly prepare their food to prevent microbe infection. The fact the human race has made it all the way until the discovery of microbes and survived believing in irrational attribution of disease to other causes, gods, leprechauns, fairies... Shows it was not necessary for survival to understand the cause of disease and infection.

Great point.

Then why did we?

[zorathruster]

We survived because our mistakes were not too big, we were able to adapt, circumstances never became "either / or" (either know the right answer or die). In the issue of the microbes, they never became so capable as to wipe out the entire population. However, as a side point, at one point in human history according to DNA analysis there was a time when the population was attrited to a very low level, approx 19,000 if I remember correctly. A good drought, a powerful disease, or a catastrophic geological event could easily have erased our kind from the earth.

As far as a "correct answer", we can see throughout nature there are multiple answers to the same question. While ruminants can bend down and pluck grass from the surface, elephants have adapted their nose to pluck the grasses. As far as sight, there are many different eye adaptions throughout the animal kingdom. The question "how to get the grass" was solved in different ways by different animal species. The question of using the electro magnetic spectrum to better find food and avoid preditors has multiple answers. So nature doesn't need a specific answer or a right answer to resolve a particular question.

[cwecksrun]

We survived because our mistakes were not too big, we were able to adapt, circumstances never became "either / or" (either know the right answer or die). In the issue of the microbes, they never became so capable as to wipe out the entire population. However, as a side point, at one point in human history according to DNA analysis there was a time when the population was attrited to a very low level, approx 19,000 if I remember correctly. A good drought, a powerful disease, or a catastrophic geological event could easily have erased our kind from the earth.

As far as a "correct answer", we can see throughout nature there are multiple answers to the same question. While ruminants can bend down and pluck grass from the surface, elephants have adapted their nose to pluck the grasses. As far as sight, there are many different eye adaptions throughout the animal kingdom. The question "how to get the grass" was solved in different ways by different animal species. The question of using the electro magnetic spectrum to better find food and avoid preditors has multiple answers. So nature doesn't need a specific answer or a right answer to resolve a particular question.

I’m a little confused about your position. You initially stated that “Humans have a desire to understand ‘why’ for survival reasons. Why something happened a certain way has survival benefits.” However, there appear to be zero survival benefits in falsely understanding things to be supernaturally caused, which you and I agree has been the case for most of human history by most humans.

By ‘survival reasons’, I am assuming you mean to say that knowing ‘why’ contributes to our fitness. However, the only way that this trait could have proven to make the species more fit is if it actually does work to produce understanding which would help those who had the trait, survive. In the case of leprechauns for disease, Gods for lightning, etc., there is no survival benefit like knowing the truth may have. If the desire to know why has produced answers which haven’t increased survival odds, then it’s quite mysterious why the desire-trait has flourished.

In the case of believers who have claimed to have had an experience with God, you are assumingly applying your principle of quick and easy explanation seeking as a trait of humans to show why most people have simple explanations (Big Bearded Dude) to explain their feelings (complex neuro-social interactions). However, if the quick and rash conclusion model of human explanation is the case, it doesn’t seem to benefit survival in many very important cases (like those headed under disease and environment).

[shunyadragon]

We rely on second hand accounts for lots of information every day. Atheists do it. Theists do it. The news is an example of this. Our friends' recounting of a story is another. It may not be the most self-reliable way of obtaining information, but it is generally fairly reliable when lots of sources are cited, and it is extremely practical for learning about many facets of the world.

Occasionally, stories contradict. Usually we believe the story that is the most consistently unanimous among the most people we hear it from. If one person says the giant fish was 5 feet long, one person says it was 30 feet long, and a dozen more give an account of something like 8-10 feet, we believe the dozen, unless we feel someone from the fringe is particularly trustworthy. That is why we gather a lot of sources, especially when the information seems suspect with our acting knowledge base.

Many of us have not had personal experiences with God. Of these, many say that such experiences are impossible, since God doesn't exist. However, if we read through our possible sources, we find an enormous quantity of first hand accounts of God (-experiences with). These are second hand accounts for us, something we find less reliable than our own experiences...of course.

Nonetheless, I'm curious if Atheists find the sheer number of first hand accounts something challenging to their belief(s) concerning God, based on the fact that if this quantity of accounts were given to other sorts of information, the "story" might be pretty readily believed. We don't usually verify the accounts first hand when there's this much unanimity on a subject, you know? If you do find it an honest challenge, what is your response? If you do not find it an honest challenge, why not?

Thanks!
-Chris

Considering the fallible, inconsistent, and quesionable nature of anecdotal testimony concerning any subject whether God or aliens, numbers of testimonies or claims do not support the validity of the testimony. I am a theist and and prefer to rely on more fundimental and reliable sources as the foundation of my belief. Even the most noted proponents of arguments for God, like Plantinga, are on thin ice in their assertions based anecdotal and other subjective testimonies when they go out on a limb trying to prove the existence of God, and by association and inference claims for Christianity. Because of the weakness of these arguments I can easily take the atheists side and decimate their arguments.

[zorathruster]

1. However, there appear to be zero survival benefits in falsely understanding things to be supernaturally caused, which you and I agree has been the case for most of human history by most humans.

By ‘survival reasons’, I am assuming you mean to say that knowing ‘why’ contributes to our fitness. However, the only way that this trait could have proven to make the species more fit is if it actually does work to produce understanding which would help those who had the trait, survive. In the case of leprechauns for disease, Gods for lightning, etc., there is no survival benefit like knowing the truth may have. If the desire to know why has produced answers which haven’t increased survival odds, then it’s quite mysterious why the desire-trait has flourished.

In the case of believers who have claimed to have had an experience with God, you are assumingly applying your principle of quick and easy explanation seeking as a trait of humans to show why most people have simple explanations (Big Bearded Dude) to explain their feelings (complex neuro-social interactions). However, if the quick and rash conclusion model of human explanation is the case, it doesn’t seem to benefit survival in many very important cases (like those headed under disease and environment).

1. There may not be survival benefits in knowing exactly why something happend but survival benefits in the process of attributing cause to an occurance. For example, a rat jumps when it hears a twig crack. The reason the twig cracks might be caused by a non-carnivore like a deer. Thus his reaction is frivolous. But the fact the rat reacts when the twig cracks increases his survival chances because sometimes it is a fox that cracks the twig. Foxes eat rats. The actual knowledge of what broke the twig is irrelevant to the survival benefit of reacting to the stimuli in a cautious manner.

2. As far as the ignorant human. The ability to attribute causation to a particular causor will confine that occurence within a realm of understanding (false or not). When that causor is a God or a Leprichan, it suggests a desire for a deeper understanding for the "why" a particular occurance happened. Most humans abhore the idea of randomness. Random lightning strikes just make us feel powerless and at the mercy of random occurence. Ignorant humans don't do well with random events. They just want to know why and if that reason is something that can be influenced. For example, do you wear a seat belt? 99% of the time you drive on the roads, you will not have an accident. You wear your seat belt for that insignificantly small number of times when the random accident occurs. We act in an effort to minimise the affect of random occurence. Ignorant and early man makes the same effort in an attempt to mediate the random occurence in his life. He can't adequately resolve why a lightning bolt hits his buddy instead of himself. Causation only makes sense when he inserts an alternative reason for the affect.

[cwecksrun]

Considering the fallible, inconsistent, and quesionable nature of anecdotal testimony concerning any subject whether God or aliens, numbers of testimonies or claims do not support the validity of the testimony. I am a theist and and prefer to rely on more fundimental and reliable sources as the foundation of my belief. Even the most noted proponents of arguments for God, like Plantinga, are on thin ice in their assertions based anecdotal and other subjective testimonies when they go out on a limb trying to prove the existence of God, and by association and inference claims for Christianity. Because of the weakness of these arguments I can easily take the atheists side and decimate their arguments.

I would quite agree on how reasonable it might be for you to not rely on others' testimony concerning God, considering your lack of faith in the accuracy of others' accounts of things. I am, however, curious if you then also do not rely upon textbooks, the news, your friends' accounts, etc. because these sources too, provide prolific unanimity concerning a specific item in question. If you allow second hand testimony to be held as probably true in your mind concerning other things, I wonder at lack of consistency in believing these accounts about God as well.

[shunyadragon]

We rely on second hand accounts for lots of information every day. Atheists do it. Theists do it. The news is an example of this. Our friends' recounting of a story is another. It may not be the most self-reliable way of obtaining information, but it is generally fairly reliable when lots of sources are cited, and it is extremely practical for learning about many facets of the world.

Second hand experiences that we experience every day are to a great deal verifiable by our own experience and others as a cross reference to their validiity. These are the ones that we most pften learn from as 'practical', because they are verifiable. For the most part anecdotal experiences as testimonies of faith for the most part cannot be verified by our normal experience, because these are claimed to be personal spiritual experiences confirmed by the believer as testimonial to 'faith.' The problem is that these testimonials lack reliable verifiable sources.

Occasionally, stories contradict. Usually we believe the story that is the most consistently unanimous among the most people we hear it from. If one person says the giant fish was 5 feet long, one person says it was 30 feet long, and a dozen more give an account of something like 8-10 feet, we believe the dozen, unless we feel someone from the fringe is particularly trustworthy. That is why we gather a lot of sources, especially when the information seems suspect with our acting knowledge base.

From the perspective of 'prolific 'Personal Testimonies' of God'' these are only anecdotal testimonies within the faithful of those that believe, ie. Pentacostal personal testimonies are shared and verified by other Pentacostals, but not with those who do not share that belief system. No 30 foot frogs involved.

Many of us have not had personal experiences with God. Of these, many say that such experiences are impossible, since God doesn't exist. However, if we read through our possible sources, we find an enormous quantity of first hand accounts of God (-experiences with). These are second hand accounts for us, something we find less reliable than our own experiences...of course.

Which God? Many 'Personal Testimonies' apply to the believers of one church, sect, division, cult, sect or religion, and not to others. Therefore those that disbelieve in that perticular version of the vaste diversity of those that believe in one form or another God, will not accept the pesonal testimonies of the others. In fact most likely they will consider the trstimonials of the others to be in 'false gods'.

Nonetheless, I'm curious if Atheists find the sheer number of first hand accounts something challenging to their belief(s) concerning God, based on the fact that if this quantity of accounts were given to other sorts of information, the "story" might be pretty readily believed. We don't usually verify the accounts first hand when there's this much unanimity on a subject, you know? If you do find it an honest challenge, what is your response? If you do not find it an honest challenge, why not?

Thanks!
-Chris

Sheer numbers, again is an exercise in popularity contests, polls, or voter preference concerning which God, or which version of God contested is true or falce. Most atheist do not have the innane patience or 'care-less' relavence as to which is true or falce, regardless as to which wins the popularity contest.

[shunyadragon]

I would quite agree on how reasonable it might be for you to not rely on others' testimony concerning God, considering your lack of faith in the accuracy of others' accounts of things. I am, however, curious if you then also do not rely upon textbooks, the news, your friends' accounts, etc. because these sources too, provide prolific unanimity concerning a specific item in question. If you allow second hand testimony to be held as probably true in your mind concerning other things, I wonder at lack of consistency in believing these accounts about God as well.

I answered this to some extent in the previous post, but it is worth while to respond to again, because this is a basic problem with those that believe that their anecdotal claims of belief carry the same weight as those in the testimony of 'textbooks, the news, your friends accounts, etc., etc.

The answer is NO, anecdotal claims of faith based experiences as a general rule are not equivalent to any of the above. Textbook references have a 'paper trail' of references and credibility through academic sources that verify them and if they fail textbooks are often recalled or corrected in addendum or a later addition, in today's world when they fail the test or need to be revised or in extreme cases be recalled.

The news is also accountable to verification of sources, and if these are not deemed credible than they too are held to account in today's system of checks and balences. The credibility of news sources can also be evaluated by judgement and reliablity by their 'track record' over time.

The accounts of my friends have the least credibility of reliability, and vary greatly. These too vary according to their 'track record' on verifiability. My friends vary from 'very reliable' to highly questionable, and those prone to 'tall tales', bragging rights yarns, and of course the least reliable 'faith based anecdotal personal testimonials based on a grain of salt.'

[cwecksrun]

The accounts of my friends have the least credibility of reliability, and vary greatly. These too vary according to their 'track record' on verifiability. My friends vary from 'very reliable' to highly questionable, and those prone to 'tall tales', bragging rights yarns, and of course the least reliable 'faith based anecdotal personal testimonials based on a grain of salt.'

Interesting. I've always trusted the information (the seriously told bits, mind you) from my friends over more removed sources, but to each his own.

Anyway, I'm just curious how you've been able to conclude the difference of reliability between a personal account of an experience with God versus a personal account of some other experience that may or may not have actually occurred in the objective sense we speak of when we say "truth" here. I would find that a hard thing to pin down, myself.

[shunyadragon]

Interesting. I've always trusted the information (the seriously told bits, mind you) from my friends over more removed sources, but to each his own.

What do you mean by 'more removed sources'? Verifiability and accountability of testimony generally keeps testimony within the loop that may be verified and if need be checked against other sources. If the sources cannot be verified or checked, as with 'anecdotal faith based claims,' they become removed from potentially real value.

Anyway, I'm just curious how you've been able to conclude the difference of reliability between a personal account of an experience with God versus a personal account of some other experience that may or may not have actually occurred in the objective sense we speak of when we say "truth" here. I would find that a hard thing to pin down, myself.


I do not always need to question, verify or research the differences between personal accounts of experiences with God versus those that may or may not have occured in the everyday recounting of events, stories, and experiences. What concerns me the most is the varying importance of the claims attached to the testimony. Those that make anecdotal claims 'Divine involvement, intervention, absolute truth statements of faith,' have a greater degree of contradition to those that believe differently, and their claim has a far greater potential impact, than those that are recounting everyday experiences that do not involve these claims.

We make distinctions everyday concerning the relative importance of human testimony and claims without considering the religious claims of individuals and groups. Testimony involving crimes, legal matters and money will most often require more verifiability than 'anecdotal testimony.'

[Quantic]

Hi,


Anyway, I'm just curious how you've been able to conclude the difference of reliability between a personal account of an experience with God versus a personal account of some other experience that may or may not have actually occurred in the objective sense we speak of when we say "truth" here. I would find that a hard thing to pin down, myself.

I don't know of any hard and fast rules that can be applied to differentiate between the reliability of different personal accounts, but there is a general rule that I think works well for the cases you are considering. Carl Sagan words the rule: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." or something like that. Of course what a person considers as "extraordinary" is very subjective, but I think this is a good rule anyway.

Some things that I would consider to be extraordinary are UFOs, UFO abduction claims, gods and any claims made about them, elves, and free energy devices. There is no good evidence for any of the preceding, ordinary or not. If someone told me they caught an 8 inch bass, using the rule, I would think that the account is creditable. Though if told it was a bass 5 feet long I would want to see a photo or maybe even the actual fish.

To use the rule requires some knowledge and experience. If I didn't know that bass just don't grow to 5 feet in length then I might be inclined to believe the fish tale without much consideration. Because of this, I agree with you that making these distinctions is something that is hard to pin down. Critical thinking isn't easy!

[Stabbytheclown]

We rely on second hand accounts for lots of information every day. Atheists do it. Theists do it. The news is an example of this. Our friends' recounting of a story is another. It may not be the most self-reliable way of obtaining information, but it is generally fairly reliable when lots of sources are cited, and it is extremely practical for learning about many facets of the world.

Occasionally, stories contradict. Usually we believe the story that is the most consistently unanimous among the most people we hear it from. If one person says the giant fish was 5 feet long, one person says it was 30 feet long, and a dozen more give an account of something like 8-10 feet, we believe the dozen, unless we feel someone from the fringe is particularly trustworthy. That is why we gather a lot of sources, especially when the information seems suspect with our acting knowledge base.

Many of us have not had personal experiences with God. Of these, many say that such experiences are impossible, since God doesn't exist. However, if we read through our possible sources, we find an enormous quantity of first hand accounts of God (-experiences with). These are second hand accounts for us, something we find less reliable than our own experiences...of course.

Nonetheless, I'm curious if Atheists find the sheer number of first hand accounts something challenging to their belief(s) concerning God, based on the fact that if this quantity of accounts were given to other sorts of information, the "story" might be pretty readily believed. We don't usually verify the accounts first hand when there's this much unanimity on a subject, you know? If you do find it an honest challenge, what is your response? If you do not find it an honest challenge, why not?

Thanks!
-Chris

As a rule, I only accept fairly mundane things purely on the evidence of second hand accounts.
The value I place on second hand accounts depends largely on what I've already seen in the world, and what I know of the observer.

If a friend claimed he one caught a two foot trout, I would believe him, as I have seen trout grow that big. If he claimed he once caught a seven foot trout, I would think he was exaggerating, deluding himself or winding me up (but I might well believe a marine biologist who told me the same thing).

Similarly, a not-too bright stranger who believed herself to have been abducted by aliens would not convince me. Nor would a million such accounts. To accept the existence of probe-happy little green men would take more evidence than the testimonials of a horde of people with the collective intelligence of a manatee.

The sheer number of people who believe or claim something carries very little weight, as mass delusions (even simple ones like believing a number is 'due' in the lottery) are so common.

[ENeGMA]

Nonetheless, I'm curious if Atheists find the sheer number of first hand accounts something challenging to their belief(s) concerning God,

Not really.

The question is what do I doubt. I don't doubt that these people are possibly having intense, deeply personal, subjective experiences. I can't doubt that, because I have to take their word for it.

But the fact they are having experiences which they label as religious does not mean they are in fact religious, especially when there are numerous plausible materialistic explanations.

How would a person go about differentiating a truly religious experience with an experience that just seems religious? Isn't your only guide what you 'feel'? There can be no objective measure of something that is inherently subjective, and so I don't see how I can derive any truth out of this experience other than the fact that a person is saying they have this experience.


based on the fact that if this quantity of accounts were given to other sorts of information, the "story" might be pretty readily believed.

Not really.

A lot of people claim to have been abducted by aliens, for example, and yet I don't for a moment think these claims are credible.

Appeal to popularity is always a fallacy, even if its often convincing as a rhetorical device.


We don't usually verify the accounts first hand when there's this much unanimity on a subject, you know?

But there isn't uniformity.

I've never had one of these experiences and, not to be a solipsist, but this is something I can't take anyone's word for. If there are religious experiences, I would need to experience them to know what they were like.

I've never had this experience, and I don't know of any of my friends who have, or even any family members. So out of myself, and the people I know and trust best, I can't point to anyone who has said they've spoken to God, or that God has directly spoken to them, or anything like that.

If you do find it an honest challenge, what is your response?

I again cannot doubt that these people are feeling something, but I have no idea what that is, indeed, cannot.

It might be the feeling of God. It might just be something like the feeling I get listening to a good song. I don't know.

And I can't base what I believe on something I don't know.

[zorathruster]

There was an interesting piece done at the skeptical Inquirer about Mass Delusions:

http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-05/delusions.html

My personal favorite story: Nigerian Genitalia Vanishing Epidemic of 1990